jcramer Gay Rights and Gay Marriage I've noticed this topic becoming a big issue nationally as of late. Here are some links that you might want to check out to see what I mean: o Supreme Court strikes sodomy law o George Bush on Gay Marriage o Vatican on Gay Marriage o First public gay high school (school website) What are your thoughts on this issue? lpool Honestly, I think someday gay marriage may happen, and when it does, man is America in trouble with God. Just like the womens or black movement, gays see themselves as a minority and they figure that they should have the same rights as everybody else. In 20 years we will all be talking about the Gay Rights Movement just like we talk about women's right to vote and de-segregation of schools now. AuntMareMare I was listening to "the patriot" (an AM radio show in the twin cities) this week and they played callers' comments on the air. The caller (a gay woman) was arguing with the host about why she wanted gay marriage to be legal: host: do you feel you are missing out on anything by not being legally married to your partner? caller: well, no, but I just feel like we're a minority that's not receiving the rights that everyone else is, and we should be entitled to them. host: Ma'am, men and women were created differently for a reason and were created to be joined in marriage together in a complimentary way. Why should we change that? and why should the entire history of the institution of marriage, with all of its richness and significance, be altered just so you can feel accepted? I thought this was an interesting point. The conversation went on for a few more minutes, but this woman hadn't even considered the fact that marriage had been established long before her presence on earth, and had a meaning far deeper than her desire to feel accepted by others. Matthew T Pop I actually did a speech on this topic for my Persuasion class last semester. "The Problem with Same-sex Marriage". It got an interesting reaction from the class, 3/4 of whom were persuaded before i started speaking (were already on my side), and the other 1/4 who didn't want to agree with me, but couldn't refute the logic behind the argument. (which wasn't my brilliant invention). Even after I showed the logical problem of allowing same-sex marriage, they just shook their head and in a "did not, did so!" style argument stated that it should be allowed. I can post the speech up here sometime if someone wants... m jcramer I would be mildly interested in hearing the speech. I think those are all very interesting comments. lpool, I especially like your comments "man is America in trouble with God"... How do you think God would respond to a nation (possibly America) that decides that gay marriage is acceptable? Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of this sinful nature. But under the new covenant, would things be different? How do you think we ought to respond? AunteMareMare brings up an interesting point...What do you think it fueling this trend to support something that is against the nature of creation, or at least against the trend of all of history. How has our thinking changed that has even made this an issue? On a side note: Do you know of any other culturers that have legalized or promoted gay marriage? By very nature, a culture centered on that would eventually die out for lack of or reduced capacity for reproduction. But in this modern day society, we should have enough "straight" people to further the society. Matt, I would be interested in seeing your speech. Maybe you could post it in the reading room. __________________ Josh Cramer ouini lpool, I agree that, right or wrong, someday gay marriage will very likely happen. I'd guess at the current rate it will be within ten years. AuntMareMare, there are an awful lot of things that marriage for same sex people would provide them which they simply don't have right now. The caller could have talked about the basic rights and protections that married couples have that she doesn't: Designating heirs for inheritance, visiting rights to a partner's child or a non-responsive partner in a hospital (which is regularly denied by family at this point, something which marriage rights would override) or making medical or final resting place decisions for such a person, bereavement or sick leave, or wrongful death benefits because of a partner, access to joint insurance or rental agreements, joint child custody rights and visitation, or adoption and foster care, education and home loans, or immigration residency for foreign partners. And lets not forget social security. It's all too easy to make fun of a request for equal marriage rights based on a false assumption such as "you're not missing any rights right now." It's better to be truthful, I think, and recognize that there are rights being denied, and then argue why it would be a bad idea to grant those rights. As to why we should change the current meaning of marriage, I don't think that's a real issue, either. I mean, the meaning of marriage has changed again and again all throughout history. Marrying for love, for example, is a very recent development, but I wouldn't want to go back to the old meaning of marriage, base on "the partner your elders choose for you" (which was almost uniformly for economic or political reasons, not love). Marriage has meant polygamy repeatedly throughout the ages (including, unfortunately, some places in the Bible). Marriage has meant same sex unions based on the concept of the two-spirited person, which comes from various Native American nations (also a lot of Pagan religions are fine with same sex marriage). It has meant polyandry in some South American cultures. And lest we forget, unfortunately, for the majority of the USA's history, marriage only included white men and white women...the vestiges of that not being being scoured out until the late 1960's! I think a more fair question the caller could have asked would be to note that the United States is all about everyone being created equal in the eyes of our Creator, and free to live equally in the eyes of our government, even if it often takes us a while to figure out where we're not living up to that ideal. Why should we change that? Why should the history of the United States, with all of its richness and significance, be reinterpreted just so heterosexuals can deny a right to others that they themselves enjoy? These are tough questions, and I know they're pooh-poohed and dismissed by a lot of people who feel very strongly that same sex marriage simply *must* be wrong. But they are issues which will have to be seriously addressed if heterosexuals who feel that way are be at ease with themselves while denying another human being equal rights to marry their loved one. On a side note, I think I'd like to read "The Problem with Same-sex Marriage" you wrote, Matthew. It would be a good idea, I think, to honestly go over points brought up against (and in favor of) same sex marriage, and see which points are valid and which points are approached a priori. (This applies to the homosexual activists just as much as those who oppose them, of course.) As for how God would respond to a society which decides poorly about marriage, well, we as a society have made a lot of bad decisions in the past with respect to slavery and marriage. I certainly don't know the mind of God, but maybe "render unto Ceasar" is the applicable parable here. Or maybe where Jesus said What you bind on earth I will bind in heaven and what you loose on earth I will loose in heaven -- on the issue of slavery we've finally figured out and believe it was never okay, even though it was seemingly condoned in the Bible. We may very well figure out that denying equal rights to gays, rights which we hold dear for ourselves, is not okay either. As for what's fueling this trend, I think that man, especially in the US, is slowly working towards figuring out in what areas he believes he has been unjust in the past. That because he's an empathetic, feeling being, he can feel the injustice he has, knowingly or not, been dispensing in the name of tradition over the eons. It's a long process, with plenty of mis-steps, but it's better than continuing to allow suffering in the name of historical inertia. Matthew T Pop Post of the speech coming soon. I realized after looking back thru my filez that I don't have a manuscript of the speech, only an outline of the main points that i do an expository style persuasive address from. I am currently writing a manuscript. It should be up in a day or two here. Matthew T Pop Here is is http://www.mattandnancy.org/ssm.html ouini Thanks for posting, Matt. I think it's great that you tried to chase down the arguments with logic and reason as your goal, instead of with a preformed idea of where you should end up. That helps keep issues clear, I think. TAXES - I notice that you wrote this argument originally in response to a person’s pro-same sex marriage speech, whose arguments were based on fairness (same priviledges) for gays and lesbians who love and are committed to each other, and a paper about increased tax revenue for the government. But I think everyone (except maybe the quoted study’s authors) agrees that the tax revenue argument is irrelevant to whether same sex marriage is deemed right, or legal, or not. After all, if we found that allowing, say, two 12 year-olds to marry would increase the tax base, we still wouldn’t consider it. And if we found out that allowing Jewish or Hispanic or interracial marriage decreases the tax base, we wouldn’t start disallowing it. If it’s about civil liberties and equality, then potential tax revenue doesn't enter into the decision-making process. IF THEY LOVE EACH OTHER, WHY NOT? - As far as the love and commitment issue (the speech “asked why shouldn't people who love each other be able go get married?”), that’s a fair question to look at in good faith. There are of course other issues, such as equality of civil rights, economic fairness, and constitutionality, but those come up in examining the “why shouldn’t they” question. INHERITANCE - With regards to economic fairness, you mentioned in your argument that inheritance privileges can be solved by creating a will. This attempts to answer “how can same sex couples approximate marriage benefits?” but it doesn’t answer “why shouldn’t we legalize SSM?” Then again, a will doesn’t actually even answer the inheritance question, at least not fairly. Wills, often their accompanying living wills, the power of attourney, and all the lawyer, notarizing, and filing fees are much more expensive, and thus more economically unfair, than simply getting married. In addition wills may be, and often are, contested by family (much more often than with marriage, and with much better odds of winning). At that point, the gay survivor starts unfairly incurring even more lawyer fees, and still doesn't have legal equality in the eyes of the law. MONEY - Of course, wills only cover a couple of the many economic areas which marriage takes care of “automatically”. Included in these are the employment benefits packages you mention in your argument. While it’s true that “many, many major corporations are including SSDP’s in these packages,” it’s also true that even more companies don’t. Also, DP benefits are taxed, wheras married benefits are not. Usually, there's about a six month waiting period before you can get DPBs. Just based on wills and benefits then, economically, marriage and non-marriage certainly are nowhere near equal. CHANGE TAKES TIME - You also mentioned that “change takes time”, citing the woman’s suffrage movement. But it’s not that change HAS to take time, since change only takes as long as lawmakers take to change their minds, usually following the majority of voters. In rare cases, like Truman’s executive order in 1948, changes which have been seemingly on the horizon for a long time suddenly get enacted. (via his "equality of treatment and opportunity in the armed forces without regard to race, color, religion,or national origin" order.) But whether slow or fast, the issue is actually "the arguments for and against SSM", not how long it should take. LOVE - As for love and commitment, I don’t know that anyone argues that SS couples aren’t as in love, or aren’t as committed, as DS couples. I suppose if people did argue that, then in all likelihood they would have had to been in love with both sexes, at various points in their life, to know the difference, and wouldn’t be a reliable determiner unless they had. ALTER the DEFINITION - You also talked about how determining whether SS marriages are legal or right is actually seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage. That SS partners have exactly the same marriage rights as every other adult. This doesn’t make sense to me. For one, the definition of marriage is changing all the time – this is nothing new. Two, it doesn’t matter if that were what’s at issue. And three, arguing they have the same rights is a red herring. - One, as I pointed out in the previous post, the historical fundamental definition of what the institution of marriage is has changed many times in many ways over the millenia, including broadening and narrowing quite a few times in just the past couple of centuries in this country. So yes, in seeking to get married, this country’s current social understanding of what marriage includes will be broadened yet again, which may or may not include expanding what the legal standard currently allows. Just like allowing blacks to marry, interracial (and even inter-religious) couples to marry, atheists to marry, of-age adults to marry without parental consent, and sex-changed people to marry (to either sex, depending upon which state you’re talking about) all have become legal in the past couple centuries. These acts have all changed the definition of marriage. - Which brings us to point two -- so what? So what if we’ve determined that it’s okay for a white woman to marry a black man…if it’s right, it’s right for a reason. If it's wrong, it's wrong for a reason. Here, just as with the economic argument, whether we have to change a definition shouldn't have any effect on whether what we finally decide is right or wrong. - And third, arguing that gays already have the same right to marry (any member of the opposite sex) as hets have is misguided at best. It sounds pretty disingenuous, because it's exactly the same as claiming that both blacks and whites 100 years ago had exactly the same right to marry (any member of their own race) as every other US adult. In a nutshell, it's the "seperate but equal" and Jim Crow arguments. To wit: "This isn't discrimination, since black folks can marry any person of the same race that they like, just like white folks. See? Seperate, but equal and fair." No, a black and a white man did –not- have the same right to marry Jane Doe. Only one of the two is allowed to marry her. So seperate, yes, but not equal. And remember that the people who made those laws were the people who had no interest in marrying outside their race, so it was only "fair" in their eyes, not to others. The reason given then was simple tradition, which we see now wasn't actually a logical reason, just a comfortable one. CORE ELEMENTS of MARRIAGE - On to the five “core elements” of marriage you listed. Some are (current) social norms, some are based in law, and most are based on ‘right’ vs. ‘wrong’ reasoning. - “Two people” This is both a legal and social norm (in the states), and some also argue that two people in a marriage is ‘right’. The state has an interest in preserving legal monogamy, to protect spouses from harm done by the other spouse. (This reasoning is long established with studies on state criminal, marriage, and divorce law.) The state also wants to maintain an orderly system for assigning benefits and burdens associated with marriage, which gets unbelievably messy and contentious with more than one partner. (It’s bad enough with just one at a time.) But in any case, nobody is arguing for more than two people to marry in the issue at hand -- it’s irrelevant to whether SSM is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. - “…Of the opposite sex” This is a social, not legal, norm. The legal side of this has yet to be decided. And in fact, the queston of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is what this discussion is all about. - “…Who are not related” This is a social, legal, and ‘right’ thing to do norm. It’s right, because disallowing relations to marry does several good things. The most important of these is avoiding corrupting parent-child relations. A young person is not deemed to have the capability of *informed* consent, especially in a setting completely legally controlled by the requester. The potential for an older relative to groom a minor relative for intimate partnership later in life is far too great. Also, birth-defects increase due to gene pool depletion. - “…Who are 18 or older” Again, this is a legal, to some extent social, and a ‘right’ thing to do issue. Again, each state has estimated at what point a young person can give *informed* consent, not given to being overly impressionable by elders, understanding the implications of making a lifetime, legally binding promise while not under duress. - “…Who are able to enter a legal contract” Obviously, this is a legal question, and separate from the SSM issue in as much as each requirement for a legal contract is its own seperate issue. You went on to say that allowing a SS couple to marry (Bonauto) would change the definition, and would be asking to remove the second element/requirement (“of the opposite sex”) for reasons of "love and committment". Okay, so if that’s true, the question becomes “is that good or bad”? “Of the opposite sex" isn't a legally established criterion for marriage at this point, just a current social one. What reason do we have to rule one way or the other? SLIPPERY SLOPE - You argued that removing the social assumption of “of the opposite sex” is a dangerous path to start down, because then the other four elements could be removed by the same logic of “but they love and are commited to each other.” This isn’t true, as the other four elements have various ‘right’ vs. ‘wrong’ reasons (shown above) to remain in place. What we need, to argue against same sex marriage, are specific reasons to deny same sex couples that right. If the state can find compelling reasons to disallow same sex marriages, but allow opposite sex marriages, and these reasons are found to outweigh the sense of what is ‘right’ based on equality (and codified in the 19th amendment), then gays will be denied the right to marry. There may be reasons, but so far, philosophically, I’ve personally seen none presented. If in fact no such reason can be found, we should of course allow them to marry. Does anyone know of one? Matthew T Pop Quick response to a long post. ouini wrote: - “…Of the opposite sex” This is a social, not legal, norm. The legal side of this has yet to be decided. And in fact, the queston of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is what this discussion is all about. Actually, it is a legal norm, in every state in the union. Read the state codes. one example: Iowa Code 1999: Section 595.2. This is what they are seeking to CHANGE in Massachusettes. ouini wrote: This doesn’t make sense to me. For one, the definition of marriage is changing all the time – this is nothing new. Would you please substantiate this claim? Yes, we have 'allowed' blacks to marry in this country, but that had more to do with the fact that ALL of our laws treated blacks not as people, but as property. and our furniture doesn't get married does it? it had to do with recognizing a fact. blacks are people, and therefore have the same rights as all people do. In the same way, homosexuals are people too, and CURRENTLY have the same rights as all people do. This is not something this country has yet to wake up and realize, it is a fact that is being practiced. [QUOTE=ouini]SLIPPERY SLOPE - You argued that removing the social assumption of “of the opposite sex” is a dangerous path to start down, because then the other four elements could be removed by the same logic of “but they love and are commited to each other.” This isn’t true, as the other four elements have various ‘right’ vs. ‘wrong’ reasons (shown above) to remain in place[/QUOTE] Actually this is true, and there are polyamory lobbyists waiting on the heels of the gay 'rights' lobby for the door to open. You also cite "right" and "wrong" reasons quite a bit. If you read the polyamory society's web site, we are being very close minded in saying that the reason we don't allow poly-marriages is to protect spouses from harm. Open your mind, man... MY POINT - I don't want to give the wrong impression here. ALL of my reasoning for preserving the definition of marriage has to do with the way God orders marriage in the Bible. This speech is a quick attempt to show that there is some method to the "madness" that is God's will. It outlines just a few of the more superficial of the manifold reasons that marriage is to be a union of a man and a woman, for life. ouini Matt, When I wrote that “of the opposite sex” is not a legal norm, what I meant was that it has never really been an issue, legally, until the current debate began. Very recently, in this country (pretty much about 10 years ago, when it came up in Hawaii), states started trying to figure out whether there should be laws or amendments added to actively prohibit it (same sex marriage). The Iowa law you cited, for instance, was blocked in 1996 and 1997 and then passed in 1998. Many states blocked passage for one to three years before passing a bill or amendment to prohibit same sex marriage. And even now it’s certainly not a norm in every state in the union, since even our neighbor, Missouri, doesn’t have such a law. And they’re not seeking to *change* such a law in Massachusettes – such a law doesn’t exist in that state either, right now. When I said the definition of marriage is changing all the time, I meant it. When, only 40 years ago, it was often illegal for interracial couples to marry, the argument used (in public) wasn’t that blacks were still property, or were inferior. It was, in essence, that since God put the races on different continents, he never intended for them to mix. Sure, we can look at that reasoning now and cringe, but the question we have to answer is still there, “is there a (legitimate) reason to deny the right to marry to same sex couples?” I can’t say that I understand where your furniture comment comes from. But I can say that homosexuals currently do not have the same rights as all people. I’ve heard that before, but of course it just isn’t true. You needn’t look any further than our military to see one of the many instances of inequality in the eyes of the government. You don’t get kicked out for being straight. As for your slippery slope argument (removing “the opposite sex” as a marriage requirement would lead to removing other requirements, like: exactly two people, can’t be related, and must be of age of consent – I said each of those other restrictions has ‘right’ vs. ‘wrong’ reasons for keeping them in place which have nothing to do with same sex couples. They do, and I named some of them. I’m not denying that there are people out there who argue that those reasons aren’t too important (heck, there are a lot of people out there who think legal marriage should simply be abolished all together, and it should simply be a religious institution). I argued that the logic “but they love and are commited to each other” would not somehow remove the reasons those other restrictions are in place. Arguing about polyamorists is a bigger bag of worms. Sure, their position would be dependent upon the issue we’re discussing, but what we’re discussing is in no way dependent upon polyamorists. In other words, let poligamists present their own arguments against the states’ reasons for disallowing their kind of marriages. It’s not germane to the same sex issue in that, unlike that issue, the government isn’t presenting a reason to deny equal rights (not expanded rights, just equal rights) to same sex couples. I’m really not trying to verbally fence with you, or score points and what not (unless you’re just trying to play devil’s advocate, of course). I’m just trying to figure out if there is a reason to deny same sex marriage. If there really are “manifold reasons” that marriage is to be only a union of a man and a woman, we need to bring them forward and put this issue to rest, one way or the other. Matthew T Pop ouini wrote: I’m really not trying to verbally fence with you, or score points and what not (unless you’re just trying to play devil’s advocate, of course)... I know , i think... I guess, for me, this whole conundrum revolves around the fact that people are, and have been separating marriage from religious ties. Personally, I see no reason for "marriage" outside of religious/spiritual ones. In fact, I see no reason for morality outside of religious/spiritual reasons. If God did not exist, or did not take interest in me personally, I believe I would be an amoral, not-fun-to-be-around type person. I would have no reason to restrain myself from doing whatever I wanted, to who/whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted. And trust me, that would be a lot of fun for me, but for no-one else. So really, if you take God out of the equation, sure, allow homosexual marriage, whatever. Marriage loses all meaning for me without God in the picture. ouini Matt, That makes sense. It’s true that the ties between religious and legal marriage have become thinner and more stretched over the centuries. In this country, at least. If the U.S. government were to look at legal marriage solely from the religious perspective, people would of course have all kinds of issues with same sex marriage. Not just Christianity, either – Islam is quite a bit more unified in its stance against homosexuality in general. But with that said, I do think it’s better that legal marriage is not trying to emulate religious marriages. There are an awful lot of religions out there, in the U.S. in particular, and each has their own view on what marriage can and cannot be. I wouldn’t want, for example, the government to disallow Jewish women to marry gentiles because it be against Jewish marriage laws. I certainly wouldn’t want Muslim or Hindu marriage laws to be government enforced, as they often specifically forbid women equal rights, and allow for force to be used against the wife at the whim of the husband. There are even a lot of flavors of Christian marriage out there today, and I wouldn’t want the government to endorse and enforce many of their forms of marriage, either (like Mormonism, for an extreme example). If we’re lucky or wise enough to figure out what non-Muslim/Christian/Hindu reason there is to enforce or eliminate a marriage law which parallels our own God’s laws, then we have a good case for making civil marriage more like our own preferred version of religious marriage. Otherwise, though, I think it’s a matter of holding our church marriage, performed in the eyes of our Lord, sacred. Then we keep our civil marriage contract, done mostly for tradition’s sake and for the state-recognized benefits it bestows upon us, free from all the religious laws which *other* people follow due to their religion. Laws which we, in all likelihood, would find more plentiful, sillier, and more dangerous to our society than the decision we’re considering now. The issue of morality outside of religion seems (to me) to be an interesting topic, but for a different thread. lpool You must take into account the principles this country was founded on, which were mainly Christian ones. As time has gone by, we have continued to enlarge the rift between church and state (prayer in schools, etc.), but some things still hold fast. Our president is sworn into office on a Bible. Our currency still proclaims our trust in God. Hopefully, marriage will keep with this tradition and continue to remain as set forth in the Bible. Also, I don't recall in other cultures where homosexuality was gaining normalcy (Greek Empire, Roman Empire) that same sex marriage was ever adopted. I think it was the cultural norm to be bisexual, but marriages did not result. Matthew T Pop Throughout most of my liberal education I was taught to doubt the idea that this country was founded on Christian ideals. Up until two classes I took my senior year, one an intro to World Religions and the other History of American Public Discorse, that taught me (using actual documentation and reports, rather than just non-cited here-say) that in fact this country was founded on Christian ideals. But that is aside from the point I wanted to make with this post :) I found this STUDY to be interesting. http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030730.asp Regardless of whatever ideal you want to espouse, the reality is that for the most part, the law of this land is made according to the ideals of the majority. Its a wonderful system called a Republic :) Now, when people are apathetic, those with various positions of power can virtually rule things, but when they are called into account by the public, they must listen. Anyway, according to this study, public opinion on this matter is shifting recently, from a trend to be increasinglyl favorable towards same-sex marriages, to a trend where favor for same-sex marriages is on the decline. jcramer I see I should have been keeping up with this better. There is a lot of reading here. I see another issue arising out of this and I will start another thread in a minute. I think the distinction between religious and non-religious marriage is key here. If we accept that marriage was established by God, then we must adhere to the rules and restrictions applied to the concept by its creator if we wish for it to remain pure. We may change it if we wish, but in this case, we must remain subject to the consequences set forth by its creator. God says if you sin, surely you will die. Enter in the Chrisitan solution to sin. If, however, we take marriage as a human creation, then we as humans may have permission to change the purpose or structure of marriage. If it was created by a human, changing it may cause it to no longer be pure to its original intent. In addition, it will not present any eternal consequences to change it because its creator has long passed away. The consequences will purely be circumstancial and social. We as authors of our society may change it as we wish. The third possibility here relates to the rules under which this country was established. To change marriage, will it be a violation of the rules under which the country was established? If so, then we should not do it. This is primarily the job of the supreme court. To uphold the consititution. Herein lies my new thread. See it under hot topics: Separation of Church and State. Matt, True, law follows majority opinion. But only where it doesn’t contradict the Constitution, as it is understood by a Supreme Court which has the tacit approval of the country’s supermajority. (A willful and unified supermajority, afterall, has and still does re-interpret and amend the Constitution at will.) But contentious anti-majority rulings, such as the recent sodomy case, or even a judgment that banning SSM is unconstitutional, isn’t uncommon and typically stands. As for the poll, there’s probably a segment of the population feeling anxious about a change in how a particularly important social and legal construct is defined, and that's being reflected in this poll. Specifically, the Texas sodomy ruling has made what was a largely hypothetical marriage question a few months ago somewhat less abstract. I think the general trend whereby gay rights, including marriage, are increasing in favor will continue - this likely just reflects that the reality of SSM may well be on the not-so-distant horizon. Basically, people flinch at change, whether for the better or for the worse. If they’re not presented with reasons to fear this change, and nothing bad happens after it does change, it will be generally accepted and ignored. Jcramer, As I explained in my previous post, I agree that the distinction between religious and non-religious marriage is key in this case. That’s why religious and civil marriages are very distinct in this country. We as citizens can and have changed the purpose and structure of civil marriage many times. It still contains much, but not all, of its original religious intent. This has allowed it to also cover many things it didn’t used to. Matthew T Pop CNN.com wrote: "Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners," the president said Wednesday when asked for his views on homosexuality. "And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own." "I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country," Bush added. "On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage." *Thunderous applaus for President Bush* ouini That's really too bad. Next to the SCOTUS bench, announcing planned policy from the presidential podium would have been the perfect place to state some sort of actual legal reasoning for denying marriage to a segment of the population rather than "people like me don't like it". And I'm really not trying to be inflammitory, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that there actually are no civil or state reasons to deny same sex marriage. All the reasons seem to be solely religious. But the politicians (and even the many special interest groups) who stand up to lobby against SSM just talk vaguely about 'values'. This bugs me, since it seems they speak of values while avoiding publically stating their fundamental reasoning. I also think President Bush will probably not try too hard to resolve the issue until after the election. This is very prudent, as his dad would say, and I can't say I blame him for it. Back to Top   Matthew T Pop Hypothetical civil or state reason to deny same sex marriage #1) A majority of the people in the state do not want to allow it.  For a multitude of reasons, most of which boil down to, "Because I don't like the idea". And really, fortunately or unfortunately, that's all there is to it... Back to Top   ouini That would explain how such a law would get passed, but as I've been saying, it wouldn't provide a reason, any more than "a lot of people want to make a law preventing redheads from marrying" is a reason. I think we've beaten this horse to death. Back to Top   Matthew T Pop Notice though, that people's reasoning for wanting such a law aren't as arbitrary as you make it sound.  "We don't like redheads, we don't want them to marry" has never come up has it?  No.  There are many reasons, people have for wanting this law.   ouini Actually, the legal reasoning so far has been utterly arbitrary. It has been "I don't like the idea of (redhead marriage, gay marriage, black/white marriage, etc) because of the traditions I'm familiar with in accordance with my religion." Outside of this forum, I've heard reasoning more along the lines of "I think gays are gross, yech. It should be outlawed for that reason alone." At least your paper, Matt, took a shot at finding other reasons. I understand that, from many Christian denominations, there is reason to support a new law prohibiting SSM. But I would never want to have to face a judge in a hearing challenging the law and say, "this law should stay, your honor, because Allah does not approve of gays" (or Jehovah or Vishnu etc). I would want a solid legal reason. If there exists some terrible state ramifications, if there are indeed "many" reasons, for goodness sakes bring them up! For SSM to be stopped, we need more than just religious conviction. We need solid legal reasoning. So far, I've not seen any. Matthew T Pop ouini wrote: For SSM to be stopped, we need more than just religious conviction. We need solid legal reasoning. So far, I've not seen any. I think you are speaking to a political ideal here... which is what I speak to most of the time :)  But as I was trying to state in an earlier post, the reality of the situation is that we do NOT need solid legal reasoning for SSM to be "stopped"...  all that is needed is a majority of the people of a state to not want it... as long as that is the case, it will be stopped. jkoenig Jumping in -- hope I don't drown. I read a great book written by an ex-Gay man (now Christian and happily married -- real married that is.)  I hope I can find it at home so I can pass along the title and author, but I may have lent it out.  I also spent quite a bit of time immersed in gay culture on Miami Beach, though that is not why I was there. Question: how should we respond to the thought that people ought to be able to marry their pets, a dog should be given legal standing to marry a cat, or that two consenting adults should be able to enter into an agreement to amputate each other's otherwise healthy limbs? Preposterous?  I agree.  Yet, any of these absurdities could be in our future simply by a shift in public opinion and the preponderance of the majority vote. Paul said in 1 Cor. "I am free to do anything, but not everything is good for me." (paraphrased) The book I mentioned related this guy's and others' experiences, and explored the undeniable evidence that the gay lifestyle is rife throughout with feelings of suicidal self-worthlessness, and the undeniable LACK of evidence that nature (as measured by science) intends anything other than heterosexual union. But one thing you aren't told by the media is that most psychiatrists consider homosexuality an emotional disorder.  However, by all the things our society is doing, we are redefining disorder as order and ultimately miserably failing these sick (not disgusting-sick, but genuinely medically-sick) homosexual individuals from help and health.  In essence, we are playing God and "giving them over to their abominable desires". So, what should the Christian's response be?  Wholehearted approval of the gay agenda? (Give us Barrabas!)  Wash our hands of the matter and claim the blood is on the hands of the liberals? (Pontius Pilate)  A fight to the death in the streets?  (Peter slicing off the ear of the soldier)  or, as Jesus did, the calm but cutting truth of God from scripture? I was reminded in 1 Cor. yesterday that it is not ours to judge the unbelieving - that is God's.  It IS ours to judge those who claim to be our brothers and sisters in Christ -- and hand over to Satan for the destruction of their bodies those who do not follow God's Word for the sake of saving their spirits.  Does it sound like God is apathetic toward the gay lifestyle? Shame on the Episcopalians.  The Christian response to the gay lifestyle is no, absolutely not and to encourage the Christian struggling with this matter to obedience.  The public response of professing Christians should be a simple no vote and advocacy for real gay rights - the right to be really loved enough not to be shoved out of sight, but to get help, treatment, and recovery which I absolutely believe is possible and happens. In fact, the single biggest psychiatric cause of homosexuality is an attempt to replace love that was not provided in the individual's upbringing - generally missing from a Father which studies have shown time and again are responsible for confirming gender identity in children. The real science is out there.  All the doubter must do is the research. ouini It is true that a super majority does what it will with the law (and the Constitution for that matter). But a simple majority does not. In the recent Lawrence vs. Texas case, it was recognized that the majority of Texans may still have wanted to enforce anti-sodomy laws, but the SC threw out the law (and even other, narrower laws) by tying the issue to privacy. All the precident that had been set in previous cases concerning privacy in marital sex, contraceptives in marital sex, contraceptives outside of marital sex, and sex acts outside of marriage, eventually led to them effectively say “what you do in regards to frighteningly private things (like sex), when it doesn’t affect others, is your own darn business, not the majority’s.” The two founding philosophies of the Constitution were to protect the people from a tyranical government, and to protect the minority from the majority. That is in fact the whole point of the very first amendment. You don’t need a government for the strong, rich, popular majority to rule. That’s why Jefferson, while recognizing that the majority is to prevail, insisted simple majority rule was unacceptable. That’s why forcing kids to recite a patriotic pledge that includes stating belief in God (whether simply affirming an actual belief, or forcing a child to lie) is in the courts, now. That’s why evolution is consistantly taught in school even when the majority of a state doesn’t want it taught. That, in combination with how high a regard the SC views equality in personal decisions, spells legalized SSM in the not too distant future. That is, unless there is an honest legal reason not to grant it. That’s what’s needed to stop it cold indefinitely. jkoenig I hear you ouini, and if I put on my secular, legal, constitutional, American hat, I agree in principle. However, I'm a member of the human social experiment for 100 years if I'm really blessed.  I'm a member of God's kingdom forever.  I need to follow His precepts first. And on the weighty social issues of the day, we must not forget this nation is NOT a democracy but a republic, about which John Adams said "our Constitution was capable of governing a decent, God fearing, religious, law abiding people and was wholly inadequate for any other." Arguments to separate church and state completely are not only unfounded, but impossible.  All the founding fathers meant to prevent was the Catholic tyranny of the dark ages, not shove relgion aside altogether. Finally, there can be no argument that law is based on morality.  Every law we have is based on concepts of morality which are tied inextricably to religious faith.   ouini Unfortunately, John Adams wasn't our sole founder. You could quote him, and I could quote Jefferson or the treaty of Tripoli, and we'd never determine what was best for this country -- or even settle the issue of seperation of Church and State. (Though I suppose I could jump to that thread if you'd like to discuss it.) Yes our laws are based on morality. No argument. I would argue, though, that our concepts of morality, although often believed to be solely tied to religious faith, are not. If that were true, there could be no moral atheists. Of your three proposals from your previous post (person/pet, cat/dog, amputate limbs) I assume only the third (the only one in which the state has interest) is suggested in any seriousness. And in as much as it could be shown to cause *demonstrable* harm to the individuals and their dependents it would likely be deemed illegal. Obviously the absurd, when regulated by the public interest and principles of least harm, is not easily instituted by majority vote. As for undeniable evidence that gays tend to feel more suicidal and worthless than straights, I'd agree completely. But that's due to so much of society throughout history insisting on stating and institutionalizing their belief that those different from themselves are inferior. Jews, Blacks, women, it's always the same story -- it would be no surprise to find that gays have lower self-esteem. But that self-worthlessness being based on homosexuality itself? I'd remain skeptical until shown a study that shows that. And of course nature (outside of God) doesn't "intend" anything, but even in nature there are countless examples of animals who practice "other than heterosexual union". And certainly other than hetersexual monogamous union. Since when has law been based on what we see dogs do? Nobody knows, and psychiatrists acknowledge this, what causes a person's sexual orientation. There is no single biggest recognized psychiatric cause of homosexuality. But theories tracing homosexuality to troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development have been thoroughly discredited. Trying to quote quacks (like Dr. Paul Cameron, for instance) is a sure way to instantly bias opinion against you when talking with undecided folks looking for evidence. It's guessed that sexual orientation comes from a both biological and environmental factors, but that's all it is -- a guess. The real science may be out there, but it has yet to be discovered. The Christian response, as with anyone's, should be based on looking at the issue impartially (peer-reviewed material from both sides, not just the side you think you already agree with). Sure, base personal opinion on God's word, but in that case let God do the judging. Don't assume a priori that the evidence will match what you think the Bible intends -- nobody but God knows God's mind. To convince others who aren't of your religion, you have to use impartial evidences. I think most people who read this forum would agree that reading the cutting truth of scripture will have no effect in a courtroom in this era. Christian response to the homosexuality is split. It does no good to claim that all Christians are in accord on this subject (or on abortion, or on the death penalty, and on and on.) Let's face it -- Christian opinion is pretty diverse.   jkoenig ouini, The opinion I have on these issues I cannot claim to have through my own wisdom.  You argue for impartial analysis and peer-reviewed material.  Consider from 1 Cor 1: 18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? You also argue that nobody knows God's mind but God.  Consider from 1 Cor 2: 11 For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God's except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 13 And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual. F14 14 Those who are unspiritual F15 do not receive the gifts of God's Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else's scrutiny. 16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Don't be caught by v. 11, because Paul explains in this whole passage that we are bestowed with God's Spirit and, therefore, can know God's mind especially as it relates to right from wrong. There are a few other points of note which don't stand up to logic.  You said that if concepts of morality cannot be tied solely to religious faith and offered as your only proof that there are moral atheists.  This is a circular argument.  How do you know there are moral atheists?  If you know someone who tells you he is, is it not an act of faith on your part to believe him?  Does it not take as much faith to believe there is no God as to believe that there is?  All people are people of faith, even if they have faith in what is not.  And even these have no choice but to exercise morality because every human being is born with the freedom to choose and morality is nothing more than the values against which you base your choices.  It is impossible to be without morality, although the success of one's morality may be found to fall short.  Would you then argue that an atheist's morality is not religious?  I would argue some atheists cling to their atheism and worship their ideas more religiously than a regular church-goer. It's interesting that you dismiss the first of my previous proposals, which is essentially bestiality, as having no state interest and not serious.  How many Americans in public debate would have dismissed the proposal of same-sex unions 100 years ago?  Is legalized bestiality similarly improbable?  Is there no risk to public health or stable social structure presented by the concept? If we follow the logic that homosexual suicide stems from feelings of worthlessness which stems from erroneous institutional belief that homosexual feelings are wrong, then it must also be true that criminal assault might stem from feelings of worthlessness which stems from the institutional belief forced on us that it is wrong to have violent feelings.  Does this logic stand?  In fact, clever defense lawyers have been trying to make this logic stand to hold anyone guiltless for their destructive choices as mere products of their environment and beyond their control.  This whole line of reasoning and its logical end reduces us to animals who cannot but operate by instinct.  Where is the appeal in this?  Perhaps because it removes us from accountability for our choices.  Without it, we need no God, no religion, and ultimately no law -- we answer to ourselves and no one else.  Have you never had a violent thought that you did not act upon, no matter how strong, because you knew it was wrong?  Should you have been raised to be free of that institutionalized idea of wrongness so that you could be free to act violently without guilt?  C'mon dude, you've got to support your position with something better than that. You said: "But theories tracing homosexuality to troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development have been thoroughly discredited." ... by who? -- What is your authority for making this claim?  In fact you directly contradicted that statement when you said "It's guessed that sexual orientation comes from a both biological and environmental factors, but that's all it is -- a guess. The real science may be out there, but it has yet to be discovered." So, on the one hand you claim family dynamics (an environmental factor) and psychological development (a biological factor) have been practically ruled out as causes of homosexuality but then state it comes from both types of factors and the best anyone has is a guess.  Consider what James 1:7 and James 4:8 has to say to the double-minded: "for the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way, must not expect to receive anything from the Lord.  Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded." You finish with the conclusion that Christian opinion is diverse, implying a Christian's opinion cannot be relied upon.  Perhaps you are right, but there is no triumph in that, because it is not reasonable to think God has two different opinions on any given issue.  It is therefore incumbent upon Christians to get it right.  It does not mean that because we often fail, the pursuit should therefore cease.   Matthew T Pop ouini wrote: The Christian response, as with anyone's, should be based on looking at the issue impartially (peer-reviewed material from both sides, not just the side you think you already agree with). Sure, base personal opinion on God's word, but in that case let God do the judging. Don't assume a priori that the evidence will match what you think the Bible intends -- nobody but God knows God's mind. To convince others who aren't of your religion, you have to use impartial evidences. I think most people who read this forum would agree that reading the cutting truth of scripture will have no effect in a courtroom in this era. Christian response to the homosexuality is split. It does no good to claim that all Christians are in accord on this subject (or on abortion, or on the death penalty, and on and on.) Let's face it -- Christian opinion is pretty diverse. Agree, "Christian" opinion is pretty diverse, or rather, the opinion of Christendom is pretty diverse, but then remember not all "christians" believe the bible is God's word. Scripture is VERY clear on homosexual behavior.  You can argue that, but then you are arguing the validity of scripture which is something else entirely :) ouini How does one come to believe there are moral atheists? The same way one believes there are moral theists -- listening to their words and, more importantly, watching their actions. I know both moral and immoral atheists. I know moral and immoral Christians. I would argue that an atheist's morality is not religious, of course. I agree, some atheists cling to their atheism more "religiously" than a regular church-goer. But I don't argue that immoral Christians reflect poorly on the Christian ethic, and I'd also say many church-goers haven't given as much serious thought to their morality as many atheists have. As for your earlier proposal (essentially bestiality), I talked about how it isn't an actual consequence of SSM in my response to Matthew. The reason I proposed that homosexual suicide may stem from feelings of worthlessness imbued by an intolerent society (which is a vicious circle) was more to show that it's silly to assume it's the homosexuality itself that causes the depression. We know depression leads to self-destructive behavior. Suicide is known to stem almost exclusively from this kind of depression. There are lots of peer-reviewed studies and statistics which bear this out. To say, analogously, that criminal assaults may stem from this kind of depression is not generally accepted nor bore out in studies, to the best of my knowledge. So no, that logic doesn't stand. Should we be raised to be free of an institutionalized idea of wrongness? Of course not. But c'mon, that idea of wrongness must be shown to be wrong before we institutionalize it. Theories tracing homosexuality to troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development have been thoroughly discredited by the APA and US and foreign court of law, possibly others. Usually it involved showing that statistics cited to support these claims were exaggerated or even simply fabricated. I brought up Paul Cameron because he (and Judith Reisman and a handful of others) is perhaps the biggest proponent/supplier of the excruciatingly bad data which purports to support said claim. He has been so thoroughly discredited (often embarassing himself with quotes like "in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals") that he's been removed from a number of professional organizations (APA, NPA, ASA, , and censured by court of law). In essence, then, I was pointing out where it is known that homosexuality does -not- come from. This is not the same thing as pinning down where homosexuality -does- come from. I still assert that we don't know where it comes from -- that's not hard to get. I did conclude that Christian opinion is diverse. I guess that does imply that a Christian's opinion cannot be relied upon (just for being Christian), but that's really not what I meant to do. You're absolutely right that it is not reasonable to think God has two different opinions on any given issue, and that it is incumbent upon us all to try to get it right to the best of our ability. Is it unreasonable to not want to judge people here on earth for things we can't find anything wrong with here on earth? There are laws and commandments from God and Jesus which we simply do not enforce on everyone, and let God deal with. We don't punish people for working on Saturday/Sunday, for making graven images, or even for breaking the very first commandment: we don't punish people for having other gods before Him. We don't even punish people who don't follow Jesus' golden rule. Why all the fuss about this contested issue, then? If a worldly reason can be found to punish homosexuals, or disallow SSMs, then of course we should. That seems reasonable and consistent to me.   jkoenig I think we agree that all human beings are inescapably oriented toward morality.  Morality implies a responsibility to behave well and to reject behaving poorly.  But we should not label anyone more moral than someone else in the sense that they are better, (and I include myself in this) because we have all erred and fallen short (Romans 3:23).  Therefore, to say that there are moral and immoral atheists, moral and immoral Christians is superfluous.  We all have done and will continue to do wrong despite all our efforts.  Why then do we debate individual acts, like homosexual behavior? Romans 2:14-15 says "So, when non-Jews (like me) who [were not given] God's law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law.  They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts.  Their consciences testify in support of this, and their competing thoughts either accuse them or excuse them."  We might reject the God of our creation, yet we cannot escape His laws, because they are a part of us as much as skin, muscle and bone.  Our guilty consciences convict us when wo do wrong.  We see the effects of wrong choices in our lives and how they affect others.  You implied that we work from a clean slate, that something isn't wrong until it's "shown to be wrong", and based on the same paragraph imply scientific studies are our authority.  Are you arguing that for millenia, people had no idea what was right and wrong as they were obviously without modern press, and the modern scientific method?  They were just left fumbling around not knowing up from down? You see, some people try to escape their guilt through clever arguments (see my previously quoted verses) and worldly wisdom, trying to explain away and redefine what they, in their hearts, know to be true but don't want to be accountable for.  Who shall I rely upon to clarify right vs. wrong for me, God's Word or groups of other fallible human beings like the APA? I know the struggle of some who claim Christianity, yet strain for a way to explain homosexuality as acceptable not because they themselves are homosexual, but that they have close family and friends that they can't bear to see as "guilty" or don't want the responsibility of holding their relations accountable. Others agree with the moral precepts written into our consciences, but then with holier-than-thou, haughty attitudes try to earn their favor with God through "being good". Christ's message was neither to throw out God's ideals of good and evil, nor to give us a standard to live up to before He would accept us.  His message was that because we are flatly incapable of living up to God's standard, He would pay the ultimate price for us -- and He did that with His death, taking upon himself the penalty you and I deserved although He lived a guiltless life and did not Himself deserve that penalty.  Since we cannot earn favor with God, He sent us Jesus to earn it for us.  What this meant for you and me is that if we accept His sacrifice and turn our lives over to Him, we no longer need to earn our favor with God, it is granted -- case closed. How does this affect our behavior as Christians?  I find it much easier to obey a God that loved me that much, than to obey an ethreal standard for goodness' sake.  I am motivated, now, to do the best I can to live up to those standards and encourage others to do the same.  For some reason, people expect Christians to be Christians at home and not be impacted by the rest of the world, yet we still have to inter-relate with our society.  And, in fact, our society was built largely by Christians trying to live right.  It pains us to see that eroding away by those, running from their own accountability, trying to re-define what is good and right to remove their own guilt. Yes, the law of the land does not enforce all of God's law.  Nevertheless, the fuss here is not about something that has not traditionally applied to U.S. law.  SSM and the activities it implies have been specifically outlawed for many years by most States.  No one is advocating that we introduce new punishment for homosexual behavior, only that we not implicitly condone it.  The same question can be returned to you -- if it isn't worth the fuss to stop SSM, why is it worth the fuss to you to promote it? The fact that you claim consistency and reasonableness in asking for a worldly reason to deny SSM is disingenuous, because no reason will satisfy you.  The Pharisees asked for a miraculous sign to confirm Jesus' deity, even though he had already performed many signs among them.  He answered them that they have already made their minds up and no amount of proof will convince them. (Matthew 12:38-45).  Others have already argued the breakdown in the nuclear family, the raising of children under SSM being gender-confused, the moral issues surrounding homosexual sex.  None of it matters to someone who simply wishes SSM to be blessed by society.  Tell me, what reason would you need to hear that would convince you?  If even God's Word won't do, what words of man would? ouini, you have not argued against the existence of God, or against the truth of the Bible.  Yet, unless you doubt or reject Him and His Word, your viewpoint on SSM simply does not gel.  Where will your allegiance be today -- man's wisdom or God's? We've all been there.  You are obviously a thinker and not irreverant.  You have a keen mind and are willing to use it.  Are you willing to fully investigate all sides of the argument?  Mars Hill is a small, new church with a group of very average folks who live and work in this community.  We aren't freaks, don't dress funny, and aren't into Lording it over others.  Would you take a risk and come visit us sometime?  I'd be happy to meet up with you for coffee or something and take you to our Wednesday meeting in Coralville.  We won't judge you, we'll just be who we are, trying to show God's love to others even though we don't deserve it ourselves.  You can decide for yourselves whether we walk the talk or not.  Feel free to send me an email, private message, or IM me.  I think it would be cool just to meet you sometime, even if you're not interested in Christianity. ouini jkoenig, you too seem to have vested some thought in this subject. You have your faith in God and His word, and yet I think you agree with our government in that everyone is allowed to choose which religion they follow. You're smart, and willing to dialogue reasonably. I respect that greatly. What I think it may boil down to is that you believe we should implement God's law into societal law, and I disagree. HOW LAWS WORK - Am I arguing that for millenia, people had no idea what was right and wrong because they had no scientific method? No. I'm arguing that people used to have a much worse grasp of what was right and wrong because they had no scientific method. Slavery, many types of murder, unfair caste systems, rights based on race, and on and on, used to be deemed just fine. It was only when society began looking critically at its practices that it said, "hmm, you know, just because you're Migonese doesn't mean you're allowed to kill Ligonians whenever they displease you. That's just wrong." They were, in effect, just fumbling around with a gut feeling of right and wrong, and had no way but trial and error to refine their laws. We still are, but at least we now have the tools of reason to speed the process and figure out where we're screwing up. I implied that we work from a clean slate, because from a societal perspective (the only perspective on which we as humans can punish other humans), we *do* start from a clean slate. Yes, we all make mistakes (against God and against our fellow man). Yes, we all have done and will continue to do wrong despite all our efforts. But we try not to throw anyone in jail until we've shown they've done something wrong. To say the law of the land does not enforce all of God's law is an understatement. It has always held the state interest first. Homosexuality and unusual sexual acts (non-missionary straight sex, for example) have only been outlawed in some states for a portion of the 20th century, until we figured out that these acts do no actual harm. WHEN LAWS SHOULD BE MADE - I'm currently arguing against introducing new punishments for homosexuals (state and US laws and amendments) unless it's shown SSM does some harm. It is always "worth the fuss" to stop unjust laws. It's our job not only to remove punishments which cannot be socially justified, but also to avoid implementing new laws of the same ilk. The issues? Nobody has yet argued exactly how SSM will breakdown the nuclear family (isn't it better for a gay to marry someone he loves, rather than apply the pressure of law so s/he'll marry someone s/he's much more likely to leave?) Gays adopt, in vitro, and raise children, and studies (which I can cite) show they do just as well as children of different-sexed parents. The moral issues surrounding homosexual sex are, so far, wholly religiously based and have no bearing on society at all. If the laws can be justified, let's do it and quit playing footsie with the issue. If it can't, let's drop unfair treatment. RELIGION AND LAW - Of Christians, some are gay and struggle with their sexual orientation. Some are at peace with it. Some straight Christians have gay family members and denounce them, some accept them. Many Christians believe that homosexuality is fine (and even scriptural!) and others believe they should be put to death, as is written in the Bible, and denounce other Christians who do not take His Word literally as they do. My social viewpoint on SSM is not scripturally based, because that would mean that society (which we know cannot agree upon a single version of Christianity, let alone all of religion) would have to accept all interpretations of religious laws for and against SSM (and slavery, and wife ownership, etc) -- laws which often conflict. None of this has bearing on whether society finds a reason to treat homosexuals as equals or not. It is a person's own choice whether to punish themselves for sinning against God. It is society's choice to punish those who harm society. You can rely solely upon God's Word, but don't expect to go to jail for original sin. And don't expect society to put others in jail for a similar sin that can't be shown to have a negative effect. WHAT WOULD CONVINCE ME (or you?) - Of course none of the reasons presented so far in this thread matter to me just as, for instance, similar arguments against interracial marriage should not sway you. Opponents of I.M. from yesteryear, no matter how well-intentioned and Christian, would argue that you simply wish interracial marriage to be blessed by society, without regards to God's will. I suggest the same answer to you that I think you would give to them: "The reason that would convince me that (whatever kind of) marriage is wrong, would be to demonstrate that our principles of equal rights must take a back seat here, because those principles pale when compared to reasonably proven actual harm that allowing this equality would inflict upon society." I think that may be as clear as I can make it. MARS HILL - In unrelated issue, I've heard of Mars Hill. I'm glad that something positive like it is getting a foothold in the IC/Coralville area. I don't tend to discuss my personal life on line in chatrooms, though from my years with Pastor Tim, I know The Rock is a great organization, demonstrating love of God and our fellow man. jkoenig I understand the chat room environment and would be glad to take this off of the chat board to email, IM, in-person, whatever.  Neither of us has anything to lose, right?   ouini True. Though if are any further thoughts related to the topic develop, it would be a good idea to post them to let other readers chew on it, too. Matthew T Pop Beautiful article on the subject: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003866 --- ARTICLE REFERENCED BY MATTHEW T POP FOLLOWS --- CULTURE WARS The Way We Live Now "Sodomy is an abomination before God": These days, it almost sounds silly. BY MELIK KAYLAN Sunday, August 10, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT One trenchant argument in favor of gay marriage, as overheard on the subway, goes like this: "Let them marry--it might displace the gay-parade types who like to flash their torsos in public." This viewpoint is a rather warts-and-all rendition of an argument often heard on the lips of pro-gay advocates in the conservative camp. A more cautiously worded version of it, as voiced by, say, Andrew Sullivan, the cerebral gay controversialist of the right, might go something like this: There are plenty of hardworking, decent-living homosexuals who aspire to be God-fearing Republicans, if only they were accepted as such. Not doing so simply deprives the GOP of votes, the church of worshippers, and homosexuals of respectability, which, in turn, drives them to the margins and promotes aberrant behavior. Treat them as proper citizens and they will behave that way, but for certain preferences in their private lives. Surprisingly, considering that it comes from the political right, the argument is a pure piece of social engineering advocacy, a species of affirmative action as applied to sexual preference. In truth, that should come as no surprise. The left pioneered sexual politics, its language and polemical methods, and by the time the right dared even address the matter, it was hard to think outside the box. Gay-rights advocacy has tended to fall under two broadly leftist ontological umbrellas: the libertarian, and the social progress/engineering school. Libertarians, now both on the left and right, say that relations between consenting adults should not be regulated if no participant is hurt, which includes the freedom to marry anyone you please. Here, there's no concern for the aggregate effect on society of cumulative individual choices. Let the chips fall where they may, freedom wins the day. Progressives take a Whig, or sub-Marxist, approach to history, that the world evolves toward the liberation and inclusion of all groups. Ergo women, blacks, gays, increasingly all immigrants, old people and the handicapped--all minorities--aspire to the same goal, and share essential values, even a core identity. That goal would be social acceptance via empowerment, and something called "dignity," which offer the ultimate promise of redemption to one and all. As a radio shock-jock recently put it, though you might be a scrofulous polygamist midget, if everybody thinks you're okay, you'll feel okay about yourself, then you will be okay. In this ontology, all stigma is perceptual and perceptions can be changed ad infinitum. Or as Hamlet says, "There is nothing bad but thinking makes it so." Sadly, some minorities stubbornly reject the theory of inbuilt solidarity and moral equivalency between all social groups. Episcopalian bishops from Asia and Africa, for example, so fiercely oppose the ordination of openly gay priests and the consecration of gay unions in their church, that they are currently risking a schism. They do not equate homosexuality, which they believe is a matter of choice, with being colored or female or very short. For them, no amount of perceptual engineering will redeem a practice proscribed by scripture, except abstinence from it. They do not believe that as some in the church were once racist and got over it, some are now "homophobic" and will get over that too. Furthermore, they believe in a higher arbiter of redemption than society or progressive politics, an arbiter who is neither comfy nor easy nor in tune with current practices. Theirs is the cruelest predicament--far worse than any gay advocate or Republican addressing sexual politics with leftist tools. Not only must they sell their thorny moral code to the lumpen sensual masses, but to do so, in every generation, they have to reinvent a new vulgate sales language for the purpose. How do you iterate, say, "Sodomy is an abomination before God" to the giggling cable audience of "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" without seeming utterly deranged? Americans are collectively more familiar with the morality of freedoms and rights--the language of Constitutional liberties--than of abominations and revelations. Equal rights, equal pay, political inclusion are morality enough. The rest is mystical gobbledygook. In this environment, it's awfully hard to generate biblical heat over moral acts that are purely personal in scope. The nearest thing to apocalyptic logic in the gay marriage debate is the "slippery slope" argument: that gay marriage can lead to the dissolution of the social mainstream by opening the door to polygamy and other biblical era horrors--a very easy argument to ridicule or simply to dismiss. The publicly gay Congressman Barney Frank did so effectively on Bill Maher's cable chat show recently simply by saying that he didn't see why his relationship should influence anyone else's. It's a disingenuous argument, of course. Most of the "slippery slope" warnings of the last decades have proved tragically accurate despite the mockery that silenced them. From the domino theory, to drugs, divorce, to permissive sexuality, who can deny the devastation wrought by each--broken homes, addictions, AIDS? These are all now viewed as impersonal evolutionary forces, historical breezes with incidental Darwinian byproducts. But they had a beginning, a moral cause to their effect; only the worriers and warners were dismissed as fulminating cranks, indeed as caricatures of Old-Testament fire-breathers. Even now, anyone who tries to connect the dots retroactively is oft-dismissed in the same terms. It may seem provocative to view gay marriage in such a portentous context, but it alarms many Americans precisely because it portends blurry unknowable enormities. We will be, after all, the first society ever to pursue the experiment fully. Already, the era of gay parenting is here. It often involves an affluent gay couple adopting poor orphans and improving their material future immeasurably. How long before market forces noisily hold up such families as role models, pillars of style, tolerance, humor, freethinking? Yet we have no idea how the children will fare emotionally, how anomalous they will feel. The full impact will take decades. Will such children, once reared, know how to sustain a heterosexual marriage or family, having no inherited or empirical sense of its workings? They won't feel anomalous if society alters essential paradigms in the effort to absorb them, but do we want such a revolution? What will be the ultimate human cost, and who will have the courage, then, to identify the cause? --- MY POTENTIAL REBUTTAL FOLLOWS --- MELIK KAYLAN seems to be an advocate of the slippery slope polygamy argument, and doesn't address the true rebuttal to it (that polygamy has state reasons for not allowing it, and in any case SSM is not a necessary stepping stone for polygamy (see 19th century Mormons)). He calls the one rebuttal that he *has* heard "disingenuous", which is itself disingenuous, or course. He says that previous ignored slippery slope arguments have resulted in disaster. I'm not sure of what particulars he's talking about, as he avoided specific examples and simply named vague topics we all like to shake our heads at like "drugs", "divorce", and "permissive sexuality". By listening to the slippery slope alarmists on drugs, we now sometimes mandate jail for a significant portion of our population for first time non-violent offenses longer than we mandate jail time for rapists. I'm really not sure what slippery slope argument over divorce there has been, but as for permissive sexuality, I would guess he's against it for puritanical reasons, rather than for the very real and demonstrable dangers we've always known it presents in the form of STDs. But then did anybody ever argue that STDs weren't a very real concern? If so, who, and were they taken seriously? And why did he ignore the slippery-slope arguments of the past which were ignored, with fantastic results? Laws against banning slavery, Jim Crow laws, interracial marriage laws, creationism laws, religion-based laws to stop medical research, laws against non-Christians holding office, ad nauseam? Could it be that topics should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, trying honestly and earnestly to discern what real and harmful effects passage or non-passage of laws can have on society, rather than saying slippery-slope arguments based on the Bible must be true, and other opinions are to be pitied? He says that if SSM passes, we will be the first society in history to legally recognize homosexual relationships, but that's not only false, but terribly disingenuous, because it's beside the point being discussed. If SSM passes, we will be one of many societies in history to legally or socially recognize homosexual relationships. But even if we were the first to recognize SSM, if there's nothing wrong with it, that's a credit to our society, not any kind of black mark. The last line of resistance Mr. Kaylan throws out it suggesting that "the full impact [on kids raised by gay parents] will take decades [to discern]." This is a delaying tactic, spouted by someone who is, unknowingly or willfully, ignorant of the decades of research already done on the subject. Already, the era of gay parenting is here. Thank goodness the problem of others discriminating against such a child isn't as pronounced as children of interracial marriages (another freedom we wisely allowed) because it's not obvious by looking at the child that hir parents are gay. He hints children reared in a same sex family won't know how to sustain a heterosexual relationship, but that's demonstrably illogical. Look at it this way: Do children reared in a het family know how to sustain a homosexual relationship? Sure. The evidence is everywhere in the form of long-term gay and lesbian relationships which work -- they work even through the adversity of hatred and defamation by those who aren't comfortable with same sex partnerships. They work even though the government is, at the best of moments, tepid with regard to granting them similar rights as their het counterparts. If children born into het families can grow up gay and know how to sustain a homosexual relationship and adoption, then obviously children of gay couples will do fine growing up heterosexual, and raising het families, since the heterosexual model is absolutely everywhere compared to the homosexual model, saturating our culture. It's not provocative, as he suggests, to portray allowing a previously "unacceptable" type of marriage in an ominous and portentous context. That's old hat. It's heard time and time again by those who are alarmed that their comfortable status quo, where their type of marriage is given preferential status, is being scrutinized and challenged. jkoenig Our arguments were getting so long that I was willing to bet no one was reading any more. How about focusing in on this point:  ouini said: "What I think it may boil down to is that you believe we should implement God's law into societal law, and I disagree." This statement connotes a future tense perspective.  I would argue that American laws, as a country started by God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians, have always been built on God's laws, as transmitted through millenia of Judeo-Christian heritage and as confirmed and written by God on our consciences. It is agreed, isn't it, that all law is based on morality?  Can it be shown that in any region of the world, that the laws of that land are not primarily tied to the predominant religion(s) of that land?  Is it only co-incidence that the more Bible-believing, the more successful the society, historically? Therefore, what you assert by implication as our legal starting point, I can rightly claim is not where we have started at all.  Rather, your thought would be a fundamental philosophical shift - a change in a Godless direction where man solely knows what is best for man. Do you believe that we can, should, or ever will govern ourselves without God?  If so, do you think our society will be more successful?  If that were possible, would that not make us wiser than God Himself?  Are you familiar with the Biblical story of Babel? Zippymdb I for one am still following this discussion. I appreciate the intellectual level of the discourse, and think it fits well into the "hot topic" section of the discussion board. Cognitive assessment and expression of the differing viewpoints has been very enlightening for me. __________________ So go out into the world, have faith, support the weak, help the suffering, honor everyone, and may the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ and communion with the Holy Spirit, dwell with you now and always ouini I think we agree, then, that you believe we should implement God's law into societal law, and I disagree. In the early years of the U.S., because the vast majority of the country (including lawmakers) was Christian, it was often put forward that societal law should endeavor to mimic Biblical law. But there were also laws made which came from other religious traditions, too (both pre- and post-Christian). Even from pre- and post-Chrisian non-religious texts. There were even Constitutional points foundational to our very government which were recognized as necessary which not only didn't appear in the Bible or any religious text, but which were antithetical to the idea of basing laws off of one religion's Word. Their commonality? They were laws and amendments which were agreed upon to be best for the common good. And whenever they were shown to do more harm than good (regardless of their origin), or whenever they contradicted the Constitution (regardless of their origin), they were gotten rid of. All law is based on morality. If I showed you that some regions of the world have laws not primarily tied to the predominant religion of that land, would that change what I've written to this point? No. Is it relevent to SSM that Bible-believing coutries fit your (a Bible-believer's) idea of successful better than non-Bible-based societies (such as the Native American culture), historically? No. I think (with regard to the issue at hand) that the point which your assertion of our legal starting point misses, is this: That no matter what law was being made in this country, at its base was not that whatever God or Peter condemned should be condemned everywhere, but rather that law should be made in the interest of the public good. God condemns a raftload of things that we would never, and have never, considered legally condemning in our society, because we know it would cause serious problems. In any case, your idea that we should simply implement Biblical law would be a fundamental philosophical shift for this country. If laws are made which have no other purpose than enforcing a religious belief, then that is establishing, by law, religion. And that is, by Constitution, a no-no. That would be a direction dictated by an interpretation of some denomination of a particular religion in order to mimic that religion's laws, in a land which made a very specific, prominent, and earnestly intended point about swearing it would *not* make laws respecting the establishment of a religion. We can, we should, and we do govern ourselves. We are a land where each individual has a hand in government. Whether we as individuals do this with God or without is each voter's, each representative's, each judge's personal decision, so long as it doesn't conflict with the Constitution, and we would hope so long as it doesn't conflict with the common good. Our society will, by definition, be more successful if we make laws based on how they benefit society, and strike laws based on how they harm society. Matt, are there any specific points in that article about why laws against SSM should be put in place? jkoenig Where is the idea coming from about laws against SSM being put into place?  It is already illegal and always has been.  The pro-gay lobby is requesting the change, not vice verse -- but then historical revisionists always attempt to win by obsfucation. ouini, I think you are making too many sweeping statements that are presented as stipulated to, and they are not. "There were also laws that came from other religious traditions." -- Like what?  Offer examples that are in conflict with Christianity. "... Constitutional points ... antithetical to [God's Word]" -- like what, for instance? "All law is based on morality" (and following paragraph) -- that was a major piece of post-modern relativism .. calling up down and down up, left is right and right is left.   The greater the Christian ethic in a country, the more politically powerful, economically wealthy, and socially stable it has been.  There can be no redefinition of terms that is going to sway common sense and a reasonable mind, here. Give me an example of something in the Bible (NT - don't play with OT laws taken out of context meant for a limited historical situation) that is not in the interest of the majority of people? "... that we should implement Biblical law ..." -- revisionism.  Where did I say that?  Again, the laws of this land are already based on Biblical Christianity.  This statement has not been shown to be false. ouini, I agree with your last paragraph, but you threw in one point that is incredibly dangerous (and we are seeing increasingly more examples of.  See the separation between church & state discussion.).  "so long as it doesn't conflict with the Constitution, and ... doesn't conflict with the common good."  Moral relativists are increasingly turning both the Constitution and legislation on its ear whenever something they don't like doesn't agree with their minority viewpoint -- how does a minority of people wanting special protections and privileges suddenly become good for the whole public?  Who gets to define what benefits society and what harms it? Consider one of my favorite quotes:  "There is no one more intolerant than someone demanding tolerance."   ouini I apologize in advance for the long post; I am trying to answer your questions and address your points, and I'll try to keep it organized. WHERE IS THE IDEA COMING FROM ABOUT LAWS AGAINST SSM BEING PUT INTO PLACE? - Laws against SSM being put into place include the laws brought up earlier. Matt has the law identifiers if you need them. They were almost uniformly introduced in the last ten years by religious organizations in order to define marriage as between a man and woman, for the specific purpose of outlawing the possibility of marriage between two people of the same sex. They also include state constitutional amendments doing pretty much the same thing, though many go further in that they make sure that the state doesn't recognize anything that even *looks* like a gay marriage (civil unions and the like). In the states which haven't yet passed these bills and amendments, SSM is presently in that legal-limbo area where it's not outright illegal, but it's never been tested to withstand a legal challenge, either. Now, it's obviously not already illegal, otherwise there wouldn't be a case in MA court to decide SSM's legality. And if it were actually presently illegal, obviously there would be no need for all these state laws and the national DOMA law passed during Clinton's administration. We don't pass laws to outlaw something that's already illegal, do we? (As an aside, SSM actually did enjoy full legal status in the US (Hawaii) for a few hours about ten years ago. That's what got people who are against SSM for religious reasons to mobilize and make it an issue in every state.) And here I pause to protest a bit. Calling me a historical revisionist, and stating that I use obsfucation and redefine terms, is insulting. I'm relating the facts as I know them, and my opinion as I see it. I know this is a Hot Topic area, and flames are allowed, but I've enjoyed our high level of civility to this point and hope that, if the conversation itself can't be continued, courtesy and respect for each other (rather than our arguments) can. NON-CHRISTIAN LAWS - I can't guarantee anything will *conflict* with your interpretation of Christianity, because as you know, there were and are good Christians on both sides of almost every hot issue out there (abortion, gun control, death penalty, etc). But almost all tribal law predates Christianity, and it would be more accurate say I'm citing laws which other religions endorsed before Christianity did. Laws based on owning land, for instance, originated before Christianity. So did laws gifting one particular race (the one in power) priviledge. These were systematically approved of by various religions throughout the ages, including eventually Christianity. Slavery actually predates *any* historically recorded religion, but again was condoned by almost every religion through history. And it would be more accurate to say that the laws you say are Christian-based, are actually Jewish law, carried forward for the most part by Christianity and Islam. The specific Constitutional point I was alluding to, which is not only antithetical to God's law but also to Muslim law and most every ancient religion, was the 1st amendment. Your point, if I've been reading you right up until now, has been that we should implement Christian laws into societal law based solely on the fact that it's God's Word. But there's no way around the fact that that would be implementing Christianity in everything but name, and that contradicts the 1st amendment. POWERFUL NON-CHRISTIAN SOCIETIES - I'd say China was about as stable a civilization as you could get, it being around thousands of years longer than any Christian civilization. And the wealth, stability, and political power of pre-Christian Rome, for instance, extended much further in the measure of its day than that of the US or any other nation on earth today. Again, I do not see this as redefining terms. Interesting, but only tangentially related: although the Islamic world was far and away more powerful than the Christian world for many centuries, the reason for it eventually being conquered by Christian nations was that it is a requirement of Islamic law for its rules to be implemented into government. One of those laws? Take nothing from heathen societies, use nothing of heathen creation. So during the renaissance, when Christian nations started building better and better ships, capable of crossing seas, the Muslim nation refused to implement their design features -- until many decades too late, after Christians had taken a significant portion of land away. ARE THERE BAD CHRISTIAN EXAMPLES? - You asked for an example of something in the NT that is not in the interest of the majority of people. It's kind of graphic, but all right. First I'd mention, and you'd probably agree, that the best interest of our society, based in large part on individual freedoms and equality, is what we're actually interested in. Some pretty awful crimes have been committed "in the interest of the majority". I'm not accusing you of saying otherwise, I'm just clarifying to put your question into perspective. Examples from the NT of things which it would be a great idea to outlaw include: - most topically, taking Paul's word when he says homosexuals deserve to die - for that matter, avoiding those who offend the doctrine you've learned, and not marrying anyone who doesn't believe as you do - the proposal to kill kids who curse their parents - the idea that slaves should obey their masters in all things - "righteous" Lot offering his daughters to be raped, and in fact later having kids by them You kind of confused me when you denied that you said we should implement Biblical law, but then said the laws of this land are already based on Biblical Christianity. Are you arguing for or against the law being based on Biblical Christianity? MORAL ABSOLUTISM vs RELATIVISM - There is something which I do agree with you upon, but don't see it as such a narrow problem as you present it. I agree that people who think thay have a lock on what is moral interpret both the Constitution and legislation to suit their own ends. But this is not a one-way street as you suggest. It has been going on for centuries, and happens with minorities and the majority. I'd take umbrage at your suggestion that offering gays equal rights is somehow the same as giving them special protections and privileges. There's nothing special about equality -- I think this is one ideal we can both agree that was and is a core principle of this country. As for who gets to define what benefits society and what harms it, we all do. But we can't use criterion that we can't even kind of agree on, like a particular religion (or lack thereof). I did like your quote, by the way, because it's kind of the obverse of one of the maxims that I live by, "Hate nothing but hate, be intolerant of nothing but intolerance." THE POINT - All this is beside the point, though, because at the heart of our discussion is that we simply don't agree on the issue of why laws should be made. I'll tell you, it's not that I'm for special laws to give gays more rights. I'm for equality in treatment by the government. If there is a pressing state interest in disallowing SSMs, like I've said many times before, let's hear it. Can we agree that it's pointless arguing the way we have if my view is "it depends on whether allowing SSM can be shown to harm society" and your view is "We should enforce (the Christian) God's will through law?" jkoenig OK, here is where misinterpretation leads to faulty conclusion. Consider the Bible.  Does its size and scope account for every possibility and every situtation in detail?  Of course not.  Does it provide enough principle to know the difference between right and wrong?  Yes.  Can people take what lack of specific detail it may have and twist or misinterpret it?  Yes.  Inarguable so far, I think. Consider the Law.  The same conditions are present.  I work in an industry where a massive law was passed in 1996 meant to improve the industry for businesses and consumers.  It failed miserably.  It sent this industry into turmoil due to vaguery, unintended consequences, and the resulting cases in which different courts came to different conclusions on the same issue. Now take the law related to marriage.  It is reasonable to assume that no one thought we would be considering SSM when the law pertaining to marriage in America was written.  Why? Take any dictionary from that time.  ANY dictionary.  Marriage by definition is already only between a man and a woman.  You cannot refute this.  That is lexical science.  When those laws were written, no one thought they needed to explicitly define the term.  When a lawmaker or a judge said marriage, everybody knew what it meant. So comes along the gay lobby and the sexual revolution.  What?  Someone doesn't like this institution?  [Let's change the meaning of words to include our previously undesireable behavior -- Presto!  Now we can argue SSM isn't outlawed, we just have to convince everyone that we misinterpreted what lawmakers were thinking.  They certainly had gays in mind when they passed these laws.]  What is the spirit of the law all about? Now, their fight wasn't over.  They needed to work to place activist judges on the bench that have little respect for the rule of law, the Constitution, and the meaning of words.  [Bend and stretch, bend and stretch until we get what we want.]  It is disingenuous.  It is Intellectually dishonest. SSM is outright illegal without arguing once again the meaning of "is", (thanks, Bill C. for starting that one. ).  It may be a kneejerk reaction, but proposals to "outlaw what is already illegal" do happen all the time.  My wife is an attorney.  We are a society drunk on litigation.  Don't like something?  Sue.  How to be successful - confuse the public, redefine everything, pretend you were right all along.  It's an incredible process.  Legislatures get forced to redefining laws when activist judges turn the laws they've made on their heads. I genuinely have not and don't mean to offend.  Please don't interpret my language as personally accusatory, although I must accuse group thinking and behavior that I find to be wrong.  However, just like you I am stating and actually trying to correct facts.  If you don't think people do as I have described, then you live in a world I only wish existed.  Nothing I have said is uncivil, but the truth must be defended.  Sometime I'd like to show you an article entitled "when nice is a vice".  Nice is a new PC crutch in our society aimed at people who think they have the right not to be offended or have their notions or methods challenged.  Sorry, I'm not PC and neither was Jesus.  What He had to say offended the Jews to His death.  Should he have held his tongue? I'm sorry, but your view of non-Christian law and non-Christian societies is a mix of generalization and non-relevant conclusions related to the time period.  Christianity is 2000 years old.  Societies that were successful before Christianity existed or before it came to that geography are not parallels.  What is the state of the world today?  Which faith has the most adherents?  Where does power and prosperity lie?  If tribes and dictatorships are more successful, why are they disappearing (far from gone, but decreasing while democratic society increases?)  Communists came, had power for a time, and are dwindling.  Arabs sell oil for now, but their wells will run dry, and it is our Iowa fields that feed them.  Every few year someplace goes to heck or some natural disaster strikes, and it isn't a Chinese navy, an Arab relief network, or an east Indian budget that wipes off tears and helps to rebuild.  It's the West and most particularly AMERICA that comes to the rescue.  Hedonists love only themselves and those they agree with.  Christians are commanded to love even their enemy.  We could have, and by some theories, should have turned Iraq into a parking lot and consigned its people to be too indoctrinated to change, but we are THERE losing our young men every day investing in a people that quite frankly can do little for us in return in our lifetimes.  Which agenda is more likely to promote that kind of love -- secular wisdom or Christian?  Muslims, Hindus, and Bhuddists or Christians?  There is no argument. The first amendment is about freedom of (peaceable) speech.  It is not absolute.  It does not and has never implied freedom of behavior. Now, I think you're starting to back yourself into a corner if you think the interest of society is whatever society is interested in.  That is pure democracy, which is as evil as communism.  If we all get interested in self-mutilation, does that make it now in our best interest?  I do not want to live in that kind of society, my friend.  That is called Hedonism. I'll answer your question again -- American law is already largely, thank God, based on Christianity.  I'm not proposing a change.  The gay lobby is. If you are going to use scripture in your argument, please quote chapter and verse.  Each of your NT examples were either flatly wrong or taken out of context.  If you want to give me your references, I'll show you why. Allow me to quell your umbrage.  Why have we passed laws outlawing violence against homosexuals?  Wasn't all such violence already outlawed?  Why is it, now, that in some big places a violent offender gets more jail time for a "hate crime" than for brutally sexually mutilating a child?  If that isn't placing more value on the life of a gay adult than a defenseless child, I don't know what is. If we can't use criterion that we can't agree on, then there is no criterion.  We will never all agree on the same criterion and we can look forward to anarchy.  Christians founded this nation, they made many mistakes, but God-willing we are not going to hand it over to Hedonism based on a human philosophical argument.  Woe be unto us if we do that. Laws should be made, my worthy adversary, to protect people from evil.  Sometimes evil is presented by government, sometimes by businesses, sometimes individuals, and yes, sometimes even ourselves.  Gay behavior is unhealthy behavior for the individuals engaged in it and for society.  I don't need to argue it any further, because I don't question its validity.  I claim a higher authority for the viewpoint, not my own human wisdom.  You can reject that authority, reject the wisdom, and substitute your own, and I support your American right to your viewpoint.  But I don't support the right of the gay agenda to impose it on the rest of us.  You don't think that's what they want to do? Well, eight years ago I wrote a guest editorial in an uproar over professors at UI introducing graphic, even pornographic gay material in college courses that were not even on the subject, without warning.  They argued that they were exercising diversity.  Hogwash.  They were indoctrinating.  Do not kid yourself.  They gay lobby is perfectly happy to introduce gay how-to courses to high school students, gay is OK campaigns to all children, and introduce the gay presence as a special interest in all facets of life.  They are recruiting.  They are interested in seeing the gay population increase in power and in numbers.  Many books written by gays claim gayness is intellectually and physically superior to being straight. How will an entire society sustain itself if we turn nature backwards?  Why, genetics of course.  We can all be gay, and make babies in bottles. I'm serious, but my pointed language is to be clear, not aggressive.  I'm not mad, I'm horribly sad at how we are losing young minds to this movement.  Do you remember a commercial in the seventies where a native American stood at the top of a hill overlooking a city, observing the smog and polution, then they pan in and he is just standing there, tears streaming down his face?  It was the start of clean air campaigns, which we were in dire need of, before environmentalism was as owned by special interests who now use it to access power and advance their agenda rather than for common sense resource management. If every signer of the Constitution could be gathered here to witness what we are debating about and what a mess we have made of the legal constructs they built, I would very much expect to see a lot of tears.  They dreamed great dreams for this nation, and we are still enjoying the sacrifice of many men and women who carried that dream forward, but every year is a fight between spending our inheritance like the prodigal son, or picking up that flag to continue to be a beacon of God's truth and hope for a chaotic world. There come times when all that can be said has been said, and we need to shake hands in friendship and agree to disagree.  I don't think my arguments are making a difference, and I'm certainly not going to move toward SSM.  Peace to you, my friend ouini.  May God judge between our viewpoints in his infinite mercy and bear the wrong in great patience for the sake of bringing many to heaven. ouini Reading what you just wrote, I agree with much of what you said, and I utterly disagree with much of what you said. You proposed an awful lot of concepts, so I'll again try to address them individually. LEGAL LIMBO - I'd agree that no one was thinking of SSM while, over the centuries, bit by bit, they codified religious and common law marriage into hundreds of actual written laws. The Mormons legally had multiple partners for something like half a century back in the 1800s before someone put forth the effort to specifically illegalize it. When the possibility that blacks and whites might actually try to marry came up, many states began trying to codify (to clarify what they thought had been clear) that marriage between two races is not okay. This pattern happened again and again, narrowing and expanding the legal (not dictionary) definition of marriage throughout our country's history. Were the winners in these debates whiners and PC advocates? No. When those laws were written, no one thought they needed to explicitly and narrowly define the term -- what they wrote on paper looked comprehensive to them, because their mind's-eye filled in the gaps. Nobody is trying to convince everyone that we misinterpreted what lawmakers were thinking, just that what they wrote doesn't outlaw SSM, and that if the law's intent were deemed more important than its text, the law would conflict with the Constitution. Gay rights advocates respect the Constitution so much that they are willing to fight laws that, intentionally or not, fly in the face of equal rights for all citizens. MISUNDERSTANDING THE OPPOSITION - The Bible (and Quran, and Torah, Baha'i texts, Constitution, etc) provides guidance for right and wrong. People twist or misinterpret each and every one of them, while stating that they *know* that *their* interpretation on subject X is "The Right One", and that therefore mankind would be better if only everyone agreed with them. But as naive as this makes them sound, their intentions are, almost without fail, genuinely to improve the human condition. That is inarguable, I think. Now, about the secret gay conspiracy and its efforts to recruit as many young people as possible. Um, there isn't one. But I don't expect to convince you of that. The 'gay conspiracy' is a widely believed concept held by people who won't give the benefit of the doubt to those who disagree with them. People for gay rights believe they're helping people, just like you do, just like I do. Similarly, there isn't a Religious Reich conspiracy to take over the nation and implement Pat Robertson as President, as some gay rights advocates would have you believe. Both ideas are bunk, fomented by people who are frustrated that their views are not always the ones being implented. It's not The Evil Gay Recruitment Lobby against the Religious Nazi Coalition. It's good American citizens for equal rights finding resistance from other good American people. Weird, huh? There's no intellectual dishonesty, here. Both sides are sincere. I believe you when you say you genuinely don't mean to offend. No hard feelings. Understand, though, that second-guessing another's motives as being completely different than their stated motives (as too often happens) is incredibly insulting. I'm not saying be PC, just be civil. I truthfully don't see you as an adversary. I view this type of discussion as an exchange of ideas, in pursuit of common understanding. In discussion etiquette, you can state your case without redefining your opponent's for them. THE GAY AGENDA - 100% gay America and babies in bottles is not the goal of, well, of anyone outside of an insane asylum. Not the gay lobby, not anyone. The gay lobby is not pushing to introduce gay how-to courses to high school students. They *are* introducing gay is OK campaigns to everyone. That's not recruiting. "Free toaster when you become one of us" is recruiting. In fact, the gay lobby doesn't even think gays *can* be recruited. The 'recruiting' propoganda is put forth by those who oppose gays, for whatever reason. Attempts to let folks know that being gay is okay is in direct response to the intolerance and especially to the widespread violence against gays that is seen at the high school level and beyond, all over the world, every day. That's preventing violence. You can't expect that violence to end if the only message out there is something like, "gays are evil perverts who want to have sex with your child!" No. The gay lobby is interested in seeing equal gay rights, period. SUCCESS OF SOCIETY - Societies that were successful before Christianity are extremely relevant, if you're trying to show that only Christian societies encourage flourishing, or that they flourish better. 'Which faith has the most adherents' is irrelevant, though, when trying to determine which is Correct. I've never said I think the interest (as in, the well-being and the prosperous future) of society is whatever society is interested (as in, takes a liking to) in. But I do think the well-being and prosperous future of society can be decided by society itself. I, too, would not want to live in a majority-ruled (mob-ruled) democracy. Yech. But I'd guess that societies that provide the people with a voice in government, during this information age where people can easily hear about freedoms enjoyed by other successful nations, pretty well explains why dictatorships are disappearing. That's not secular wisdom versus Christian wisdom -- the two concepts are very parallel in many aspects. As is Muslim wisdom if you ask a Muslim, and Buddhist wisdom if you ask a Buddhist. Just as Christians denounce past (and present) horrific acts in the name of Christianity as not really Christian, so too do Muslims similarly denounce horrific acts. While American law is arguably based in part on Christianity, it is inarguably based on individual freedoms, equality of citizens, and minimizing government fiddling with those freedoms and that equality when there is no state interest at stake. That's nothing new, and it's a good system. BIBLE WARS - I paraphrased the Bible because I have absolutely no intention of getting into a debate on Bible interpretation. All Biblical examples, whether quoted from one of many English sources, or even stated in their original Greek, will bring out Biblical scholars on both sides of pretty much any issue to tell you why they're right and everyone else is wrong (see above). HATE CRIMES - We have passed laws outlawing violence against homosexuals for the same reason we have laws outlawing discrimination and violence due to reasons of race, age, religion, sex, physical disability, etc. The need was seen, and a law was made to cover the need. Violence in general was already outlawed, and yet violence against a class of people was not. That is, a person may be beaten up or killed due to passion against an individual (Joe Smith), or passion against an entire community of individuals (all blacks or all gays). Similarly, the reason terrorism has incredibly harsh penalties in our country is that it is a threat to many people. Same with hate crime -- the perpetrator isn't targeting a single individual, and isn't satisfied by violence against a single individual. I can't speak for the stupidity of legislation that mandates more jail time for non-violent crimes than for violent crimes, but I can defend very well the reasoning behind the (often demonized) idea of hate-crime legislation. THE BOTTOM LINE - If laws should be made to protect people from evil, and gay behavior is "unhealthy for the individual engaged in it and for society", then for goodness sakes, demonstrate how. You don't need to argue it any further than you have, but don't expect to sway a lot of people who are hoping to base their societal laws on reason. I'll agree to disagree, but I am open, as I've said since this debate started, to serious state-interest reasons to prevent equality in marriage from being officially recognized. I think more communication, not less, is a better way towards understanding and peace. Show all arguments, so everyone can see them and judge for themselves. Back to Top   jkoenig Directly testing your claims: "This pattern happened again and again, narrowing and expanding the legal definition of marriage throughout our country's history."  I am not aware of the definition of marriage -- one man and one woman -- ever legally changing, even if some have tried for various unjustified reason to exand or narrow it.  Please specifically quote historical examples of "again and again" changes in the American legal definition of marriage, and I will accept this claim. "what they wrote doesn't outlaw SSM"  Incorrect.  Two men or two women are not included in the definition of marriage at the time of passing of any standing American law on marriage.  Please quote the law and the dictionary defining marriage otherwise published at or before the law, and I will accept this claim. "The Bible (and [others]) provides guidance for right and wrong. People twist or misinterpret each and every one of them," "their intentions are, almost without fail, genuinely to improve the human condition. That is inarguable ..." "There's no intellectual dishonesty, here. Both sides are sincere." "That's not secular wisdom versus Christian wisdom" "All Biblical examples, ... will bring out Biblical scholars n both sides ..." Each of these quotes and their surrounding commentary can be summed up as philosophical unitarianism; it is lukewarm and lacking conviction because it argues that no one knows who is right and who is wrong, and since they can't know it, then anything goes.  Consider Revelation 3:16: "So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."  See my previously quoted verse on being double-minded.  Please find and quote for me Bible scholars who don't think these scriptures mean what they say, and I will accept your claim that we cannot know what it means. "secret gay conspiracy ..."  You introduced this concept, they are not my words.  I don't believe in widely held conspiracies, but I do believe in widely pursued selfish motives that add up to a trend. "The gay lobby is not pushing to introduce gay how-to courses to high school students." Please excuse my directness, but this is patently false.  I have proof of major media reports to the contrary for which the links have expired.  I have sent you 7 articles covering 69 pages of proof of both indoctrination of young persons and recruiting through such "art" as the Vagina Monologues. ' "gays are evil perverts who want to have sex with your child!" ' You aren't quoting me, here.  Please tell me who you are quoting, or otherwise drop this claim. "I paraphrased the Bible ..."  I don't have a problem with paraphrase.  But, please quote chapter and verse.  Claiming the Bible says something and then walking away from quoting the source is not support.  Otherwise, you can just make it up. "Violence in general was already outlawed, and yet violence against a class of people was not."  Please explain for the reasonably educated reader the logical conundrum in this statement.  How can violence be outlawed generally against persons, and not be, by definition, against the law if committed against a subset of that population? "That is, a person may be beaten up or killed due to passion against an individual (Joe Smith), or passion against an entire community of individuals (all blacks or all gays)."  This doesn't solve the logical puzzle.  You are differentiating between motive, not legality. "but I can defend very well the reasoning behind the idea of hate-crime legislation"  Then please do.  You haven't so far. jkoenig http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94764,00.html   ouini We're diving quickly off subject here, but I'll try again to address your points. The tone of your last post was You say you're not aware of the aspect "one man and one woman" ever legally changing. That sort of ignores what I wrote, though, which was that it was never textually outlawed (just like interracial marriage wasn't textually outlawed), people tried to outlaw it once it was shown that it wasn't technically outlawed. I said what they wrote doesn't outlaw SSM, and I meant it. Like I said before, why would we be trying to legally figure out whether SSM is legal in the MA court right now if it were already deemed illegal? We wouldn't. Several same sex couples tried to get married, were denied a license because local court employees didn't think it could possibly be legal, and the couples said, "hey, denying us licenses is against the Constitution. Nevermind that you can't even cite a law to support your position." I notice that though you equate five of my statements with "philisophical unitarianism", and then disparage what you see as that ideal, you don't actually address or attempt to refute any one of my statements. You try to equate what I said with an "anything goes" philosophy, but specifically, - don't you believe that the Bible (and [others]) provides guidance for right and wrong? - That people twist or misinterpret each and every one of them? - That their intentions are, almost without fail, genuinely to improve the human condition? - If not, then isn't there no intellectual dishonesty, here? - Aren't both sides then sincere? Notice I didn't say both sides are Right, just sincere. I really hate going over these points like this, because I don't like adversarial arguments, which is what this conversation is devolving into. In fact, you probably shouldn't bother answering the above questions, as they were rhetorical. My position, I would hope, is clear by now. I'm not against outlawing SSM if there's a good reason to do so. I haven't seen one. Relatedly, I don't agree that Biblical law (or Quran law, or any religion's law) should be made US law for no other reason than its followers would like it. And I think you know as well, as any reasonable person, that biblical scholars take both sides on a plethora of issues. And note, I didn't say we couldn't know what the Bible means. I said every proponent believes their side is the right side. "Secret gay conspiracy" is not your words, but we're not dealing with law here, we're sharing ideas. And I honestly believed, when you wrote that 'they' are indoctrinating students through pornographic gay material, and that to think otherwise is to kid yourself, and that the gay lobby introduces gay how-to courses to high school students, and that 'they' are recruiting, and are interested in seeing the gay population increase in numbers, that you thought it was a conspiracy. I read the article about the conference which got very graphic in nature, and how the gay lobby groups denounced it as inappropriate. If you think it's something much more open and widespread than that, and that they're not trying to disguise their intentions, I apologize. And The Vagina Monologues is not proof of Gay recruitment. I'm not quoting you with "gays are evil perverts who want to have sex with your child!" I'm attempting to tell you why there is a whole lot of violence against gay in America today, even against school-age kids, and why it's important to let kids know that it's okay to be gay. There really are people out there who think violence and intolerance against gays is just fine. Lots of high school students, who have learned that a segment of the population it's okay to deride and beat up on, because a lot of teachers will look the other way, is gays. Later, they find that cops and judges will look the other way. This is countered with hate-crime legislation and teaching tolerence in schools. You didn't think it was okay to teach kids it's okay to be gay, and I was telling you why it was being taught. I'll try to restate my hate-crime explanation. How's this: Violence against *individual* persons can be outlawed, while not recognizing that violence against a set of individuals causes greater harm to society. This idea *is* recognized in US law in other places. Namely, terrorism. If you kill someone in a terrorist act, you will serve significantly more time than for killing your adulturous husband. I think everyone understands the reasoning behind this law. Same with killing a cop on duty -- it's still murder, but everyone understands how society's structure is harmed more by killing a cop than by killing a non-cop, so you get more time for it. Finally, I'll give you the chapters and verses I got the ideas of things which society should outlaw (or in your words "that is not in the interest of the majority of people"). I don't know what good it will do, as it has little to do with the topic at hand (SSM). My point was that, according to the Bible (and many pastors who quote the Bible to back their ideology), there are a lot of things that would suck if put into law. I didn't make any up. - taking Paul's word when he says homosexuals deserve to die (Romans 1:32) - avoid those who offend the doctrine you've learned, and don't marry anyone who doesn't believe as you do (2Corinthians, 6:14 thru 17) - the proposal to kill kids who curse their parents (Matthew 15:4) - the idea that slaves should obey their masters in all things (Colossian 3:22) - "righteous" Lot (Peter 2:8) offered his daughters to be raped, and in fact later had kids by them (Lot's life is described in the OT) I don't want to debate these things because A) it'd take a lot of time B) would be fruitless C) I think most people would agree that the Bible can be and is twisted by almost everyone who has an interest in changing our culture towards their views, probably even you. It's just that nobody believes that *they* are the person doing any twisting. And D) it has nothing to do with whether there are reasons to outlaw SSM. At this point, we both know each other's position, and I know what it would take to convince me that SSM is a bad idea. But as relevant, what would it take to convince you that SSM is all right? If the answer is "nothing could be said", while at the same time you have nothing to show me in terms of societal harm to outlaw SSM, then we're at a true impasse.   Matthew T Pop ouini wrote: taking Paul's word when he says homosexuals deserve to die (Romans 1:32) Ya.. isn't that hard? He also says that those who practice "all manner of unrighteousness": evil, covetousness, malice,envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness,gossip, slanderer, hating God, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, inventing of evil, disobedience to parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, ruthlessness; all deserve to die... In short... we all deserve to die. I can think of at least four of those that I've done in the last week.  And that's without thinking much. nebrow i admit i havent read all of the posts on this thread mostly due to the very small text size and a very large headache i am currently expierencing. To the person who brought up the idea that if gay marriage gets legalized then a battle marriage to an animal will soon follow. This is far FAR different from gay marriage in the fact that a non human animal can not give consent like a human can. So i dont think we have to worry about that.   As to the rest of the posts on this thread. I am somewhat disgusted with christians in general over the topic of gay marriage. I would say that marriage today is more of a legal thing that a religious thing. I know you beleive that got set up marriage but your view is one of many. Banning gay marriage is discrimination. What gives the right to say that the gender someone is attracted to determines their eligibility for marriage. I also find it funny that you enjoy your right to get married but when people who are different than you want the same right you freak out and try to pass laws banning it. Edited by nebrow on August 26 2003 at 8:24pm ouini I'd add that I've heard a lot of vague, irrelevent, or just plain wrong reasons for disallowing gay marriage so far: it alters the definition, change takes time, it would start us on the slippery slope towards poligamy, incest, and bestiality, a will or civil unions would cover any legal problems, and even that the government would collect fewer taxes, or that for businesses to give benefits would cost too much. But I have to say, the argument that "everyone -already- has the equal right to marry (a member of the opposite sex)" disturbs me the most. I think it's because I get weirded out by people who can adamantly deny the obvious parallel to the reasoning used not so terribly long ago: that "everyone -already- had the equal right to marry (a member of the same race)".   Matthew T Pop I do not see the parallel between skin color, and sexual "preference". Please show me one. __________________ Matt Heerema *Self proclaimed CSS guru* www.mattandnancy.org   ouini Ahh, I see your confusion. But I wasn't talking about 'the parallel between skin color and sexual "preference"'. I was referring to the parallel between discriminating based on skin color, and discriminating based on sex. Can you be married to any unmarried consenting adult? No. Only to a woman, because you are a man. It's not a matter of gays having the same rights straights do, and just not wanting to excercise them. That's really disingenuous, and parallels the wrong-headed argument against blacks and whites marrying from a few decades ago. If you still don't see it (which would be the point of my above post), and insist on phrasing it in terms of voluntary self-discrimination, then consider this: it used to be illegal to marry someone who wasn't of the same religion, too. Actually, it still is illegal in some countries. Religion isn't genetic, it's voluntary (as I think you're implying sexual preference is). Yet we don't disallow marrying outside of your religion, because arbitrary discrimination is wrong without a compelling state cause. There may be such a reason to ban same sex marriage, but over the last few weeks, I've looked into this issue a lot, and I've become convinced so far that there just isn't one. I'd change my mind if I saw one. And may I add...here we go again!   jkoenig I noticed in that list of "reasons" the lack of mention of the only one that matters, which is also the one reason on which all others hinge if they are to have any merit: that homosexuality is contrary to God's design in creation and expressly forbidden by Him (scriptural references previously quoted). This obvious oversight cries out to be answered.  Unless it is answered, no case to allow gay anything has reasonably been made. And for it to be answered, God must either be acknowledged, or we as human beings must judge that God does not exist, judge that God is wrong, or judge that God failed to make his opinion clear. No one of sound mind can call a Christian arrogant for claiming superior reasoning when that Christian rejects homosexuality and advocates against its legal institutionalization.  Why?  Because the Christian does not claim his own authority, but relies on one which is greater.  This is not arrogance, but obedient humility. In fact, to judge God non-existent, wrong, or even just irrelevant in our affairs is the ultimate human form of arrogance.  One who does this may cunningly avoid stating it plainly, but who are they fooling? Nothing about interracial marriage supports the ligitimacy of same-sex marriage.  Nothing whatsoever.   ouini It was no oversight. We've been over this ad nauseam, and I think our stands and reasoning on religion mixing with politics has been made clear, fully "answering" the intentional ommission. God need not be politically incorporated (as opposed to "acknowledged"), nor claimed to not exist. A third alternative, the one being practiced today in fact, is to separate matters of Ceasar from matters of God. I am of sound mind, and I call any Christian who claims "superior" reasoning in denying equal rights for all, arrogant. Why? Because when one insists that one's reasoning by appeal to one's religion should be law, yet claims that anyone else's reasoning by appeal to their religion not be law, they are being hypocritical. The Christian may not claim his own reasoning, but he exerts his own authority when he personally insists that authority be law of the land. This is arrogance. In fact, judging a hoard of (conflicting) religious opinions irrelevant to our legal system is not only not arrogant, but it it the only consistant and honest way to run a government that claims it allows religious freedom, and doesn't enact laws based on any given religion. As for nothing about interracial marriage supporting the legitimacy of same-sex marriage, well. I stand by my earlier astonishment. I guess I'd have to be shown how that could possibly be true, given the uncanny similarities in arguments against both.   jkoenig  Don't you have the burden of proof of relating interracial marriage to same-sex marriage, astonishment notwithstanding?  You raised it, after all.  You might offer some a