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 actual references.  Quoting what "people say" isn't very substantial. Nice attempt at sidestepping the challenge, but I think it's pretty clear you are advocating the "God is irrelevant in our affairs" position.  God didn't advocate that.  Christians aren't generally advocating it. Is it not your own authority that you are exerting when insisting yourself what should be the law of the land?  You join me in my arrogance, then, with your own definition.  Hypocritical? Yes, I deny you certain "rights" that you in fact should not have, because they are not right.  The root word is the same, after all.   ouini You mean, burden of proof beyond the similarity between the arguments: - "everyone -already- has the equal right to marry (a member of the opposite sex)" and - "everyone -already- had the equal right to marry (a member of the same race)"? I guess I'd leave it to the reader to decide whether those two arguments are parallel or not. As for "sidestepping" the unsupported assertion that the Christian God "must" be judged non-existent, wrong, or irrelevant in our affairs -- that sort of falls short of what's really at issue, doesn't it? I mean, shouldn't the challenge be to show that "God, Allah, Vishnu, and any other God people worship and equally believe gave them their morals, are equally irrelevant in their claims to be the one justifiable source of law"? It is in fact the authority of a body of people to rule themselves, that this body of people known as "these United States" insists upon being the law of that land. Is every person hypocritical to insist they -not- be ruled by other's religious ideals, but rather by ideals which can be mutually agreed upon, yet don't harm or oppress others? That, I think, is a pretty consistant philosophy, and it has been working to make this country better for a very long time. And in twenty years when Catholics outnumber every other type of believer in this country, will you support them in their claim that birth control is not "right", and that therefore nobody has the "right" to use it? I don't buy their, or Baptist's, or Muslim's gameplan, when it comes to defining "right" in a legal sense, based solely on their religious convictions instead of any kind of good for society-based argument.   Matthew T Pop Ouini, either you misquoted or misunderstood jkoenig. Christians do not claim their religion as their superior source, they claim God. There is a massive difference. Also, I was not asking for the parallelism in your arguments (the words are definitely "parallel") I was asking for parallellism in sex and skin color. (you are right, its not a question of sexual preference in that context).  At that point, the arguments become vastly unparallel. __________________ Matt Heerema *Self proclaimed CSS guru* www.mattandnancy.org   jkoenig Very clearly spoken, ouini. The fact that everyone must decide whether or not God is relevant to our society needs no support, because deciding is unavoidable.  If God is important to you, what He has said will affect your votes.  If not, then not.  Each of us makes that choice with each opinion we form. These United States are predominantly Christian.  You aren't required by law to like that.  It was founded by Christians.  You aren't required to lend that credence.  Its laws have been based on Christian ideals.  You are free to explain it away.  For as long as more voters are willing to vote with Christian principles rather than against them, I will be the happier, and you may be more frustrated, and vice versa. In twenty years, if those who choose to live this life without God become dominant, rather than the Catholics you ponder, and oppress Christians with hedonistic ideals that are harmful to our bodies and souls, regardless of how many people agree with those ideals, then you can certainly call that "good".  I certainly won't. And I and other Christians won't sit back and let that happen easily.  We are going to vocally and visibly continue to stand for what we believe, for what previous generations of Americans have believed, and resist the slide into moral relevancy with everything we've got. You've lept to a conclusion, so allow me to do so as well.  The fight to remove God from every aspect of our society possible is not a well-intentioned effort toward equality and common good as it has been so slickly packaged by the likes of the ACLU and others.  It is a targeted struggle to specifically mute Christian influence, and not other religions.  Most of those in this fight would celebrate if they could look into the future and see fewer churches, Christians bullied into silence, and wild, openly-defined standards of morality. And yes, specifically Christianity is targeted, because it is the most effective force at permanently, radically changing people's lives for the better.  Those who don't like what that "better" represents are threatened by it. Edited by jkoenig on August 27 2003 at 5:10pm ouini Thanks again for the compliment, jkoenig. Matt, again, it's not the parallel between sex and skin color, it's the parallel between discrimination based on sex, and discrimination based on skin color. (Or even more precisely, the terrible failings of logic in claiming that everyone has equal rights when either argument for discrimination is used). Exactly what point is vastly unparallel between these failings? jkoenig, I agree with you in part. Everyone must decide whether or not God is relevant to our society, and it is unavoidable. It's a form of the old "God before King, or King before God?" question asked throughout the ages. But the way you describe it makes it sound reactionary to me. Saying that hedonists, by demanding equality, are trying to oppress you (how?) and eventually this kind of thing could cause you bodily harm (how?) sounds like anxious hyperbole. There is no fight "to remove God from every aspect of our society possible." I believe the ACLU is well-intentioned (in fact, I believe all "sides" to this and many similar debates believe themselves well-intentioned) rather than pernicious. In fact, the majority of people on both sides of all these issues are Christians themselves, and definitely not trying to target it specifically. They are targetting inequality. To have Christians bullied into silence is exactly the opposite of what's being fought for. And "wild, openly-defined standards of morality", are on nobody's agenda but the fringe. But I don't expect to convince you of any of this. The one thing I do partially agree with you on is that *some* (not most) would celebrate if they could look into the future and see fewer churches. Certainly not me, and not the majority of those for equality. But I have seen a few angry atheists, Muslims, and ex-Christians out there, who carry a big chip on their shoulder. They don't consider that the pendulum, swung too far out of balance in *either* direction, is a disservice to fairness and equality. Right now, Muslims in the Middle-East are saying to themselves "yes, specifically Islam is targeted, because it is the most effective force at permanently, radically changing people's lives for the better. Those who don't like what that "better" represents are threatened by it." I think that's a terribly presumptuous statement. I stand by my theme that presuming you know the argument of those who oppose you, better than they do, is misguided, and simply way off base more often than not.   Matthew T Pop ouini wrote: Matt, again, it's not the parallel between sex and skin color, it's the parallel between discrimination based on sex, and discrimination based on skin color. (Or even more precisely, the terrible failings of logic in claiming that everyone has equal rights when either argument for discrimination is used). Exactly what point is vastly unparallel between these failings? This fact: not allowing a black person to marry a white person is discrimination. Not allowing a man to "marry" a man, or a woman to "marry" a woman, is sticking to a definition. __________________ Matt Heerema *Self proclaimed CSS guru* www.mattandnancy.org   jkoenig Substituting "Islam"  in my statement was pretty funny.   And, the contradiction speaks for itself. Edited by jkoenig on August 28 2003 at 2:52pm   ouini All I can say, Matt, is that it is spooky (to me) how you can adamantly deny a parallel in the reasoning which is obvious (to me), especially given that sticking to a definition and discriminating are in no way two mutually exclusive things. Matthew T Pop what is spooky to me, is that hug smiley Tell ya what.  I think you and jkoenig are right.  We have asserted our viewpoints exhaustively.  And what it comes down to is this: are you going to acknowledge God or not? If not, as I've stated earlier, I see no reason for any sort of morality whatever.  I think the issue of marriage dies if you take God out of the picture.  Why even bother? BUT, if God is in the picture (which indeed, he is, like it or not...)  Then we have two choices:  Acknowledge what he has to say, or ignore it. Knowing that God exists, I must acknowledge what he says, I'd be a fool not to. I am not denying an obvious parallel, I am acknowledging the nature of reality.  Marriage is God's creation, not man's.  A union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not, in fact, marriage, it is immorality. If God did not exist, then things would be vastly different, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion, in fact, we wouldn't be here. That's all I can say. __________________ Matt Heerema *Self proclaimed CSS guru* www.mattandnancy.org ouini Okay, you made me laugh at work with the hug smiley comment, so I'll leave it to you to explain things to the folks giving me the hairy eyeball. And in general, well put, Matt. We can agree to disagree on these many points. You don't see (or maybe "acknowledge" would be a better term?) the parallel of arguments of old (like, "A union of a black and a white is not, in fact, marriage, it is immorality"), but I personally do. You see the two sides of the issue as acknowledging or ignoring God, but I personally do not. The thread is pretty exhaustive at this point. It should be able to speak, if not sing "Modern Major-General," for itself by now.   jkoenig There's been some denial on this thread about the insidious nature of the homosexual agenda with children.  There aren't many choices, here.  Deny this happens, refuse to deal with it, or look into the future and make sure it is one that you want to have. CDC-Funded Sex Ed Programs Draw Fire Tuesday , September 09, 2003 By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos WASHINGTON — Taxpayer funds are being used for school sexuality education programs that subvert the idea of abstinence for teens and target children as young as 9 years old with lessons on masturbation, condom use and homosexuality, say opponents of the courses. < language=>OAS_AD('Middle'); The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (search) came under heavy fire last year for its "Programs That Work" (search) initiative, which offers a number of lessons targeting different age groups from elementary school through high school. But Robert Rector, a public health researcher at the Heritage Foundation (search), said he has learned that the lessons continue to be taught in schools around the country despite the fact the Bush administration pulled the plug on the program. “These programs, I can say with confidence, are still being promoted through the CDC — even though they are trying to hide it,” Rector said. A CDC spokeswoman denied that the agency has continued officially promoting the controversial programs, but stands behind their efficacy for high-risk youth populations. Kathy Harben also did not deny that the programs might still be employed by public health organizations and schools. "We are backers of teens being abstinent," Harben said, adding that "Programs That Work" has nonetheless been "proven to be scientifically effective" for certain populations. She also that that the CDC continues to fund other safe-sex programs that might be considered controversial by some.  "Our bottom line is our communities are the best judges about what are the best programs for their schools," she added. Pro-safe sex organizations say the Bush administration is doing a disservice to schools and students by emphasizing abstinence-only programs over what they call “comprehensive sexuality education.” “It’s more than just about the plumbing, about how the body functions,” said Adrienne Verrilli, spokeswoman for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (search) (SIECUS), which has so far received over $500,000 from the CDC as part of a five-year cooperative agreement for school health projects. “We also stress the importance of the relationship, and communicating,” Verrilli said. “It’s not as if we don’t want people to delay sexual activity, that’s what we all can agree on, but we want to talk to kids in a comprehensive way.” Among the programs that the CDC was "putting to work" before the order to kill them were: — Becoming a Responsible Teen: Originally designed for teens from 14 to 18, it suggests in a list of recommended activities a trip to the grocery store to examine the different kinds of lubricants for condom use. — Be Proud! Be Responsible!: Designed for adolescents from 13 to 18, it includes “brainstorming” about different ways to make condoms sexy. It also includes role-playing situations involving “negotiating safe sex” in bisexual and homosexual relationships. — Focus on Kids: Designed for youths 9 to 15 years of age, provides “condom hunts” at local markets and a condom race to see who can apply the condom fastest. Rector said all of the programs give the concept of abstaining from sex a nod, but the emphasis on condom use and sex play is over the top. “It’s not as if every word in them is bad, but they have a considerable amount of material that no sane parent is going to want their kid exposed to,” he said. SIECUS, comprised of a public health and education network as well as a lobbying arm that works with the leading gay and lesbian organizations, feminists, HIV/AIDS and pro-choice groups, has developed its own “Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education.” The guidelines, published in 1991, cover 13 very broad subject areas "from communications skills to proper medical information to assisting parents with talking to their kids," Verrilli said. “They’re not a curriculum, they are really a pick-and-choose for communities,” she said. Among the choices in the guidelines are recommendations to teach children as early as 5 years old about masturbation and homosexuality. As early as age 12, children might be learning about having fantasies about other kids of their own gender, mutual masturbation to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases, and that legal abortion “is very safe.” Verrilli said with 20,000 copies in circulation, the guidelines “have become the most widely recognized and implemented framework for comprehensive sexuality education across the country.” The SIECUS Web site also recommends several other links for teens, including Planned Parenthood’s Teenwire (search), and Columbia University’s Go Ask Alice (search).  All offer graphic descriptions of sex acts, how-tos for so-called safe “sex play” and other hints and suggestions for achieving sexual pleasure. Opponents of safe-sex education point out that many organizations that provide resources like these get some form of state and federal assistance to pursue their agendas, and say that taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going. “All these things in schools are funded with government money, it’s their bread and butter,” said Brian Camenker, president of the Parents’ Rights Coalition (search) in Massachusetts, which has gone head-to-head with Planned Parenthood (search) and other groups in front of the state legislature. “[They] stand to lose money if parents stop these programs. They never want parents to have a choice,” Camenker said. Groups heralding the candid approach say talking openly with kids who are going to have sex anyway gives adults an opportunity to offer them information and options to avoid STDs, HIV/AIDS and unwanted pregnancies. They say critics would rather tell kids not to have sex and leave it at that. “It’s not the abstinence we object to, it’s the abstinence-only programs we object to because they are dangerous and they do not work,” said Jim Farrell, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood, which says teens armed with information about safer sex methods use them when they become sexually active. “We want to give them the skills and information to delay the activity until they can have a mature experience.” Camenker, who has two kids in the public school system and has been vilified by gay rights' groups for his activism, said he has heard this justification before, and is sickened by it. “This is about selling sex to kids, and a lot of people don’t realize it,” he said. Edited by jkoenig on September 09 2003 at 1:32pm ouini I'd hate anyone to read the above article and believe what was being insinuated: that educating uninformed youth about safe sex is perverted, does more harm than good, and is being methodically applied in an unscrupulous and gross manner to children far too young to be anything but harmed by it. Heaven forbid a method that has been proven effective in high-risk populations be implemented. I don't think anyone on this board who actually reads the "Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education" would think its purpose is anything but informative, aimed towards preventing abuse, disease, and pregnancy. People might only read the article, see the phrase "see who can apply the condom fastest," and get worked up over misconceived images of a bunch of kids in a room with their pants down, putting condoms on each other or something. I guess to fight any misconceptions, I'd encourage anyone interested in what the guidelines really say, abstinance and all, to read them themselves (instead of just an attack upon them). They can be found at http://www.siecus.org/pubs/guidelines/guidelines.pdf Though I still don't understand what 'insidious nature' the widespread homosexual agenda of equality has, I do understand that many will assume it has something to do with this article. Something bad. What, exactly, I have no idea. We can't deny that sex happens amongst uninformed youth. We can't afford to refuse to deal with it, or the look into the future will be bleak indeed. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. jkoenig You have responded rather unfairly to the article above, considering that a lot more research and detail went into its writing vs. the cursory, surface-level look you took at one activist site's homepage.  Arguably, activists with an agenda don't hang out the dirty laundry they want to own, but don't want anyone to see.  Should we all believe what militant environmentalists tell us on their websites when they burn factories and vandalize cars? There is a relatively small but effective group of people who want to indoctrinate against, or otherwise subvert traditional morality, under the guise of "education".  There is a larger group of people who don't want to face this, because it feels to them like their controversial viewpoints would be undermined at the hands of their mouthpieces for those viewpoints. I've taken the article above and made a 1:1 substitution of sexuality and kids with another issue that is also popular with our youth.  This issue is also a harbinger of emotional problems in their development, presents a public health risk, and can negatively affect their future adult lives -- so it is quite parallel.  The wording is all the same except substitution of the issue.  If you were to read this article, what would your response be?  Be honest.  If your response would be different, ask yourself why.  Don't make any assumptions.  Read carefully. WASHINGTON — Taxpayer funds are being used for school body modification education programs that subvert the idea of avoidance for teens and target children as young as 9 years old with lessons on body piercing, tattoos, and implant options, say opponents of the courses. < language=>OAS_AD('Middle'); The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (search) came under heavy fire last year for its "Programs That Work" (search) initiative, which offers a number of lessons targeting different age groups from elementary school through high school. But Robert Rector, a public health researcher at the Heritage Foundation (search), said he has learned that the lessons continue to be taught in schools around the country despite the fact the Bush administration pulled the plug on the program. “These programs, I can say with confidence, are still being promoted through the CDC — even though they are trying to hide it,” Rector said. A CDC spokeswoman denied that the agency has continued officially promoting the controversial programs, but stands behind their efficacy for high-risk youth populations. Kathy Harben also did not deny that the programs might still be employed by public health organizations and schools. "We are backers of teens avoiding body moification," Harben said, adding that "Programs That Work" has nonetheless been "proven to be scientifically effective" for certain populations. She also that that the CDC continues to fund other safe-piercing & tattoo programs that might be considered controversial by some.  "Our bottom line is our communities are the best judges about what are the best programs for their schools," she added. Pro-safe body-modification organizations say the Bush administration is doing a disservice to schools and students by emphasizing avoidance-only programs over what they call “comprehensive body modification education.” “It’s more than just about the appearance, [it's] about how the body functions,” said Adrienne Verrilli, spokeswoman for the Body Modification Information and Education Council of the United States (search) (BMIECUS), which has so far received over $500,000 from the CDC as part of a five-year cooperative agreement for school health projects. “We also stress the importance of the relationship, and communicating,” Verrilli said. “It’s not as if we don’t want people to delay body-modifying activity, that’s what we all can agree on, but we want to talk to kids in a comprehensive way.” Among the programs that the CDC was "putting to work" before the order to kill them were: — Becoming a Responsible Teen: Originally designed for teens from 14 to 18, it suggests in a list of recommended procedures, [including] a trip to the plastic surgeon to examine the different kinds of available implants. — Be Proud! Be Responsible!: Designed for adolescents from 13 to 18, it includes “brainstorming” about different ways to make tattoos sexy. It also includes role-playing situations involving “negotiating safe surgeries” in sex organ enlargements and animalistic implants like horns and tails. — Focus on Kids: Designed for youths 9 to 15 years of age, provides “body jewelry hunts” at local markets and a jewelry race to see who can apply earrings, a tongue barbell, belly ring, and nipple rings the fastest. Rector said all of the programs give the concept of avoiding body modification a nod, but the emphasis on body piercings, tattoos and animal imitation is over the top. “It’s not as if every word in them is bad, but they have a considerable amount of material that no sane parent is going to want their kid exposed to,” he said. BMIECUS, comprised of a public health and education network as well as a lobbying arm that works with the leading body modification organizations, tattoo parlors, body-piercing shops and animal imitation groups, has developed its own “Guidelines for Comprehensive Body Modification Education.” The guidelines, published in 1991, cover 13 very broad subject areas "from communications skills to proper medical information to assisting parents with talking to their kids," Verrilli said. “They’re not a curriculum, they are really a pick-and-choose for communities,” she said. Among the choices in the guidelines are recommendations to teach children as early as 5 years old about tattoos and body-piercing. As early as age 12, children might be learning about having breast implants, not exchanging body jewelry to avoid communicable diseases, and that legal horn and tail implanting “is very safe.” Verrilli said with 20,000 copies in circulation, the guidelines “have become the most widely recognized and implemented framework for comprehensive body modification education across the country.” The BMIECUS Web site also recommends several other links for teens, including Planned BodyArt’s Teenwire (search), and Columbia University’s Go Ask Alice (search).  All offer graphic descriptions of implants, how-tos for so-called safe body piercing and other hints and suggestions for achieving social acceptance. Opponents of safe-body modification education point out that many organizations that provide resources like these get some form of state and federal assistance to pursue their agendas, and say that taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going. “All these things in schools are funded with government money, it’s their bread and butter,” said Brian Camenker, president of the Parents’ Rights Coalition (search) in Massachusetts, which has gone head-to-head with Planned BodyArt (search) and other groups in front of the state legislature. “[They] stand to lose money if parents stop these programs. They never want parents to have a choice,” Camenker said. Groups heralding the candid approach say talking openly with kids who are going to have their bodies modified anyway gives adults an opportunity to offer them information and options to avoid infection, HIV/AIDS and unwanted side-effects. They say critics would rather tell kids not to have body-modifications and leave it at that. “It’s not the avoidance we object to, it’s the avoidance-only programs we object to because they are dangerous and they do not work,” said Jim Farrell, a spokesman for Planned BodyArt, which says teens armed with information about safer modification methods use them when they become socially sensitive. “We want to give them the skills and information to delay the activity until they can have a mature experience.” Camenker, who has two kids in the public school system and has been vilified by body modification rights' groups for his activism, said he has heard this justification before, and is sickened by it. “This is about selling body products and services to kids, and a lot of people don’t realize it,” he said.   Edited by jkoenig on September 11 2003 at 10:48am Back to Top   jkoenig What I am driving at, here, is simple.  Whenever a minority group with a controversial opinion wants to legitimize it, it becomes natural, even logical to target younger and younger populations.  Kids are impressionable and everyone knows that.  Get their support, and you get more of what you want in your future society. It certainly would not work for the gay agenda to ignore influencing kids.  That makes their crusade to legitimize their activity among adults that much more difficult. Did it work any differently among cigarette companies for years?  Even as they denied targeting youth, the reports came out later that they researched and planned such targeting.  The nation cried foul and shame.  Where were the people arguing the kids' rights to smoke? What about the beer commercials of the 1980's - another big controversy - and accusations at the liquor industry of targeting kids with ads with barely-drinking aged people depicted drinking and partying.  Where are we today?  We hardly think about it anymore, and problems with kids drinking, especially in high school and college, has been relegated to an attitude almost like the sex-education agenda.  "They're going to drink anyway .. so the RESPONSIBLE thing to do is teach them not to drive drunk." In fact, I could have re-written the article above and substituted smoking, drinking, drugs ... they all have health risks, they are all something kids have access to and are doing, they are all for social acceptance ... the parallels are overwhelming. So, like the open sex agenda, do we sacrifice our children on the altar of "freedom", justify it with if an if you can't beat them, join them mentality, and start having more education programs about responsible tobacco, alcohol and drug use? One might weakly argue that sex among minors isn't illegal.  You know what? It should be.  I think it has been in years long gone in many states, or maybe still is except no one enforces it anymore.  We gave up the ghost.  It should be for all of the same reasons tobacco and alcohol is -- it's harmful if abused, kids aren't mature enough not to abuse it, it arrests the intellectual and emotional development, can lead to violence (what is date rape to a kid with raging hormones?) Ultimately, this should all be common sense, and shouldn't require legislation, but there are so many people turning sense over backwards that we need laws to keep health and order. You can't compartmentalize sexuality and say it is normal and unavoidable for kids.  It most certainly is not normal and it is avoidable, but only with a no tolerance approach.  Only abstinence-only education achieves this.  Teaching kids "how-to" have safe sex is handing them over to their own destruction as much as how-to do anything else that is "bad" for them. What is it going to be?  Tell kids they can have and do literally anything they want as long as they do it "safely and responsibly", be hypocrites and say yes to some vices and no to others, or start acting like responsible adults ourselves and cutting this crap out?  What the Fox news article was writing about, in any form, fashion, severity, time, State or philosophy is crap and it needs to be stopped. Denial is no solution. ouini Whenever -any- group, minority or not, with -any- opinion, controversial or not, wants to legitimize it, it's logical to target youth. The object can be to simply get their support and to tell them to ignore dissenting opinion (as with some of the more fundamentalist or extremist ideologies), or in the case of unpopular or regionally taboo topics (things to do with diversity of race, religion, or anything with drug or sexual content that parents are often afraid to talk about) it can be to get them to look at all sides of an issue, since they may get a very lopsided or peer-pressured view of it through the mainstream culture they're likely to encounter in day-to-day in life. It would not work for the gay agenda, the partisan political agenda, the cigarette companies' agenda, or the civil right or even the religious right agendas to ignore influencing kids. As you say, that would only make their crusade to legitimize their activity among adults that much more difficult. In this case, sex education is about explaining what life-altering issues everyone has to deal with in the real world relating to sex. It's not something they can be told about and then choose to ignore forever, like body-alteration. Hormones and sex are part of all humans' lives whether they want it to be or not. Their knowledge of it, its benefits, and especially its consequences, positively or negatively influence all those who have to deal with the many and often conflicting messages they're given about sex through family, their friends, teachers/adults, strangers, and incessantly the media practically every single day. Those messages include and are 'targeted' at everyone, and don't wait until you have a high school diploma to start. Yes, you could have re-written the article above and substituted smoking, drinking, or drugs. The parallels are overwhelming. And indeed, schools should educate youth about those things, the difference being that sex necessarily becomes practically universal to everyone eventually, whereas those others do not. Why not think through the cost/benefits of sex like we do other everybody-risks that teens are pushed to do, like driving a car? Most people accept some level of risk, and try to reduce it (with seat belts, maintenance, defensive driving, etc.) Also, there just aren't many positive things to lecture about smoking, or drinking, or drugs, or body-altering. Wheras with sex (like driving), it is seen as a socially accepted norm (and good, in fact) by practically every adult (including those promoting 'abstinence only'). To not seem hypocritical, it's probably a good idea to explain *why* it's fine sometimes, *why* it's not fine at other times, and *how* to be safe about it. Schools don't exactly teach driving abstinence to 12 year olds, because 12 year olds don't get bombarded with pressures to drive SAP. It would be great if all this information were common sense, but it's not. And parents who are afraid to talk straight with their kids about what the kids see everyday in today's world are more rare than common. Abstinance only, as it's commonly implemented, is an ineffective fear-based teaching technique. The fear is usually aimed more at the women. All the abstinence only programs SIECUS reviewed explained condom failure rate as a cumulative effect (false). They also often say condom use doesn't effectively stop AIDS (false, and this only encourages sex without condoms - it's easy to rationalize not using condoms when you're told it won't protect you). The majority of the programs reviewed by SIECUS had gross medical inaccuracies in them. Many of these were just plain stupid. And all the abstinence only programs associate themselves with a 'religious right' moral point of view, which also alienates those who have differing or no religious beliefs to support that morality. Now, to tie in with this thread's original topic, they also have a decided anti-gay bias, as waiting for marriage assumes everyone is straight and able to marry, and will have children. Besides ignoring the fact that many people will not have children or get married, it completely alienates all homosexual students. Schools are not the guardians of morals. Schools should be offering objective age-appropriate material on homosexuality, abortion, choice, gender equality and contraceptives. Schools should be providing the necessary, medically correct information that will allows children and teenagers to make their own decisions if a time comes when they have to. They should quite literally leave the teachings of gender biases, sexism, and religious morals at home. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   lpool Sorry to derail, but the length of your posts begs the question....do you guys have jobs? Back to Top   jkoenig You are comparing issues as if they all start on equal footing.  This is false and therefore faulty reasoning.  Moral and immoral behavior lose all meaning if we are going to call every human urge amoral and unjudgeable. It is not extremist to be extremely moral.  It is extremist to be immoral and teach others to do the same. As you have admitted that those with immoral agendas may well wish to influence children, do you still deny that gay-interest groups are attempting to recruit youth, or do you just object to the word "recruit".  If you call it "influence" or "educate" does that change the nature of what they really do? Conversely, what is wrong with adults having a moral agenda with children?  There is nothing wrong with that.  There is something wrong with an immoral one.  The need to call everything equal and amoral is the stilted attempt at removing this distinction in order to avoid normal, healthy, natural stigmatisms that come from immoral behavior. I'm sorry if my directness is felt, here, but to say that schools and public money have any business teaching controversial issues of morality to children is 100% flatly wrong.  That is not what public education of children is for.  That it has stumbled into that realm is a very big error. Sex is not allowed at school.  Neither are drugs, cigarettes, lewd behavior, body mutilation, or any other morally challenging activity.  They are not permitted because they are not conducive to educational learning, and because it is not an open environment for those activities, it is not the place to teach about them, period.  School is for learning truly amoral skills .. Math, objective sciences, athletics, reading (amoral material).  All moral education must be left to the home and faith organizations.  That a few parents (rare as you say) abdicate their responsibility to actively parent not only does not impart that responsibility to schools, it does not give anyone the right to undermine all of the responsible parents' raising of their children by teaching topics of controversial morality. Appallingly, special interest groups want to be able push their controversial agenda on children and simultaneously not have a level playing field by pushing religion and especially Christianity out of public education so completely that creationism cannot be taught as an opposing point of view, a football game cannot be opened with a voluntary prayer, and abstinence cannot be taught because it doesn't work.  That is insanity, by the way to say it doesn't work.  It has only not worked when kids haven't avoided sex as a result.  Who can postulate that?  The radicals relate abstinence to religion as a way of arguing its ouster, since religion and public life are taboo.  It's a shell game. So you need to separate between fact and fiction.  I am not opposed to having no mention of religion in public education -- but there better be no mention of sex, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or any other harmful behavior for children much less adults other than it is not tolerated in any form at school.  Kid, got a question about it?  Take it home or to a private organization willing to work with you on that issue.  There are plenty and it starts at home.  But you will not explore it or practice it here or face disciplinary action.  If you don't like zero tolerance policies, too bad.  Deal with it.  School is not the place for these issues. Now tell me, what is so terribly wrong with that?  You talk about fear-based teaching techniques ... then don't attempt a response to this question by peddling fear about unwanted pregnancies, disease, violence, or any other "than this might happen unless schools allow special-interest groups to teach kids with public money" answer.  That would be ridiculous.  Kids with those problems have those problems because of poor parenting, because of no moral foundation (as apposed to an amoral foundation), not poor schools.  Public education delving into these areas have done nothing to advance our social condition, because as such education in public increases, it encourages too many parents to be all the more afraid and reluctant to "talk straight" with their kids. The formula you are unfortunately advocating is a formula for failure and it is failing our children, dramatically.  It is tragic and shameful the levels and amount of sex, drinking, drugs, cult worship, body mutilation, obesity and disrespect of authority that has become endemic in our children to the point that we are calling it normal, to be expected, and to be controlled rather than stopped.  Society now only wants to keep it to a dull roar and on the back burner, out of the way, and then claim success.  BS. Don't contradict yourself.  How can you possibly put together your last paragraph which opens and closes with how schools should not teach morals sandwiched around sentences about how they should teach on morally-immersed issues?  It's intellectual salad. This won't be PC and too bad.  Get sex-ed out of schools.  Gay marriage and gay anything is not for children to hear much less be targeted by.  They're children, for God's sake.  A nine year old or a 15 year old should not be having sex, much less taught how or thinking about which gender to do it with.  Wake up, America. Edited by jkoenig on September 11 2003 at 2:14pm Back to Top   jkoenig I think I work for your employer, lpool.  (Is that your 909th post?) Fling away, but it might come back. Back to Top   lpool Post count.....not real.  Just having fun being a mod.  Also, don't take that question the wrong way, I know if I was making posts as long, eloquent and as informed as you two, it would take me an hour per post! Back to Top   Matthew T Pop Zero Posts?? lpool Yep.   Matthew T Pop That is amazing. You have so many posts, it went back to zero. _________________ Matt Heerema *Self proclaimed CSS guru* www.mattandnancy.org   ouini I agree. It is not extremist to be extremely moral. But what is judged immoral is based on how it affects society, not by arbitrary and often conflicting religious conviction. Both those with immoral -and- moral agendas, or even -conflicting- moral agendas, wish to influence children. I do deny that gay-interest groups are attempting to recruit youth, unless by recruit you mean 'avoid unwarranted prejudice'. What is the nature of 'what they really do', which you object to so? As I think I said, nothing is wrong with adults having a moral agenda with their own children. There is nothing wrong with that. But is the morality you'd like in school religious morality, or is there some actual, demonstrable or at least reasonably deducible, negative social impact (something conspicuously missing from this thread so far)? Issues only condemned by religion, and not by any evidence of harm, is what parents, church, and non-state community is for. I won't discuss creationism here, since that issue is so very far removed from the Gay Marriage issue I can't see it belonging in this thread. Feel free to start a new one if you like (I'm kind of surprised it hasn't been started already!) But relatedly, special interest groups do want to be able push religion (and especially Christianity) on children. The reason abstinence is not taught is because it doesn't work. Studies show that abstinence only programs don't decrease diseases, teen pregnancy, or sex among teens. The CDC released a fact sheet on HIV prevention a while back that said just that. And that, conversely, sex ed doesn't increase teen sex, in fact it virtually always delays sex or increases use of contraceptives. I wouldn't have nearly the problem I have with abstinence-only if it worked, but it doesn't. In addition, it supports only what is proper, moral behavior based on one group's religious beliefs, in a government institution. The above paragraph is important, because what I'm saying there is that, if abstinence only ed actually worked better than sex ed, and if it were taught without pushing religious morals on the kids, I'd be for it. In fact, in some towns where the teen sex rate is already low, and the students live on safe streets, the just-say-no thing might be adequate. But that's getting to be a rare town in America, and so it doesn't (work), it does (push), so I can't (condone it). The formula you are unfortunately advocating is a formula for failure, and it has been shown that it is failing our children. Reuters released a study a while back showing how backwards America is in this regard. In the Netherlands, where sex ed along with free contraception is available to all teens, the teen pregnancy rate for 15 to 17 year olds dropped to less than 1%. In America? That same age bracket is almost 10%. Sex is not tolerated at school. But if a kid has a question about it, they should know their teachers are ready and willing to help them if they can't take it home, and don't have access (or feel comfortable) going to a private organization willing to work with them. School should be a safe place, with teachers who can help. I mean, think about it. If a kid gets involved with drugs, and actually needs and wants help, but his parent(s) do drugs themselves, where better to go than somewhere the kid goes for 8 hours every day, anyway, and where he knows and trusts the grown-ups, who have offered to help if such a thing ever happens? What is so terribly wrong with that? Public education that talks straight with the students actually encourages them to talk straight with their parents. And sex ed does inform teens that abstinence is best. The difference is that teens in high risk groups, that would most likely have sex anyway, learn alternative methods of protection. Where did I contradict myself? Unless schools teach "shoulds", they aren't teaching morals. If they teach the true failure rate of condoms, what adolecents can expect to feel, how it can be dealt with, and the consequences of dealing with it with way A or B (in other words, biology and physics), how are they teaching morals? I say again, schools should be offering objective age-appropriate material on homosexuality, abortion, choice, gender equality and contraceptives. If you mean that there are religions which don't like contraceptives, or gays, and therefore kids shouldn't know they exist, then what about the religions that think women shouldn't be in schools? Shouldn't we avoid letting them in school to avoid the controversy? Of course not. Teach objectively, about real-world consequences of actions, and leave the morality to the parents. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. rufus Genuine Member Joined: May 03 2003 Location: United States Posts: 4 Posted: September 22 2003 at 4:36pm | IP Logged | Report Post I have now read this entire post.  I acknowledge I have many of my own biases.  That being said, I would like to share something. My understanding is that this thread became a discussion of the question, "Should gay marriages be (dis)allowed in the U.S. legal system?"  I pose the question this way to avoid all the semantics regarding if they are currently allowed or not.   This question seems to morph to the statement: "unless gay marriages are harmful to the individual or to society, there is no good reason for government laws to prohibit them."  The result seems to me to be a discussion about gay marriages being "good" or not "good" for society. Throughout nearly this entire post, there seem to be 2 sides presented, which I will term viewpoint 1 and viewpoint 2.  Viewpoint 1 attempts to answer the question, defining the "ultimate good" as measured by society, and specifically as measured by what is not harmful to the individual nor to society. Viewpoint 2 appears to place God as the determiner of ultimate "good".  Specifically the God is defined as the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. The problem that seems to emerge to me after all 4 pages of the discussion is that both sides come to the table with presuppositions about "good".  Viewpoint 2 seems to believe that the Bible is quite clear on this issue stating that God is opposed to it.  Still, the perspectives stated are a *person's* opinion derived from their understanding of the Bible.  Viewpoint 1 seems to leave undefined the standard for judging harm to the individual and to the society, most likely because it is not a concrete standard. It seems, at least to me, that what results is a argument or discussion where the presuppositions were not well defined.  What I see is really 2 questions remaining that I believe would show the true differences in the presuppositions. 1. Who judges what is "good" and by what standard?  (How do I determine if something is harmful to the individual? This might seem like a no brainer, but it still is based on opinion, paradigm and perspective.) 2. In regard to government laws, where are they to be derived from?  Inevitably they will be influenced by the belief system of the people from whom they are derived.  So when many belief systems are all represented, how should the law reflect that?  Should the law reflect only thought shared by all belief systems represented?  How should it be determined? Finally, I have one more question to both sides of the argument:  Who or what determines what is someone's "right"?  I have seen many times statements concerning the "right's" of many different people groups, and specific to this thread, gay rights.  These are just some thoughts I've had about the opinions shared.  Please feel free to respond to any of them  Edited by rufus on September 22 2003 at 4:49pm Back to Top   jkoenig Rufus, The analysis of argumentation can be enjoyable, but I find it to be rarely constructive to leading to decision unless it is done within the scope of the question being debated. What I mean is that you are replacing the question being debated with two much more fundamental ones that are necessarily much larger in scope and would take much more than 4 pages to bear out. In order to get very far in any debate, many assumptions are naturally made.  Even your two replacement questions above encompass assumptions.  For instance, is being good better than being bad?  Is the concept of a standard necessary to judge good vs. bad?  Can things that are unpleasant still be good?  Is harm to be judged individually or collectively?  Should we have government laws?  Can one person have more than one system of belief simultaneously? Philosophy is sometimes an annoying science, because it never reaches conclusions -- it only asks larger and larger questions until you are floating in confusion.  Philosophy is often abused to throw out all decisions entirely and end up with pure anarchy and egalitarianism.  They are limitedly interesting concepts, yet peacably unachievable states of being .. a dream beyond reality for an imperfect and morally-oriented existence.  (You see, even in that last statement are two huge assumptions that some would infinitely argue  -- are we imperfect?  Are we morally-oriented?) So rather than generate tens of thousands of more words postulating questions of ever-increasing scope, I'd love to hear whether or not you think homosexual marriage should be disallowed and why.  One or more of us may then either agree/disagree based on claiming different standards and sources of those standards, or based on logical reasoning, but at least we'll all be able to continue following the discussion. ;)   Back to Top   jkoenig As an addendum, I should add that in debate (and IMHO) the hardest skill is limiting scope-creep.  Anyone can argue.  Some people can do it eloquently, clearly, and even convincingly.  Few if any can do it and never be guilty of scope-creep. In all humility, no matter how I try to fight this, I am often guilty of it and will be again.  It's just another part of being human and wrestling with the issues. However, at the proverbial "end of the day", you have to make your choices and live with them.  As Rush, one of my favorite bands, sung it: if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. And if there is a God, its our choices that are going to make or break us.  If we all get credit just for trying, then God has nothing to offer us, and debate is worthless.  We might as well just kill each other into homogeny.  I think believing in God is a bit more survivable. ouini rufus, Excellent post. You make good points, though I'm going to agree with jkoenig that A) Rush is fantastic, and B) with regards to the topic, metadiscussion broadens rather than focuses scrutiny on the issue. I think that, given a couple of basic assumptions, the issue needn't encompass the question "what constitutes good," at least in the philosophical context you seem to be portraying it. Your second question, though, is very relevent. From where are government laws derived? Traditionally more than today, laws which were framed as addressing moral issues were based upon nearly universally held values of the constituency. But as our country's population and religious and political persuasions propagated, they've had to become based on shared values of more widely varying belief systems. As our country has matured and continually scrutinized its own past actions, it has often tried to eliminate laws and practices based on assumptions which are now understood to be prejudicial, and/or which once accurately described the beliefs of the supermajority, but simply do not any longer. Everyone in this discussion, I think, agrees that the law should not contradict the Constitution. And *most* agree that laws should not be made which do not serve a practical and enforcable purpose. I think the point of friction in this discussion is whether or not a law should be made, when a law relies upon a religion's perspective to answer those questions. And more importantly, if a law arguably passes those first two litmus questions, whether one religious view out of multiple conflicting beliefs can legitimately be a sole basis for creating a law. As for your third question, "Who or what determines what is someone's "right"? Well, *with respect to law*, the simple pragmatic answer is: the supermajority. Philosophically, I place it right next to the lofty question "what constitutes good?" I, too, would like to hear any reasoning you may have to offer on whether same sex marriage should be (il)legal, whether you include your own personal opinion or not. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   jkoenig By Steve Brown CHICAGO  — Marriage (search) has its advantages -- but some think the nation’s laws give married couples too much favorable treatment, and the only way to even the playing field is to de-legalize the institution. A group of legal scholars and gay advocacy groups are calling for marriage to be de-legalized in order to make the distribution of benefits more fair for people who aren’t married, including gay couples. University of Houston (search ) Law School professor Victor Flatt cites social security, immigration, tax benefits and travel benefits as some of the perks married couples receive. "Their idea is why should you be treated differently by the law just because you're married," said David Blankenhorn at the Institute for American Values (search). "Why should society hold up one particular family form and say we protect and support this family form but not others. That would be their main argument." But opponents say the idea of de-legalizing marriage is a ploy by gay rights advocates. "There's no lengths to which they won't go,” said Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America (search). “And of course it undermines traditional marriage and we cannot allow them to do that." Yet Rios is adamant about keeping one form of marriage de-legalized -- gay marriage. Later this year conservative groups hope to introduce an amendment to the Constitution that would not only define marriage as a union between a man and a woman but would also nullify state laws that grant gay couples equal status to heterosexual married couples. Edited by jkoenig on October 09 2003 at 10:10am Back to Top   jkoenig COMMENTARY The State of Our Unions By ANDREW SULLIVAN It didn't take long for many social conservatives to ponder the long-term implications of the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down all antisodomy laws in the U.S. Moves are afoot to advance a constitutional amendment that would bar any state's legalization of same-sex marriage; next week is "Marriage Protection Week," in which the alleged danger of Lawrence v. Texas will be highlighted across the country. This push toward blanket prohibition, however, sidesteps a basic point about the post-Lawrence world. Whatever you feel about the reasoning of the decision, its result is clear: Gay Americans are no longer criminals. And very few conservatives want to keep them that way. The term "gay citizen" is now simply a fact of life. In retrospect, this might be the most significant shift on the question of homosexuality in a generation. For if homosexuals are no longer criminals for having consensual private relationships, then they cannot be dismissed as somehow alien or peripheral to our civil society. Moreover, the social transformation of the last decade cannot simply be gainsaid: A poll this week for USA Today found that 67% of the 18-29 age group believe that gay marriage would benefit society. The public as a whole is evenly split on that issue. Many of the people favoring a new tolerance are Republicans and conservatives. And this is inevitable. When the daughter of the vice president is openly gay, it's hard to treat homosexual citizens as some permanent kind of Other, as a threat to civil order and society. * * * But if conservatives have now endorsed the notion of homosexuals as citizens, they haven't yet fully grasped the implications of that shift. Previously, social policy toward homosexuals was a function of either criminalization or avoidance. People who are either in jail or potentially subject to criminal sanction are already subject to a social policy of a sort. You may disagree with it, but it's social policy on the same lines as that toward drug users or speeders. It's a form of prohibitionism. But when all illegality is removed from gay people, as it has been, that social policy surely has to change. AMERICAN CONSERVATISM This is the 12th in an occasional series1. So what is it? What exactly is the post-Lawrence conservative social policy toward homosexuals? Amazingly, the current answer is entirely a negative one. The majority of social conservatives oppose gay marriage; they oppose gay citizens serving their country in the military; they oppose gay citizens raising children; they oppose protecting gay citizens from workplace discrimination; they oppose including gays in hate-crime legislation, while including every other victimized group; they oppose civil unions; they oppose domestic partnerships; they oppose . . . well, they oppose, for the most part, every single practical measure that brings gay citizens into the mainstream of American life. This is simply bizarre. Can you think of any other legal, noncriminal minority in society toward which social conservatives have nothing but a negative social policy? What other group in society do conservatives believe should be kept outside integrating social institutions? On what other issue do conservatives favor separatism over integration? We know, in short, what conservatives are against in this matter. But what exactly are they for? Let me be practical here. If two lesbian women want to share financial responsibility for each other for life, why is it a conservative notion to prevent this? If two men who have lived together for decades want the ability to protect their joint possessions in case one of them dies, why is it a conservative notion that such property be denied the spouse in favor of others? If one member of a young gay couple is badly hurt in a car accident, why is it a conservative notion that his spouse not be allowed to visit him in the intensive-care unit? In all these cases, you have legal citizens trying to take responsibility for one another. By doing so, by setting up relationships that do the "husbanding" work of family, such couples relieve the state of the job of caring for single people without family support. Such couplings help bring emotional calm to the people involved; they educate people into the mundane tasks of social responsibility and mutual caring. When did it become a socially conservative idea that these constructive, humane instincts remain a threat to society as a whole? And how do these small acts of caring actually undermine the heterosexual marriage of the people who live next door? Some will argue that these and many other benefits and responsibilities can be set up in an ad hoc fashion. You can create powers of attorney, legal contracts and the like, if you really need to. These arrangements can be enormously time-consuming and complex, and they don't always hold up in courts of law, of course. But even if they did, isn't it a strange conservative impulse to make taking responsibility something that the government should make harder rather than easier? One of the key benefits of marriage, after all, is that it also upholds a common ideal of mutual support and caring; it not only enables such acts of responsibility but rewards and celebrates them. In the past you could argue that such measures were inappropriate for a criminal or would-be criminal subgroup. But after Lawrence, that is no longer the case. The question is therefore an insistent one: On what grounds do conservatives believe that discouraging responsibility is a good thing for one group in society? What other legal minority do they or would they treat this way? If a group of African-Americans were to set themselves up and campaign for greater familial responsibility among black couples, do you think conservatives would be greeting them with dismay and discouragement or even a constitutional amendment to stop them? It is one thing to oppose gay marriage (some, but not all, conservative arguments against it are reasonable, if to my mind unconvincing). But it is another thing to oppose any arrangement that might give greater security, responsibility and opportunity to gay couples. At times, the social conservative position is almost perversely inconsistent: Many oppose what they see as gay promiscuity; but even more strongly, they oppose any social measures that would encourage gay monogamy, such as marriage. What, one wonders, do they want? In this, they actually have lower standards for now-legal citizens than they do for incarcerated criminals: Even murderers on death row have the constitutional right to marry, where the institution could do no conceivable social good. But for millions of citizens currently excluded from such incentives for responsibility, conservatives are prepared even to amend the Constitution to say no. If this debate is to move forward, a few simple questions therefore have to be answered: What is the social conservative position on civil unions? What aspects of them can conservatives get behind? What details are they less convinced by? These are basic public policy questions to which social conservatives, for the most part, have yet to provide an answer. It's well past time they did. Mr. Sullivan, a senior editor of The New Republic and columnist for Time, writes daily for andrewsullivan.com2. Back to Top   jkoenig The Fox article I posted above is more or less a "what's happening" article. The 2nd article I posted above (Wall Street Journal) is more or less what ouini has been arguing. Someone I know responded to the 2nd article as follows: The real problem with mainstreaming homosexuality and adding it to the marriage covenant is its weakening of the nuclear family. The nuclear family, headed by two parents of the opposite sex, serves as the platform from which human children are launched into the world. It is also the union sanctioned by God. Men and woman are different to compliment one another as a design of their creator. The strength of the nuclear family is the strength and order of any nation or society. Weaken it, and the rest will weaken as well.   Marriage "rights" and "benefits" exist [also] for the children, not [only] the marriage partners. Homosexuality is an aberration from the biological norm and is a sickness at the very least. To treat it as a choice and an OK way to be is in complete denial of this fact. So homosexuality has always been with us....so has heart disease, cancer, and the flu. The Bible is quite clear in this area.   In responding to Sullivan's question to conservatives .. the answer is that conservatives cannot both be religious and consistent in their social policy as Sullivan defines consistency.  This is only a conservative vs. liberal issue because more conservatives relate their social policy to their religious beliefs than do liberals.  However, this traditional tie is even eroding among conservatives (as it also has on the abortion issue.)  I'm sure liberals consider this a wonderful development.   In these days of using endless combinations of words and disjointed reasoning to redefine nearly every philosophy (which necessarily begins with the belief that the human mind is the highest form of thought and capable of anything), we are forced to keep the argument against gay marriage as simple and straight-forward as possible.  I would define it this way:   God exists. God made all we can observe. God's creation works best when it operates within His design. There is both direct and indirect evidence that His design does not include Gay union. The direct evidence is His Word (Scripture - prophets, Jesus, Apostolic authors of the Epistles) The indirect evidence is that Gay sex cannot bring forth children (natural law)   None of the above are difficult to conceptualize.  They have been held as true for as long as we have records of mankind's social history.  They have also endured even though homosexuality and examples of minority deviant behavior has co-existed with it.   For those who wish to support gay activity and union, regardless of their personal motivation, they need to unravel the above.  They must believe that:   Gay sex being unable to create children will be "corrected" by a future medical miracle, or is otherwise inconsequential, as long as most people still choose to be straight and have kids in their place. Scripture is fictional. All "evidence" against gayness is therefore denied. All that we can observe has no design or framework that we can not or should not overcome or re-interpret. God either does not exist, or can exist for any individual who is free to define who God is and what He represents, but since that means each person's concept of God is different, He cannot logically really exist without being too mixed up Himself to really have any opinions.   The social trend seems to be running toward the left.  What can we reasonably expect to see in our future?   Since God is practically not relevant (according to the left), and since there is no such thing as natural law (natural difficulties perhaps, but they only constitute challenges for us to overcome), then the institution of marriage is a headache that should be thrown away.  In fact, one article above already advances this notion.  In fact, fidelity or sexual loyalty between two people really doesn't any longer make any sense.   Clearly, children only need one parent to be cared for, and if they have two, and it doesn't matter what their gender is, why should it matter who they are at all?  Why can't who the parents are change over time?  Who has the right to infringe upon me and tell me I can't have multiple co-parents for my children, or designate different co-parents with me depending on my sexual partner for the day?   Who has the right to infringe upon me and say I can't have two or more sexual partners, simultaneously or separately?   Who has the right to infringe upon me, when I am still a minor under the age of 18, and tell me I can't have sex, with anyone I choose, whenever I want?   Who has the right to infringe upon me and force me to be responsible for children I don't want, just because the girl I dated didn't use birth control or terminate her pregnancy beyond my wishes, since I have no right to infringe upon her and tell her what to do?   Who has the right to force me, as a girl who had a child, to be responsible for children I don't want, just because the boy I dated didn't use birth control byond my wishes, or the birth control otherwise failed?   Why can't we trade children for other children we like better?  We trade everything else in an open market .. who has the right to infringe upon me and keep me and my neighbors, each of us wanting the other's children, from trading them in a private, legal, closed transaction?   Why are there any rules at all?  As long as I'm not physically harming or limiting another human being, who has any right to tell someone else how to behave?  Isn't this freedom what we all want?  Let's simplify the law to just a few basics and just live and let live already.   Why indeed.   Maybe we need rules, because there are many behaviors that even if they (arguably) don't present us with a physical danger, they present us with emotional ones .. which lead to physical dangers anyway.  (Doesn't an emotionally damaged child grow up and present physical dangers to society many times?  Don't jealous partners become physically dangerous?)   Maybe we need rules, because emotional harm, while harder to define and measure, is still very real and can damage a peaceful, orderly, and productive society.   Maybe we need rules, because no matter how much we use philosophy to redefine who we think we are ... we are who we are and it is practically impossible to change emotional fabric inbred in our very existence.   Maybe we need rules because without them, chaos ensues, and we end up, sooner or later, back where we started - killing for food, shelter, and basic survival.   Maybe we need rules that are carried-over generation to generation and that are timeless, because the masses of people in a free society like ours are too shortsighted to imagine that seemingly minor changes to today's rules could ever produce an impact on their little domain significantly different from the short time they have experienced on this planet.   Maybe we need rules that were not written by our own limited, self-serving minds so that they are truly fair and harmonious with a design on life that is not our own.   Maybe we really do need God, and even though we may not like a rule for a time, we eventually grow up to realize that it was in our best interest all along, just like, as parents, we teach our children that they cannot always demand their rights, but need to practice sacrificing what they want in the interests of another.  Does anyone still teach their children that, or is it now also politically incorrect?   We all have a theology.  The leftist theology is a me-first theology.  All human philosophical thought is a me-first theology.  Christian values, including marriage and sexuality, supercede our natural me-first, 1st-person centered, egocentric orientation that we ALL start with.  Christianity gives us the choice to replace our base impulses with purposeful, mindful, specific decisions to sacrifice what we may want to do or say at the moment in favor of doing what is best for someone else or for all of us as a group, and we learn that when we behave that way, it truly is best for us as well and BONUS, it pleases God and He smiles.   Christian values are self-parenting (really God-parenting) with a consistent, loving, disciplining and rewarding experience.   Leftist theology believes it can produce a better experience.  I have pointed out some of those better experiences above that are to come.  They sure don't look so great to me. Back to Top   wbovenmyer Wow Jeff!  That was awesome...my opinion is that you should write a book or become a lawyer.  The long entry was intimidating, but well worth the read. Edited by wbovenmyer on October 09 2003 at 12:24pm ouini That argument, to me, seems to be a mix of rationalizations and falsehoods. But mostly it's an appeal to emotionalism. Its main points were: 1. homosexuality in marriage weakens the nuclear family 2. Homosexuality is a sickness 3. To be a good conservative, you have to be against homosexual marriage 4. Just because we can't find a reason on earth to deny equality to others (homosexuals) doesn't mean we shouldn't deny equality based on religion and tradition. First, the nuclear family, with an additional 'for the kids' argument. Considering how many children would be better off being raised by two same sex parents than languishing in orphanages and foster homes, it's odd that anyone would aim to prevent adoption / marrying / fostering. And as for how allowing people to marry would weaken a traditional marriage, I've never seen an answer to that one yet. As a side point, people should remember, the issue we've been discussing is with denying *state-recognized* marriage, not *religious* marriage. It's too bad, really, that these two institutions have the same name, because they impart such a totally different set of legal rights and implications for morality. There it no heated debate here as far as I can tell about religious marriage, which is where I would think the author's appeal-to-another-world argument would be held more valid. The two types of marriage are not the same thing. But oddly, people who claim religious motivation for challenging same-sex marriage are rallying behind opposing *legal* marriage. Which type of marriage do you suppose God recognizes? Second, homosexuality *is* statistically an aberration from the majority. But of course, any minority is an aberration from the majority. To go further, and try to pin homosexuality it to biology alone, and then call it a sickness without evidence of such, is the same as calling left-handed or bald people 'sick'. To treat something harmless as anything but an OK way to be is to come to an a priori conclusion, rather than a logical one. Homosexuality, like left-handedness, attached-earlobe people, and religious folks, has always been with us. Why, again outside of purely religious conviction, assume it's an illness or sickness? Third, I agree that political conservatives cannot easily be both religiously conservative and Sullivan-consistent. This is because religious conservatives, especially in the past ten years, are *self-identified* with being anti-gay, which is privacy-intrusive. But political conservatives used to be identified with being anti-fed/pro-privacy. It is a quandry for some, which I think was the point Sullivan was making.   The fourth and final argument -- that extra rules need to exist just for rules sake -- is, to put it bluntly, recognizing that there is no other reason for discrimination against gays to exist. The emotional harm he posits may come from gay marriage would be a reasonable argument, if there were any evidence or reason to believe that such an effect would occur and be worse for society than equal rights would be good for society.   To claim that because gay sex cannot bring forth children is evidence gays don't belong ignores the more suggestive fact that gays do exist and cause no harm. Or that sterile people exist and get married, and nobody argues against their right to do so. It's coming to a desired conclusion instead of building a logical argument. There is no need to unravel a contradiction, since the contradiction only exists in his mind. Again, it might be a different story if we were discussing religious marriage instead of state (legal) marriage.   Saying that allowing gay marriage means that fidelity and sexual loyalty no longer make sense, begs the question of "why?". In fact, most of the argument from then on is really just a diatribe, using the slippery-slope fallacy again and again to say that if gay marriage is allowed, children only need one parent, parents can change over time depending on the sexual partner for the day, underage free sex is okay, responsibility for unwanted children is pointless, trading children is all right, and rules in general are pointless. Maybe we should look at the reasoning used to enforce rules case-by-case, and avoid clinging to useless prejudices simply for tradition's sake. Yes, that seems more likely. And arguing that the other camp is arguing for me-first rules, and that your own camp is for humanity-first rules, when the rule you're trying to enforce is one which adversely affects others but not yourself, is about as disingenuous and me-first as one can get. You don't need to misrepresent 'the opposition' to drive your own point home, if your point is valid. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   jkoenig This week's part in the WSJ series on this topic: October 16, 2003 COMMENTARY The Marriage Buffet By DAVID FRUM A week ago, the writer Andrew Sullivan issued on this very page a challenge to political conservatives: Now that the Supreme Court has declared that homosexuality can no longer be considered a crime, what do you think it is? If homosexuality is not a crime, on what grounds can conservatives justify denying homosexuals any of the rights they seek, including the right to marry a person of the same sex? In short, there is a demand that conservatives state some kind of "policy" on homosexuality. Something like 25% of the American population describes itself as "conservative." That's nearly 75 million people. It would be hazardous to generalize about what this large population thinks or does not think on the subject of homosexuality. Some no doubt think it a terrible sin. Others surely regard it as a harmless preference. A good many of them are no doubt homosexual themselves. But if I had to guess, I'd guess that the very large majority of American conservatives have for many years regarded homosexuality as something that just is, and that should be tolerated in the same spirit of live-and-let-live with which they tolerate all the other variations of the human species. But for some advocates of change, "live and let live" is not enough. They are riding a very fast train, and it does not halt at any stops between the criminalization of homosexuality and full state recognition of homosexual relationships. But there are many such stops, and marriage is the most important of them. * * * Let's start with a basic premise: The gay marriage debate is perceived by many as a debate about gays. It is not. It is a debate about marriage. As always seems to be the way, we've come to understand the importance of marriage at exactly the moment that the institution is approaching the verge of collapse. A generation of social scientists has documented the benefits to children of growing up in a father-mother household; yet today, an American child has less than a one-in-two chance of reaching the age of 18 in the same home as both of his or her parents. That fact should concern us all. And any changes in family policy ought to be directed at one supreme goal: improving children's odds of growing up in a stable home. Allowing same-sex marriage would reduce those odds. That's not an assertion; it's an empirical observation. In the past decade, same-sex marriage or something like it has entered the law of eight countries: Denmark, France, Hungary, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and, most recently, Canada. Each has its own distinctive approach to the matter. But in all of them, the push for same-sex marriage has had the same result. Rather than get into a fight with religious organizations for whom the term "marriage" refers to one of their own sacraments, governments try to mollify everybody by creating a new legal category very similar to marriage, but not exactly the same. France, for example, has enacted into law something called a Pacte Civile de Solidarite, a registered partnership that grants any two people who live together a bevy of rights while holding each responsible for the other's rights and obligations. Compared to marriage, a civil pact is harder to get into (some of its benefits do not arrive until a couple has been together for two or even three years) and much easier to get out of. That is very appealing to couples nervous of marriage -- and these days, who isn't nervous? It's been estimated that some 40% of the couples entering "civil pacts" are heterosexual. Something similar is going on in Canada, only there the categories are even blurrier. A couple that simply lives together for two years automatically and without any formal act acquires many of the rights of a formally married couple. The exit from a relationship is just as blurry as the entry: In one famous case, a Canadian court ordered a man who had divorced his wife before he became wealthy to pay her an increased settlement based on the income he had begun to earn after the marriage ended. Now think about what this means. Marriage used to have a bright clear line: you were married or you were not. It was a serious commitment -- and most people understood that if they weren't ready for this commitment, they ought to postpone having children until they were. Today, in France and Canada and other places, marriage is a continuum, a series of gradations between true singlehood and formal matrimony. A woman who is cohabiting with a man in Canada or is pacted in France might well be deceived into thinking that her family situation is stable enough for her to have a child. But she would be wrong. The average cohabitation in Canada lasts only five years. Her government has told her that she is the next-best-thing to married; but from the point of view of her children, the next best thing is no good at all. Many American advocates for homosexual marriage understand all this, and for that reason oppose "civil pacts" and "domestic partnerships" and "common law marriages" just as fiercely as any social conservative does. They want to restore the bright line too -- only with same-sex relationships on the farther side of it. But if that has not happened even in Sweden or France, where organized religion is powerless, it certainly will not happen in the U.S. The much more likely outcome in this country would be the spread of a crazy-quilt of differing systems of "marriage-lite" across the country: California might have a domestic partnership law that grants virtually all the rights of marriage to registered couples; Michigan could have one that treats partners as married for inheritance purposes but not tax purposes, while Oregon did the reverse. Some states might require domestic partners to do some affirmative act: sign a book, buy a license, etc. Other states might just treat any couple that lives together for two years or three or five as if it had registered. Still other states might do both. And then there would be the question of federal rights: immigration, Social Security, federal tax law, and so on, just to make the whole problem more complicated. It is highly unlikely that these proliferating domestic partnerships would be offered to same-sex couples alone. That might even be unconstitutional, a deprivation of equal protection, but certainly it would be politically impossible. Every American city and state that offers domestic-partnership benefits offers them equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. The result of a national trend toward same-sex marriage would be that the young people of the country would be presented with 50 different buffets, each of them offering two or more varieties of quasi-marital relationships. In such a world, the very concept of marriage would vanish. It would become impossible to tell young people "Don't have children outside of marriage," because they would not even know -- until it was too late -- whether they were "inside" a marriage or not. The rich and the smart would protect themselves of course. They could hire lawyers to draft personal contracts, itemizing and detailing their responsibilities to each other and to their children. The non-rich and the non-smart would stumble into trouble, and their children would begin life even more severely disadvantaged than they already are. You need a very strange definition of progress to regard such an outcome as a progressive reform. Mr. Frum is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. This essay is part of an occasional series. Back to Top   jkoenig ouini, what you listed as the "main points" #s 2, 3 & 4 to my last post were very wide of the foul line.  In fact, they can't be found at all in what I wrote.  Rather, I postulate that the "points" you listed were just perceptions that you wanted to create and then respond to.  Perhaps, in this context, accusing me of disingenuousness is not well-placed. My 2nd main point was that you must be willing to deny the authority of God and scripture and replace it with the authority of the human mind and human philosophy as the highest form of reasoning.  As before, you sidestep this completely.  Why?  What is the highest authority that you yourself claim for your value system?  State in plainly. My 3rd main point, supporting the 2nd, is that the philosophy required to justify homosexual marriage must, by logic and ration, permit other redefinitions or unraveling of previously accepted, socially normal behavior in domestic relationships.  The point was a question -- if we can allow homosexual marriage, using the same logic, why can't we also allow polygamy, accept sex openly among minors, treat children as moveable assets between relationships, etc.  You didn't respond. My 4th main point, answering the 3rd, is that the 3rd may sound absurd, and it should, but the logic being argued by the left does not prevent it.  In essence, my point is that rules are necessary, and their source must also transcend humanity or else they will not persist and humanity will take the short-term, me-first viewpoint as is its undying tendency.  My running theme has been that this is exactly what is happening.  You did not respond to that. Therefore, much of what you wrote may be your opinion on various perceptions that you hold, but not relevant as a response to what I wrote. Your only credible response to point one is simply unconvincing.  I say that because you offer only one proof of your rebuttal - which is an unsupported assumption.  My parents fostered a number of children, and I currently have a co-worker who just began fostering.  These children are not languishing by any definition.  In fact, their well-being is significantly improved over the unmarried (read: non-nuclear) parent they came from who does not want them and will not care for them.  Your theory is that it is better for these children to be with a gay couple than a stable, married, heterosexual couple (read: most) foster parents?  You can't back that up.  As for orphanages, I don't know of one that is not actively attempting to place every one of its children in loving, stable, nuclear homes.  Based on the experience of friends who are being discriminated against by left-dominated social welfare offices, these kids could be being placed in homes and are not because of the political viewpoints of otherwise excellent foster-parenting candidates.  Nevertheless, all an orphanage is, is a state-funded home.  Structurally, it is no different from a halfway-house, a fraternity house, or a Ronald McDonald home.  It is a place to live safely and receive basic care until better accommodations can be found.  I think you are playing on the misinformed perception that all orphanages are like those of "Annie" in the 1930s. Your following "side-point" and much of the rest of your last post is reflected in the last WSJ article I just posted.  The article and what I have written are all quite logical and easy to follow.  Your evasive statements that these arguments are pointless, a slippery slope, producing desired conclusions fallaciously, etc. are circular, to be polite. ouini jkoenig, I just responded to what I saw written in your friend's essay (or was it yours? You mentioned "someone you knew" responded to Sullivan's article, but maybe that was just a few sentences worth?) Anyway, I only responded to points I re-listed practically verbatim -- they can be found in the post prior to the one I wrote. When you ask "why" someone, in this case American society, would deny the authority of God and scripture (at least as many human minds interpret it) and replace it with the authority of the human mind and human philosophy (in this case American society, the Constitution, and collective government as a whole) as a highest form of reasoning, I guess I'd respod that that is the only authority which all of America can respond to. To force some people's interpretation of their scripture over other people's interpretation of their scripture (or interpretations of the Quran, or Talmud, or no holy book at all) is not government by the people, it's theocracy. This boils down again to the loggerheads at which we keep finding ourselves -- basing laws to enforce inequality on an interpretation of a religion rather than a non-sectarian, non-religious compelling state interest. Justifying homosexual marriage may or may not lead to redefinition of some other traditional domestic relationship (which one(s)? exactly how?), but personally, I'm just trying to find a single, logical, social-harm motivated reason for disallowing equality for gays in marriage. That's all. If you want to argue some other point, make your case plainly, don't just paint with a broad stroke taht homosexual marriage means polygamy, sex among minors, bad treatment of children, etc. There are arguments against each one which you didn't explore (some stated earlier in this thread, in fact). That rules are necessary is, I think, undeniable in livable society. But to think their source must transcend humanity for them to persist is, I think, untenable and, even more to the point, unshowable. And as far as whether children would be better off being raised by two same sex parents than an orphanage (or foster homes, or a parent who doesn't want them) -- would you like some references? And did you have any references to support your claim, or even a clear verifyable/falsifiable claim to make? A single, stable foster home is obviously better than a parent who doesn't want a child. But too often foster homes aren't like your friend's home. Remember, we're talking about a reason to deny homosexuals rights. What, a stable, married, heterosexual couple fostering children is better than a stable, married, homosexual couple fostering (or better yet, adopting!) children? You can't back that up. Studies show gay couples do great raising kids, and overall a family (even a non-traditional family) is better for these kids than an orphanage. And as for how allowing people to marry would weaken a traditional marriage, I've never seen an answer to that one yet. I'll look at the WSJ article in a bit. jkoenig, I'm not being evasive, truly. I'm trying for open honest dialogue, here. I'm earnestly looking for one -- just one -- demonstrable or reasonably deducible reason to deny equal rights for gays. I haven't gotten that so far, just a lot talk about tradition, my-religion-should-be-implemented-as-law, and slippery-slope arguments which ignore the point at hand (SSM). __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   matt ouini wrote: I'm trying for open honest dialogue, here. I'm earnestly looking for one -- just one -- demonstrable or reasonably deducible reason to deny equal rights for gays. I haven't gotten that so far, just a lot talk about tradition, my-religion-should-be-implemented-as-law, and slippery-slope arguments which ignore the point at hand (SSM). what is this, our third time around in a circle? I think what's going on here is that so far, a majority (slight as it may be) believe that gays ALREADY have equal rights. (like i said, we've talked about this before). They have the right, the same as anyone else, to marry someone of the opposite sex. [/shocking statement number 1] Scripture cannot be left out of the argument, because without it, there is no reason to get married in the first place. [/shocking stament number 2] __________________ Matt Heerema *Self proclaimed CSS guru* www.mattandnancy.org Back to Top   ouini Matt, are you talking about legal recognition of civil marriage and the hundreds of legal rights it grants to the spouse, or about religious marriage in the eyes of God, when you talk as if the slight majority's desire to keep the status quo dictates what *ought* to be done? Me, I think what a slight majority believes is right vs. wrong, solely on undemonstrable moral qualms, should have next to no legal bearing. You've appealed to majority for which laws should be passed, and on scripture as well. I'm appealing to neither. And in talking about legal marriage, as opposed to religious marriage, why do you feel scripture cannot be left out of the discussion? How can you expect the people of the United States to ever agree to implement the laws of one religion, when it's so antethetical to the very first amendment in the Constitution? And upon which religious doctrine would everyone agree, anyway? You say there is no reason to get married without scripture, but does that mean you believe that there is never reason for a non-Christian to get a legally-recognized marriage? I think that's demonstrably untrue. I don't think anyone believes that gays have equal rights in general -- that isn't really under dispute here (again, the military doesn't kick you out for being straight), but wrt this discussion, and equating equal marriage rights to "They have the right...to marry someone of the opposite sex," yes, we've been over it and stated our positions too many times to dredge it up again. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   matt What I'm saying is, without God, why bother getting married? For the financial benefits? That's about the only thing I see.   So then why do people get married? Because they are in love? NO. Because they want the financial benefits that the legal state of marriage offers. The thing is, whenever I hear someone arguing for same sex marriage, it "why shouldn't two people who love eachother be able to get married"? But their reasons for wanting marriage have very little to do with love, and everything to do with the material advantages that the institution of marriage allows for. __________________ Matt Heerema *Self proclaimed CSS guru* www.mattandnancy.org ouini Ahhh, you only see the enormous financial benefits, which, inferring from your post, you don't find a sufficient cause to get married legally? If so, I think I can help answer this quandry, and raise a few points as well. First, there are a lot of legal, as well as financial, benefits to getting married. The most important one is that the spouse, moreso than the next of kin of the spouse, has unquestionable rights wrt that spouse's well-being. And, in most of the cases where the spouse can't answer for themselves, can legally answer for the spouse, even over objections of the parents, siblings, and children of the spouse. I've mentioned some of these legal rights before, like hospital visitation, wills and living wills, child custody, decision-making powers for burial, etc. I mean, think about it -- if the point of legal recognition of marriage isn't legal and financial, what is it? What other practical reason does the state have for bothering with such a mess? Second, why do gays and lesbians want to get married? There's a variety of reasons, as various as the ones for which heterosexuals legally marry. If you ask a lot of religious married couples why they bothered to get state recognition of their commitment, they'll likely come up with the same set of reasons (not just one reason per couple) that gays and lesbians want to get married. They are in love, the monetary benefits, the legal benefits. And in fact, perhaps ironically, some will claim they want the tradition. That is, in this society -- in the "real world," one might very well say -- most of us learn very young that when you find a person with whom you want to live for the rest of the live, make a household, share your life, raise a family, someone whom you love that way -- then what you want is called "marriage." The people who advocate same-sex marriage live in that real world, where "marriage" is the word for this sort of serious relationship, and other words do not do justice to it. That's certainly not a logical stand-alone argument for SSM, but it's how a lot of people feel about marriage (on both sides of the issue). Finally, does this reasoning mean that hets who get legally married shouldn't be allowed to unless it's for love? I mean, if a man and a woman, who love each other or don't, decide to tie the knot for monetary purposes, are there people who lobby exhaustively to deny them this marriage? Is the country up in arms about this possibility? Of course not. Barely a peep is heard on this front. Rather, people are up in arms about *gays and lesbians* marrying. Not, for the most part, because they don't want to grant them the monetary priviledges hets can already have with a blood test and a pen stroke. Similar to the "but they can't procreate" argument, which falls flat once you realize that absolutely nobody strongly advocates sterile het couples not being allowed to marry. It's something else. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   ouini With regards to the above Wall Street Journal article, I believe it misses the issue of how allowing equal rights for gays in marriage (SSM) would harm society (or more specifically, children). It talks instead about how fighting over SSM pressures governments to create pseudo-marriages (such as civil unions, et al), which he says are harmful for children raised therin. His article makes a red herring out of, not SSM, but other forms of union. (As an aside, one claim of Mr. Frum's is interesting, but misleading. He says the benefits to children of growing up in a father-mother household are documented, perhaps unintentionally implying '...as opposed to same-sex parents'. It might not be known by WSJ readers that studies showing father-mother being better than same-sex parents are conspicuously absent, and in fact that that's shown to be false.) David Frum's pinion statement is that changes in family policy shouldn't harm children's odds of growing up in a stable home. Nobody would argue against that, I think. But his conclusion which follows ("Allowing same-sex marriage would reduce those odds") is never supported by his article. Rather, he goes on a long tangent about countries who's governments have, because of SSM's political unpopularity with conservatives, passed different types of pseudo-marriage, offering only a portion of marriage's benefits. (Belgium and I think Norway are the only two countries who offer full-blown SSM). His main argument that these pseudo-unions will appeal to those who don't want the commitment of marriage, yet will encourage heterosexual child-bearing outside of marriage more than is done today, in a non-ideal environment. But this still doesn't support his above claim. He goes on and on about 2nd-class marriages being unstable and not lasting as long and being bad for the kid, but ignores the SSM issue. (Sloppy statistic-wise, he said the average legal "cohabitation" length in Canada lasts only five years -- a very poor way to show that marriages would last longer. * He doesn't mention how long marriages last, * He didn't mention how long this law that now 'is going on in Canada' has been around -- if legalized cohabitation has only been available for a couple decades as opposed to lifetimes, then it's simple algebra to see the average will be shorter, *Painfully absent, he doesn't mention how many people end their cohabiting with marriage. And according to studies I only just Googled, the presence of children in cohabiting unions tends to increase the chances of marrying a cohabiting partner.) But this is all moot. All of it. It doesn't address how SSM would be bad for children. It doesn't even address how legalizing SSM would create all these pseudo-marriages he's trying to warn us about. The cause-effect of Allowing SSM --> civil acts which are responsible for shorter, less stable child-rearing households, which Mr. Frum is painting, just doesn't exist. It's missing from the above article. If you want empirical data, look at SSMs in Norway and Belgium. They exist. They do just fine. The 'problem' of quasi-marriage which Mr. Frum rails at is a completely seperate issue. Edited by ouini on October 24 2003 at 2:52pm __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   ambre I personally believe that it is too confusing for any child being raised in a non-heterosexual family. There is a little boy at the day care I work at whose parents have an open marriage and whose mom is bisexual. He spent the end of the second and the entire third year of his life convinced he was a girl.His mother had told him that and had even gone to the extreme of having a "ceremony" pretending to remove his "boy parts" and told him he could do it for good when he got older. This precious child refused to line up with the other boys and would cry if you tried to correct him. Now that he's four he decides on a day to day basis if he wants to be a girl or a boy. Tell me this type of confusion so early in life happens in heterosexual homes. What type of problems is this angel going to have to deal with as he gets older because of this "open minded" approach to sexual education.   Back to Top   nebrow ambre wrote: I personally believe that it is too confusing for any child being raised in a non-heterosexual family. There is a little boy at the day care I work at whose parents have an open marriage and whose mom is bisexual. He spent the end of the second and the entire third year of his life convinced he was a girl.His mother had told him that and had even gone to the extreme of having a "ceremony" pretending to remove his "boy parts" and told him he could do it for good when he got older. This precious child refused to line up with the other boys and would cry if you tried to correct him. Now that he's four he decides on a day to day basis if he wants to be a girl or a boy. Tell me this type of confusion so early in life happens in heterosexual homes. What type of problems is this angel going to have to deal with as he gets older because of this "open minded" approach to sexual education. What does this have to do with gay marriage? the situation you are speaking about is a heterosexual 'home (the woman is bisexual but is married to a man). This little boy is probably confused beacause he has messed up parents...not because the mom is bisexual. It it very sad and ignorant if you are using this situation to make your judgement on homosexual couples raising children. That iis the same as basing my judgement on heterosexuals raising children because i know someone who has been abused by thier heterosexual parents, i mean of course the abuse MUST be linked to the parents sexual orientation. Therefore heterosexuals shouldnt be allowed to raise children. Ambre your logic dosent work. Back to Top   Laura Genuine Member Joined: June 05 2003 Location: United States Posts: 3 Posted: October 26 2003 at 11:29pm | IP Logged | Report Post I don't know if this is my place, but I would just like to stand up for Ambre.  She left the computer for a few minutes and while she was gone, someone sent her post (which was not ready to be posted yet.)  So what was posted was not exactly what she intended to say.  But I do agree with her when she said that she thinks it is too confusing for a child to be raised in a non-heterosexual family.  Can you imagine a little kid in kindergarten trying to explain to his/her classmates that he has two mommies or daddies?  Back to Top   out_of_control it's bad enough having just one.  there is a huge amount of research that can prove that only having one parent can mess up a kid.  how much more so if the kid has two (or three) parents that have no interest in raising them up as a man or woman?  what then if those parents want to raise up the kid as something other than how they were born?  it's just a mess. i'm not a big fan of what's "normal" or "politically correct".  I am, however a fan of what is right.  telling your son that he is a girl is not right.  i don't need anyone to agree with me.  i know that is the truth, and not just the truth according to me.  It is the Truth. __________________ Don't play stupid with me... I'm better at it! -Confucius Back to Top   ErkRik ok, shooting the bunny here and getting back to the issue of gay marriage, i think situations like what ambre said are more common in a setting where sexuality and gender are seen as social constructs and whatnot instead of god-given attributes that are to be treasured and used for his glory....legally, i think once there becomes a more organized front for this issue i think it could pass, but one reason that would make me sad is because of the issue of raising kids, and knowing that even though there are so many kids in messed up heterosexual parent homes with issues like divorce, abuse and the like, right off the bat any kid raised in a homosexual home will be at i feel a disadvantage because there is no way they will know what it is like to have a mother and a father there, and as an effect have much less to base the idea of god on.....i feel that for those fortunate enough to have a great father here on earth that understanding god's role as spiritual father is so much easier......and im aware that these problems happen very often in heterosexual households as well, but i dont think that is an excuse to make things even more complicated and probably worse by introducing same sex union and allowing adoption on a large scale jkoenig Nebrow, Ambre was only attempting to point out that sexually confused homes make for sexually confused kids.  What is wrong with your logic is that you attempted to redefine an abuse of this child's sexual identity into general abuse, and then make a non-parallel analogy between general abuse by heterosexual parents and sexual identity.  You might go back and check your logic. Ambre's point is simple, and it does relate to the topic of this thread.  Ouini has continuously written (in a state of denial) that there is no empirical evidence that gay unions are harmful.  The affect on raising children is just one of many harms from gay union.  (Don't attempt to play divide and conquer on that statement .. everyone knows before they have even secured legal gay marriages, gays are already lobbying and in some cases getting custody of children.) "Ignorance" is lack of knowledge, but popularly thrown around by leftists at people standing up for traditional values to connote "backward".  It's rather comical, considering that homosexuality is backward to nature, God's position on the matter notwithstanding.  When a person is born with a natural ability to conceive a child with someone else of the same sex, then I will stand-down on gay marriage (with children).  I think I'll be around yet a while longer. ouini Thanks, everyone, for expressing your personal opinions on the topic. jkoenig and I have monopolized the thread ping-pong style for too long! :) ambre, nebrow: it seems to me that the issue of a messed up mom is seperate from the issue of same-sex marriages. This type of sexual confusion (or as it's portrayed, parental mental problems) happens in heterosexual homes as well. That is, a sexually confusing action by a parent shouldn't be generalized as a by-product of same sex marriages. Gender is a mostly social construct, and can be foisted on a child. I know of someone who is proof of that. She was raised (by mom and dad) as if she were male. She was encouraged to play rough sports and not allowed to wear dresses (which was ridiculous because she was way too tiny to compete with the boys). For sports, she says her gender shouldn't have been taken into account, but that her size definitely should have. She turned out okay, but what she didn't appreciate was that the choice wasn't hers growing up. Relatedly, out_of_control, I agree that insisting to your son that he is a girl is not right. Laura, can you imagine a kindergartener trying to explain to hir classmates that s/he only has a daddy (and no mommy) like the other kids have? Or in 1950 that hir mommy is black, and hir daddy is white? Children aren't born with prejudice against gays, or confusion as to how they could be a couple - they pick it up from parents, teachers, peers and the media. Stigmas exist only when asserted and perpetuated. What would be confusing would be people preaching about the need for committed, monogamous relationships, but then decrying sound gay marriages. Now, raising kids in a gay household may be rough because of those outside the family who hold prejudices may make it rough on them. But lots of folks are raised in overweight households. Or households in the extreme racial minority. Or households with a disabled parent. It's probably just as bad -- kids will be nasty about whatever is handy, and if nothing is handy they'll make something up. But we don't deny the right of the overweight or racial minorites to marry. So far I've found it hard to take seriously the opposition to legalizing same-sex unions based on the ground that it violates the "definition" of marriage. Making a claim that something cannot be done because historically it has never been done is tantamount to letting the past kill the future. Instead, I think the rational level of discourse should focus on the now and present. ErkRik, yours is the first example of a reason why SSM shouldn't exist I've come across which may have some merit to it. So I looked into studies done on kids raised by same-sex parents, to see if they are socially disadvantaged in some way (without both a mother and father). The studies I'm now aware of are clear enough that children raised in SS households do fine. There are dozens of psychological studies which have looked at kids with gay parents, but there are limitations to the research: There are long term studies underway looking at kids with lesbian moms, but there is no funding for research which includes a large random sample of kids. And there is very little research on kids with gay dads. For some reason, most researchers have looked instead at whether kids with gay parents are more likely to identify as gay themselves than kids with straight parents (they don't). However, all the studies, individually or as a whole, show no significant differences between kids with gay parents and kids with straight parents on a variety of psychological measures, including gender-roles, self-esteem, and others. Similarly, when all the studies of lesbian moms and gay dads are analyzed, there are few quantitative differences from their straight counterparts, though a 1999 univ of chicago study showed that in some ways, children of lesbian couples fare much better than children of married heterosexual couples. So, as I've written a number of times, I've still been shown no evidence, empirical or reasonably deducible, that gay unions are harmful. It hasn't been supported on this board (or at all, to my knowledge). jkoenig, I don't know how homosexuality's naturalness fits in with a child's well-being, or with equality, either. Has homosexuality has ever even been shown to be "unnatural" in any meaningful (or more to the point: harmful) way? So we then throw out equality based on things some believe unnatural? Do we stop people who wear glasses from having kids because they're likely to have worse eyesight than those of 20/20 parents? I'll wait until I hear that someone who opposes gay marriage (based on it not being natural) is standing up against sterile people (who are born without, or have had surgery to remove, their natural ability to conceive a child) from getting married, then I'll take more seriously their assertion that that is what bothers them about gay marriage. The reality is simply that lesbians and gay men and motss-partnered bisexuals for that matter are raising children. They are making families. It just is. Now, one can throw up barriers to make their lives more difficult than those of heterosexuals, retain tax codes that soak them more than heterosexuals etc., but one cannot stop them from having those families. They will have children. And they will take in children who have been cast out or left out or who have fallen through somehow, but the it serves those children no good purpose to make it more difficult, more expensive, even non-legal to do so. In short, a loving, stable household should be encouraged in whatever manner possible. Generalities that don't apply to most same-sex households raising children, shouldn't be allowed to decide what should be decided on a case-by-case basis. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   jkoenig We've lost our way in many more ways than one.  The art of rhetoric -- intellectual consistency and logical constructs -- they just don't seem to matter anymore.  People arguing for keeping to the issue ramble on with dozens of non-parallel analogies.  People arguing for social change constantly try to pin the burden of proof on those arguing against moral soup rather than proving why the destruction of an age-old standard should occur ... On the SSM issue, here's a good article highlighting what those of us arguing for some standard, heck any standard at all, are up against. http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000307.html I think it's fair to say I've brought far more references and links to this debate than anyone else -- I'm not trying to say what I have to say "just because I say so". Therefore, I'll offer one more reference.  This one even comes from a pro-gay organization (among other pro-"tolerance" agendas.)  From religioustolerance.org: Obstacles Preventing Accurate Studies of Sexual Orientation: "Unfortunately, the study of sexual orientation has many obstacles, not the least of which are bias, lack of accurate measurement techniques and self-delusion." The gay lobby has triumphed in using political power, money, and the web to absolutely bury the media with any claim it wishes to make, whenever it wants to make it.  This is so prevalent, and so unscientific, you just have to throw your hands up.  They make it easy for the non-gay modernist middle to point to their writings and yell "see", being convinced on the sheer volume of it. My final quote: (Thanks for this, Joe) "Watch you life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers."  1 Tim 4:16 As Christians, we are called only to stand firm.  We can't change minds that won't listen.  One of my flaws is failing to recognize when someone has long since stopped listening, and is only trying to dominate the airspace. We don't have to win the arguments, in fact we cannot because we play by rules that they don't.  We need only stand firm.  Our reward is assured, and the short amount of time we have in this life isn't measurable compared to the life to come.  The price that those who've placed their faith in this world are paying to have their way now is truly terrible.  Eternity is a very long time. ouini Whew, it's warming up in this flame room! I hope we all keep our respect for others on the board, if not for their posts. If the predominance of claims in media and on the web is an unfair or unscientific measure of an opinion, then I guess a higher number of references and links to media opinions and editorials must be worth just about nothing, as an implied argument for validity. Personally, I came into this thread stating my then current position, and I've stated repeatedly what kind of reasonable evidence it would take to sway me. As far as "minds that won't listen", I suppose I'd say one which is resolved at the outset to "stand firm", and which doesn't have a standard of discoverable evidence by which they could be persuaded from their PoV, seems the more entrenched -- seems as if they've "stopped listening" before the discussion has begun. But in the end, all people (myself included), of all ilks often (usually, I might guess) come to a priori conclusions based on personal beliefs and biases. *Then* they come up with post hoc rationales to convince themselves they're right, logic notwithstanding. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top jkoenig ouini wrote: I've stated repeatedly what kind of reasonable evidence it would take to sway me. I missed that, my apologies, because I've been waiting for you to give a rational and thorough example of just that.  Could you quote out a line from one of your posts where you provided this? Also, for the sake of those trying to follow this discussion, I'm going to make an analogy that does not advance any arguments re: SSM, but shows clearly what is wrong with "logic" that concludes that a given behavior is acceptable (a priori  ) unless scientifically proven otherwise.  It will also show the prevalent trend in America toward redefining virtually anything that paves the way for aberrant behavior. (The Bible calls this exchanging truth for a lie.) I did a google search on "sex children psychological harmful".  Strange, but I could not find any studies or professional statements saying consentual sex between children, between adults and children, or between parents and their own children was harmful.  It so happens that the Bible is curiously silent on this, with only some Old Testament Law verses forbidding sex between close relations, but no mention that they were children -- assumes that they were adults. What is so interesting about this is that in the New Testament, homosexuality was mentioned a number of times, but not these other possibilities I mentioned above.  What should we conclude? Guess what I did come up in that Google search?  The book "Harmful to Minors" by Judith Levine which endorses sexual pleasure betweeen "teen-agers and children", denouncements of critics of this book, and claims that "sex researchers and academics ... are making the startling assertion that not all sexual activity between adults and minors is necessarily harmful", calling widely held opinion against such activity "taboo", and calling for a relabeling of child sex abuse to the more politically correct term adult-child sex. Appalled yet?  It gets worse. There are professors and researchers of major universities all over the place claiming such activity is not necessarily harmful. Let's flashback to 1973 when, under left-wing pressure, the APA took homosexuality off of its list of mental disorders, even though the majority of its members did not agree.  Today, we have the situation ouini so strenuously defends.  Lots of statements for homosexuality being normalized drowning out the remaining pleas for common sense.  Sense is not now so common. Well, let's move 30 years into the future folks.  I am predicting now that there will be guys like a jkoenig and an ouini debating about child sex, amidst a widespread prevalence of it, and lots of "studies" claiming child-child and child-adult sex is harmless while sense becomes even less common still.  Sure, forced sex will still be wrong, but as long as a 12 and a 32 year old have sex consentually, who are any of us to tell them they can't?  (Let's bring forth the examples of the racial struggle of the 20th century and the gay struggle of the turn of the century, please!) Have I said anything disrespectful? ouini Terribly long. I'm sorry in advance. Most of this is in response to jkoenig's points and questions. jkoenig wrote: I missed ["what kind of reasonable evidence it would take to sway" ouini], my apologies Posted: August 01 2003 at 3:51pm | IP Logged "...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...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.)" Posted: August 06 2003 at 7:23am | IP Logged "...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." Posted: August 06 2003 at 10:21am | IP Logged "...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." Posted: August 06 2003 at 1:07pm | IP Logged "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." Posted: August 08 2003 at 4:11pm | IP Logged "...I'm becoming more and more convinced that there actually are no civil or state reasons to deny same sex marriage." Posted: August 11 2003 at 10:03am | IP Logged ..."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." etc. You've called me "disingenuous, because no reason would satisfy [me]." I disagree. To give really really specific examples, if, say, the studies I found on same-sex raising of children showed, not that they did fine, but rather that their raising of the children actually caused them more harm than in legally allowed families, I would have had to come out against gay parenting (adoption). Or if Belgium's rate of domestic violence has taken an upturn which has been shown to be the result of the allowance of SSMs, I would have had to come out against SSM. But in any case, have you given any suggestion, even broadly, that some discovered fact or argument would conceivably be able to change your mind? Remember, I'm not saying any given behavior is acceptable (a priori) unless scientifically proven otherwise. Rather, I'm saying that a legal right given to some, but not others, is unconstitutional. And unless there's some compelling state interest to deny those equal rights (including scientific evidence of harm to individuals, or even logically sound but not necessarily scientific reasoning of a harm to society greater than the benefit of granting equal rights), we should stick to our Constitution and the "equal rights" ideal. As far as proof of pedophilia / incestuous pedophilia being harmful, I think you weren't looking very hard for evidence. And I looked up what Judith Levine was really saying in her book, and quickly found the following Q&A with her: web wrote: ]Q: Are you saying there are no real sexual dangers to children? What about pedophiles on the Internet? What about AIDS? Levine: One of the main points of Harmful to Minors is to separate the real risks from those that are exaggerated or even invented. So let's look at these two examples. Pedophiles on the Internet: In spite of sensationalist press coverage, there is little evidence that the Net is crawling with child molesters. Yes, kids do from time to time encounter unwanted sexual chat online (though you never know if the sender is 15 or 55). The question is, is this dangerous? A recent study published in the New York Times showed that kids can deal with these messages. Most just don't respond, and the vast majority say they don't find them troubling or scary. It's like the flasher you might have encountered in the park when you were a kid. Those guys were usually pitiful. But when they were scary, you got out of there fast. In other words, you figured out the risk and dealt with it. Chances are, you didn't get put in therapy, or on the witness stand -- if you even told anyone about it. Should men flash little girls in the park or send dirty messages to kids' chat rooms? No, of course they shouldn't. Should people be punished for molesting children? Absolutely. Anyone who forces sex on any person of any age should be punished. But we have moved beyond appropriate responses to serious offenses to hyperbolic responses to offenses with unproven harms, such as the assumed harm to a child of involuntarily glimpsing a penis, or reading sexy language online. ...and this reviewer: web wrote: Despite what critics contend, "Harmful to Minors" is not about pedophilia. It tackles a wide range of issues including censorship, statutory rape laws, abstinence-only sex education, abortion, gender, AIDS, and child welfare. As Levine documents throughout the book with copious studies and reviews of news sources, fears of rampant pedophilia, child abduction, ritual abuse, and Internet sexual predators are at best exaggerated, at worst completely unsupported by evidence. For example, studies commissioned by Congress show that between 50 and 150 children are kidnapped and murdered by strangers each year, yet in a Mayo Clinic survey three-quarters of parents said they are afraid their children will be abducted. And a 1994 U.S. government report analyzing over 12,000 accusations of Satanic ritual abuse found "not a single case where there was clear corroborating evidence." ...Many adults recognize that they made mistakes in their youth and understandably wish to spare children similar missteps, especially in the age of AIDS. Yet too often, Levine contends, censorship and abstinence-only sex education are really an effort to hold back children's coming of age, offering parents an illusory "freedom from watching their kids grow up." In order "to give children a fighting chance in navigating the sexual world," Levine says, "adults need to saturate it with accurate, realistic information and abundant, varied images and narratives of love and sex." If a person truly has the good of young people in mind, one would hope he or she would be interested in what research has to reveal. "Harmful to Minors" offers a plethora of findings, from studies showing that exposure to sexually explicit images does not harm children, to evidence that teens' sexual relationships with adults are not uniformly devastating, to research on the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education in delaying sexual activity. Most of us came across sexual images in our youth, and most of us did not turn out to be sexual monsters. Further, there is no evidence that cultures in which explicit sexual imagery is prevalent (such as Denmark or the Netherlands) produce more sexual pathology than those in which such material is forbidden; in fact, there are indications that quite the opposite is the case. Experts agree that most young people engage in sex by the end of their teens. Clearly, attempts to prevent sex by withholding knowledge have been ineffectual in achieving that goal, but they have impeded efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancy, AIDS and other problems associated with sexual ignorance. The idea that young people must never have – or even hear much about – sex makes it difficult to teach them about the differences between consensual and nonconsensual sex, between healthy and exploitative sex, between safe and unsafe sex. And in 1973, it wasn't any kind of *external* left-wing pressure that took the 81 word entry about homosexuality out of the APA's Diagnostics and Statistics Manual (DSM). It was APA dialogue, with the closeted gays inside the APA (it was of course illegal to be gay and a psychiatrist at the time), and most importantly Robert Spitzer (president of APA) himself discovering that many prominent psychiatrists were gay, and realizing that gays were just like him. That convinced Spitzer to write the resolution to change the DSM. The vast majority was against it. Now the majority is for it (jkoenig's claim that most psychiatrists consider homosexuality an emotional disorder is incorrect). But this change of heart only shows that an appeal to majority cannot be a surefire way to find what's best. (The history of the APA's diagnosis of homosexuality, in an engaging streaming Real Audio story, can be found at http://www.thislife.org/. Search for 1973 APA, or episode 204. It includes interviews the involved psychiatrists at the time, from the opposing viewpoints). jkoenig, I don't know why you think "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." What "real science" studies were you citing when you said that? Can I make predictions, too? In 30 years, nobody but a very few will care about denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, because it will be commonplace in most of the world. And people will have discovered that the inspecific bugbears of those who were opposed to it, simply never materialized. Have you said anything disrespectful? Maybe, but then again this is the flame room. I think your earlier equating homosexuality with people marrying their pets was a bit disrespectful. Saying that the homosexual agenda, which is equality of rights, is instead something "insidious" in nature with respect to children seems disrespectful and misrepresentative (or even equating "those with immoral agendas" to gay-interest groups). You say I write contentiously, and in a state of denial. I think that was a jab, yes. But then often in debate, taking opposite sides becomes a little personal. It's no big deal. I try to avoid it, but I know I'm just as guilty of it. And hopefully, we can skip meta-discussion about the discussion itself in the future. So, not just for jkoenig, but for anyone who believes SSM would be wrong for reasons other than their religion: is there some discovered fact or argument, even expressed in broad terms, which would conceivably be able to change your mind? Edited by ouini on October 29 2003 at 4:54pm __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   wbovenmyer Ouini, I read a study that showed that children do have a higher rate of taking part in homosexuality in a home with homosexual parents.  http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html  I did not research into how well this study was taken, but I can certainly tell by just reading the stories of these children that they are quite different from other children.  They are very often ashamed of their parents' activities and from what I can see very anti-social and/or very secretive.   I don’t think that I am using faulty logic or the slippery slope method when I say that if/when SSMs are made legal, so eventually will the unions of a man with multiple wives or vice versa. Will this group of married people then be able to take part in all of the tax benefits and such? They would certainly not be deprived the right to adopt/have children freely. How will this affect society?   Society has “mistakenly” mixed a religious idea with government. You simply cannot separate these two in the area of marriage. You either keep its design…or anything goes. The world does not (and will never) understand the full beauty of marriage and its intent. When they want to take God’s idea and twist it to fit their sinful desires, there is no beauty left in it. They may as well do away with it completely...or at least have the government end rewarding it.   In many ways I agree with Ouini in that there aren’t really any good arguments that will sound convincing to this world. I say, if they insist on sinful behavior, who are we to tell them that they can’t do that? They are not hurting anyone (except in my opinion their souls and possibly children they might raise.) I will always stand firm in saying that these choices are sin and against the Almighty’s will, but our logic is foolish to them. 1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness." Our job is to love them and direct them to God’s paths when He gives us those opportunities. For this reason, I don’t think I have any valid arguments against SSM (except maybe my stab at multiple partners.) “Woe to them,” but I will keep praying for them and loving them. ANNIEOHIO i think being gay and being married should be legal everywhere.  i have 2 friends that our more stable than most and why shouldnt they have the same benefits as us Back to Top   jkoenig Thanks for joining, Annie. You've offered your vote, and just one support for it, which is this concept of "stability".  This is arguably subjective, however, and very open to interpretation. Let's test it.  If a "mature for her age" 14 year old and a youthful 40-year old man wish to be married, and in public glimpses of their behavior, demonstrate apparent "stability" that is seemingly greater than many heterosexual, married adults, should this also be legal?  Why or why not? Back to Top   matt Annie: *being* gay is legal everwhere. so is being married. now I realize that is not what you meant. You mean that homosexual marriages should be allowed. And are asking why they shouldn't be allowed? Well, I'd urge you to read through the last four pages of posts for some good reasons. EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion. But I also believe that everyone is beholden to THINK about their opinions. Especially if they are going to express them. Beware of the "because it SEEMS right to me!" reasoning. We are so limited in our knowledge. And things are not always as they SEEM. Edited by matt on January 15 2004 at 10:30am __________________ Matt Heerema www.mattandnancy.org   asymns This topic has been debated far too much.  Here's the fact of it:  Leviticus 18:22.  That's all I'm gonna say. Back to Top   jkoenig We may grow weary of the debate, but it will go on for as long as there are those who flagrantly and proudly resist God. Before someone discounts Lev 18:22 because it is OT law .. Romans 1:27 is there for us too.  It describes heterosexuality as normal, homosexuality as shameful, and those practicing homosexuality as deserving of punishment. It's harsh, I know.  We all deserve punishment, but this never justifies persisting in wrongdoing.  We are still obligated to recognize God's ways, believe what He says, and act accordingly.  There is forgiveness for repentance.  Trying to pretend wrongdoing isn't really wrong isn't repentance. Back to Top   matt asymns wrote: This topic has been debated far too much. Here's the fact of it: Leviticus 18:22. That's all I'm gonna say. Andrew, in the same way that "I THINK homosexuality should be okay, so its okay" is faulty thinking, so is leaning on simply the OT laws... that starts a pretty annoying little debate over the other 612 laws and whethor or not we should keep them. BUT, as Jeff pointed out for us, this idea is taught in the NT as well. It is an issue of the way God created us. Speaking of creation: I have heard several times recently (at least once from Howard Dean) that some people are BORN homosexual, that God created them that way. First of all, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE showing that homosexuality is genetic. No study performed has yet supported this non-theory. Secondly, God did not create some of us to be homosexual. Nor do I think did he create us specifically heterosexual. He created us as SEXUAL beings (it may be debatable that he created some of us as non-sexual beings (matthew 19)). And then ordered us so that a heterosexual relationship is the natural, God-honoring one. If anyone would like me to elaborate, I can. __________________ Matt Heerema www.mattandnancy.org Back to Top   jkoenig Thank you for your point about genetics, Matt.  It prompts me to add something I wanted to before, but restrained myself in an uncharacteristic attempt at brevity. God also tells us in Psalms (139:13; 22:9-10, also Job 31:15),  that He knows every one of us from the instant of conception and forms us Himself in our mothers.  It is completely illogical to believe God ordered creation to then intentionally disorder it.  What, does God make a mistake with certain babies?  Or is it a big heavenly laugh He gets by instituting marriage for (among other reasons) childbearing, and then making some into homosexuals just to watch them squirm like leaches under a magnifying glass?  I know people suffering from low self-esteem often feel like they're the victim of a cruel hoax for any number of reasons, but this victim mentality is a convenient lie we believe in order to identify with staying in a helpless state of mind. In addition, God does not make anyone to do wrong (James 1:13), for He cannot even look upon (deal with or consider) wrongdoing (Hab 1:13a).  He won't set up conditions to force someone's hand into doing wrong.  To think so is wholly incompatible with the Bible. The only logical end for anyone to engage in or endorse SSM is to reject the God of the Bible.  One cannot knit together both a belief in this God and homosexuality without being double-minded (James 1:8).  Even if he is unwilling to come out and admit it, he has categorically rejected the God of the Bible, and if he still holds onto any deity-concept, it is a different god entirely. Does this leave someone mired in SSM without hope? Absolutely not.  We all stumble into wrongdoing of varying kinds that holds onto us for a while, that teaches us lies which we accept in order to resist change.  By God's grace we eventually realize that we must decide to turn from the evil that we've given in to, and come back to God.  People give up addictions every day that they once thought would hopelessly never let go of them.  That there are still those who never exercise that power they have over their own life to choose, and remain wrecked and beaten is tragic, but ultimately never anyone else's responsibility but their own. This is a hard realization, and runs totally counter to the feel-good and victim-mentality culture we have in this country today.  Even if someone doesn't engage in a certain wicked practice himself, if he tells others, no matter how well-meaning, that the practice is a valid choice and condones it, he will not be guiltless.  He will one day answer for it if he doesn't sooner have his own change of heart. Someone visiting this thread may call this a churchy diatribe and discount my argument because it isn't based on science or rationalism, but we must all realize that without bringing God into this, we Christians are wrong and proponents of SSM are right.  If our opinions on things must stand and be supportable solely on human wisdom and argument, we Christians are just throwing ourselves in front of a freight train of relativist humanism that does not recognize any authority higher than itself. But then, this is a Christian-oriented website, although public, and people shouldn't be surprised by reading about God here.  There are plenty of other chat sites to be found to validate their contrarian viewpoints.  If some who disagree with God's Word venture here anyway, I've got to hope it's because at some deep level they want to be told the truth and convinced by someone so that it will be easier for their "rational" minds to believe God and get on the bus.  It's either that, or a more cynical motivation just to be on the offensive. Back to Top   ANNIEOHIO i got back some remarks like i'm a bit flamish for this color. i got some reactions that gays are basically a sin, but normally thought about.  well how many us us adults teen have not had one same sex dream.  and didnt even know the face of the other just saw the same curves as your own.  how many of us have lived in sin and then have changed or even are living a lie.  at least gays that are open arent living a lie and that is something im sure they all have questioned god about god creates us human we all make mistakes. we just need to testify.  well here it is im not gay but i have friends that i love that have been there for me and know me.  ive been married 3 times and have 2 kids by different husbands .  ive been wild and had different sexual partners some during marriage.  see ive changed and been saved so why sould we judge gays,  there human and probably made less sin then alot of us and have probablly talked to god alot more too we are all worthy to live and be loved no matter who to.   ann cleveland sinner and have been saved.  we all make mistakes and grow but we cant change our love  god doesnt want us not to stop loving folks  love your brother and sister those without sin cast the first stone!!!!!!!!!!!!! Back to Top   matt Absolutely Ann. I think it is safe to say that none of us posting on here are without love for homosexuals. One of my best friends struggles with homosexuality. You are right, we should not judge gays, or anyone for that matter, who are not christians, who are outside of the church. But once someone claims to be a christian, or a part of the church, we have a duty to teach, correct, rebuke, and triain in righteousness. If someone does not know Christ, we have absolutely no reason to expect them to live like they do. But once someone professes to be saved, we then have an obligation to share truth with them. __________________ Matt Heerema www.mattandnancy.org Back to Top   jkoenig Matt is right about our obligation as Christians. For instance, Ann, you testify that you are saved and said "see, I've changed".  From what you wrote, you certainly have had some rough times, and I grieve with you.  You didn't testify, though, as to what your life is like now.  In what ways have you changed? Christians sometimes develop an unbalanced, mistaken identity, (and non-Christians take advantage of it), that real Christianity is all about sympathetic love between everyone leading to peace and harmony.  But consider that real love also corrects, rebukes, trains, is sometimes tough, requires discipline, and doesn't leave anyone where they are but results in growth.  Love cannot be divorced from truth.  Truth is worthless without love.  They are inseparable. In the book of James, a case is made for us that "getting saved", so to speak, without resulting in significant change in attitudes and behavior, leaves good reason to question the authenticity of that salvation. No one is talking about stoning, here.  We are talking about what is true -- what in our minds can be believed and what must be rejected.  I hope you are saved, Ann, but if you truly understand the value of that gift, then it should break your heart that any of your friends persist in wrongdoing that keeps them deaf to God. Accepting the sinner without rejecting the sin doesn't show real love toward the sinner, but only love of oneself that lacks the courage to show real, often tough, love. Back to Top   Pat One minor point of Theology. WE do not have the right to be loved. WE further more do not have the right to be happy if that happiness is outside of what God has deemed to appropriate forms pursuing that happiness.   One minor observation from the excerpt from Judith Levine. Most would agree that upon veiwing something lewd or sexual we do not instanttaneously become sexual predators. However, if anyone studies the net societal, relational, and financial cost of addiction to pornography, it would be hard to argue that it is a valuable addition to our culture. Most, do in fact control themselves to a degree. However, it is impossible to measure the broken hearts, distrust,  frustration, discontentment or lack sexual satisfaction that occurs because of unwholesome images or scenes that have taken away our innocense. If we view what the world determines to be "normal" sexual experiences, as our standard, then I suppose there is nothing wrong with the world's standards of morality. If in fact we hold to a standard that expresses genuine agape love, intimacy, security, and a monogmous expression in thought and action. If we beleive all that we do is before a Holy God who blesses not only the act, but the relationship expressed in the act of sex , then our society falls woefully short. And I can not trust it's standard for determining the detrimental effects of any "non biblical" form of sexual expression. We are aiming at two different targets. It is our duty to speak and live the wisdom of God whether our culture accepts it or not. It is not about us or our pleasure. It is about God and His desires for His creation, (the World) and His possession, (us). ouini ANNIEONHIO, I think you have a pretty good grasp of the issue. You want to know why people are denied benefits based on the gender of their loved one. If you have the endurance, read through the whole thread as matt suggests. You may not find any non-religious reasons for non-religious laws against gays, but it will show many commonly used arguments. People shouldn't be surprised by reading about God on this website. But then, I'd hope that a discussion board isn't just about everyone holding the same views and patting each other on the back for them. It's not like two people, even two Christians, can't rationally discuss opposed viewpoints. I'm with jkoenig in that Christians are obligated to recognize God's ways and act accordingly. The argument is simply religious. While I personally don't buy that God couldn't intentionally disorder his own creation (I mean, who here can claim to know the mind of God?), many do buy it. Though babies are born "defective" by our standards, or in pain, or with disabilities, or even stillborn, does that mean it's not the will of God? No, we just don't understand it. Like jkoenig said, without bringing God into this, proponents of SSM are right. If you truly believe God is against acting out homosexuality, then don't act homosexually. And if you believe he's against thinking homosexual thoughts, well, you've got a long row to hoe, since controlling your dreams is pretty tough. But even if you believe both of those things, then you still have to decide whether your religion's tenets should be made into societal law in the U.S. My disagreement is with people who bring up bogus secular reasons against SSM. I think it's like matt says: We shouldn't judge gays. And shouldn't pass laws that judge gays, since laws deal with everyone, even the non-Christians outside of the church. Once someone claims to be a Christian, that's when a discussion on the sinfullness of homosexuality might start. But if your friends are gay and non-Christian, then just be happy for them. If they're Christian, then I'd bet hard money they've prayed and examined their homosexuality more in-depth with respect to scripture than anything someone else is likely to mention to them. PS: matt, there is evidence that homosexuality is genetic -- there are studies performed which lend support to this theory. Now if someone tells you that homosexuality has been proven to be genetic, or that it's definitely a choice, your bull-o-meter should peg out. It hasn't been proven either way. But whether it's genetic or not is moot, as near as I can tell. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   matt Ouini, Show me the evidence please. If there is any, it should be easily accessible, shoud it not? now, theory of law, that is a whole different matter. "You still have to decide whether your religion's tenets shoudl be made into societal law in the U.S." Indeed. If we do not support, or pull for laws that reflect our belief system, what can we pull for? Nothing. No one is capable of escaping their biases and beliefs in making a decision. Even if they could, I would say it would be worse to do so than to support decisions based on their belief system. __________________ Matt Heerema www.mattandnancy.org Back to Top   asymns Has anyone else noticed that when a topic enters the political arena, we can't seem to get it out of there?  I'm not expressing any opinion with this question, just looking to see if anyone else has noticed it.  Also, just out of general curiosity, does anyone know if there are currently any cases that will be brought to the Supreme Court in the near future? Back to Top   jkoenig ouini wrote: While I personally don't buy that God couldn't intentionally disorder his own creation (I mean, who here can claim to know the mind of God?), many do buy it.   I think the trouble with this line of reasoning is the pretense that it is up to any of us to "buy" (i.e., believe) what we want of God's attributes.  If the nature of God is up to our individual beliefs, then God would have a severe case of multiple personality disorder. However, if you go read what God says about Himself, among the many aspects of His thinking that he has told us about (and which we are therefore responsible to actually KNOW), is the fact that He "does not change" (Malachi 3:6).  That means that, quite actually, He cannot disorder His own creation without being either a liar or confused.  C.S. Lewis, in chapter 2 of the problem of pain, will satisfy even the most philosophical thinker with regard to how this works. ouini wrote: Though babies are born "defective" by our standards, or in pain, or with disabilities, or even stillborn, does that mean it's not the will of God? No, we just don't understand it. Apples to apples, there is a critical distinction not to be ignored here.  Physical disability is in no significant way like moral disorder.  For instance, someone who is born deaf has not a single moral choice impaired.  Further, their deafness is not generally considered as something which should not be treated or cured if possible. We do not accept that someone is born to steal, rape or kill -- no matter what some ridiculous study may claim.  We do not accept stealing, raping or killing to be acceptable choices even if 10 quacks can be paraded saying the perpetrator has an uncommon genetic pattern.  The best previous defenses have been violence due to environmental factors, and that, folks, is the same cause of homosexuality -- only there would be no help available for homosexual folks in the liberal world, because it does not recognize the disorder as being just that. ouini wrote: We shouldn't judge gays. And shouldn't pass laws that judge gays, since laws deal with everyone .... PS: matt, there is evidence that homosexuality is genetic ...  The liberal mindset is without rationalism, here.  If homosexuality can be immutably, genetically established, then so can the propensity to do other acts which the reasonable mind considers harmful.  Therefore, room must be made for the possibility that rape and murder could be equally difficult to choose against under certain genetic conditions.  What would we do then?  If genetics replaces culpability, (something Darwin might support), then how can punitive action against any genetically-driven behavior ever be justified?  Yet, it is quite clear that widely-practiced homosexuality is as threatening to survival of the species as widely-practiced killing or sexual assault -- all three lead to reduction in propogation and viability of the species (to get clinical about it.) ouini wrote: And if you believe he's against thinking homosexual thoughts, well, you've got a long row to hoe, since controlling your dreams is pretty tough.  In this long debate, no one has even hinted such as is being assumed.  It is not the stray thought which condemns, but the choice of what to do with it.  Indulging in it, whether mentally or physically, is when the trouble starts. ouini wrote: But if your friends are gay and non-Christian, then just be happy for them. If they're Christian, then I'd bet hard money they've prayed and examined their homosexuality more in-depth with respect to scripture than anything someone else is likely to mention to them. Should we be as happy for straight, non-Christian friends?  Being happy for someone generally connotes the idea of acceptance of their choices.  To be Christian means to understand the tragic end that awaits the non-Christian.  The "Christian" who is happy for the non-Christian is heartless at best, and possibly sadistic. The problem with the argument (implied) that only the homosexual Christian can best judge the morality of the issue means that only the sinner can judge the sin.  THAT thought, interested and thoughtful readers, is the root of all sexual liberalism.  It seeks that womb-ish, comfortable place where no sexual gratification can be judged by anyone else ... the ultimate goal of the Sexual Revolution.  Unfortunately for them, God never said "obey me in everything else but ya'll do what you want with sexuality."  I don't think He's given up His right to judge, nor absolved Christianity of standing up for the truth, even on this issue. ouini asymns I couldn't find such a current case on the docket for the Supreme Court. matt wrote: Show me the evidence please. If there is any, it should be easily accessible, shoud it not? That's fair, Matt. (Google google) I'd just like people on both sides of the issue to quit saying superlative things like "It's been proven that gays are all born that way!" or "There's no evidence whatever that gays are born that way!" I was just responding to your statement that there is NO evidence that homosexuality is genetic, that no study that supports the theory. There is, and some of it is below. references found on the web wrote: - J. Hall and D. Kimura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada found a correlation between the number of fingertip ridges on men and their sexual orientation. Also, a seperate study similarly found correlation based on finger lengths of straight vs. lesbian women. Neither of these studies is conclusive of genetic homosexuality, just suggestive of prenatal conditions influencing homosexuality. *Dean Hamer & Peter Copeland "The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene & the Biology of Behavior", Simon & Schuster (1994) - The (apparently) famous Bailey and Pillard study (Boston University) studied the sexual orientation of male siblings raised together since birth. If one was homosexual then the chance of their sibling being homosexual was 52% for identical twins, 22% for non-identical twins, and around 10% for adopted or non-twin brothers. A couple factors, including reticence to admit to homosexuality, and bisexuals possibly answering differently to whether they're homosexual, might partially skew this study's results. But it still points to a very strong genetic factor at the time of conception. (A similar study of women was done, with similar results: 48% for identical twins to lesbians being lesbians). - Other identical twin studies since then, performed by various groups of researchers, all reporting over 50% of seperately raised twins of gay men were also gay. If there weren't a genetic factor, this number would instead be ~2 to ~10% depending on whom you believe (the same percentage as gays in the general population). Since it's not 2-10%, there's some gene factor (genes with less than 100% "penetrance" as it's called -- not all gene's are lightswitch-like toggles), which results in two identical twins with less than identical genetically determined characteristics. However, since it's not 100%, the environment likely plays a role in determining sexual orientation, too. Also, regardless of whether twins are seperated at birth, they share environment before birth, so it's possible some influence could be from the womb environment rather than genetics. Born gay, but not necessarily genetically. - Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute found out homosexuality tends to run in families. This shows nothing, really, since environment could easily play a deciding factor. But those people biologically related to gays, even raised apart in seperate households, also had a higher rate of homosexuality. Now, this isn't completely conclusive, either. What proved the genetic nature of "gayness" in this study was the pedigree test, which showed a much greater number of gays on the mother's side of the family, i.e. the gene passed genetically on the X chromosome. As opposed to an about equal number of gays on the mom's and the dad's sides, which could have meant homosexuality was environmental, or on a chromosome other than X. Hamer tried to isolate where on the chromosome the gay-causing gene was. Many of his subjects had the same sequence on the Xq28 chromosome region. The probability factor of Hamer's study results was 0.00001 (1/1000 of 1%) ... extremely reliable, as it's terribly unlikely to have happened due to chance. - Then there's the APA, which has slowly been correcting their stance and statements for decades with respect to homosexuality as an illness. http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#whatis the APA wrote: There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people." Matt, I understand your (and jkoenig's) view that the laws should reflect a religious belief system (yours). My view is that laws should first and foremost at least reflect what commonality the whole nation can agree upon -- that is, the belief in what is demonstrable. That's something we can all pull for. Beyond that, it's very true no one is capable of escaping all their biases. But what we should do is to recognize them where possible, and not to inflict those biases we can't demonstrate the cause-and-effect of, on others. Otherwise, we have no argument when we are the recipient of laws based on similar unprovable biases (be it Islam, Catholocism, Jon Edwards and other pop-mysticisms, whatever). jkoenig, from humanity's fractured perspective only, God *does* have multiple personalities. You believe your phrase "God can't intentionally disorder his own creation" can be derived directly from scripture. Others read Malachi 3:6 and wonder how God was sometimes persuaded to change his mind in the Bible. These are individual beliefs. But things which seem contradictory to us may easily be understood by God. As far as comparing apples to apples, instead of physiological disabilities, why not look at regularly observed sociological abnormalities? Someone who is born with an extra Y chromosome, or a chemical imbalance, or one who has had a particular head trauma, may have strengthened or impaired moral faculties. When negative, this is something which should be treated if possible. Obviously, some are born with less or more violent tendencies than others (as sex and therefore testosterone levels are genetic, and overwhelmingly make men more prone to violence than women). Yet we don't outlaw the thought of rape if it isn't acted upon! As you say, it is not the stray thought which condemns, but the choice of what to do with it. Genetics does not replace culpability. We expect people not to *act* on tendencies if they are negative, and we simply can not and do not ignore actual stealing, raping or killing as acceptable choices. Why? Because they harm people. Until some harm is demonstrated to the general public and not just like-minded Christians, sexuality -- homo, hetero, or bi -- is simply a strong preference of attraction in sex. Judging them civically 'guilty' of something is untenable. jkoenig wrote: "...it is quite clear that widely-practiced homosexuality is as threatening to survival of the species as widely-practiced killing or sexual assault..." Huh. No, it isn't clear. I guess I'd liken that phrase to Paul's advocacy of celibacy as being similarly "threatening to survival of the species". jkoenig wrote: ouini wrote: But if your friends are gay and non-Christian, then just be happy for them. ...The "Christian" who is happy for the non-Christian is heartless at best, and possibly sadistic. Yes, we should be happy for straight, non-Christian friends. As happy as one can be for someone with a different worldview. Especially ones as happy as the friends ANNIEOHIO describes. To be in most *any* traditional religion means to understand the tragic life or end that awaits non-believers. It by no means indicates you can't be happy for someone else. Plant the seed of your belief in their mind, but don't mope around sad, or abandon a friendship, just because the seed doesn't root while you stare at it. The Christian who is happy for the non-Christian rather than abandoning them, perpetually feeling sorry for them, or prosylitizing at them more than ever regardless of their already having a religion, shows empathy and compassion. I wasn't implying that the homosexual Christian best judges the morality of the issue. But the issue is between him or her and God, period. You can be there for them if they're troubled, you can offer your opinion (preferably when asked), but preaching things they already know, especially repeatedly or unsolicited, is useless and insensitive. Seriously, I don't know why this is such a huge issue nowadays, instead of all the other actually grievous sexual picadilloes which actually *do* harm or kill others, and have been around forever. Like infidelity or unsafe promiscuity. God never said "push for the laws of men to reflect my laws about homos, but leave the idolotry and fidelity stuff to the church." Edited by ouini on January 23 2004 at 9:06am __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. jkoenig Disclaimer: long.  Not for the faint of heart or wit.   ouini wrote: Beyond that, it's very true no one is capable of escaping all their biases. But what we should do is to recognize them where possible, and not to inflict those biases we can't demonstrate the cause-and-effect of, on others. Otherwise, we have no argument when we are the recipient of laws based on similar unprovable biases (be it Islam, Catholocism, Jon Edwards and other pop-mysticisms, whatever). Commenting on the existence of bias assists the debate how?.  Any reasonable reader already understands we all have and share opinions - ("advocacy").  So what?  Now, evaluating the source of our biases, and whether those sources are more or less legitimate might have some value.  I readily admit the source of my bias on SSM is external to my own human nature -- beginning with the Bible.  The source of bias that comes only from within one's natural mind, or from one's running crowd, is more fickle.   ouini wrote: from humanity's fractured perspective ...   OK ... and ... this paragraph still doesn't disprove or demonstrate against that to which it refers.   ouini wrote: As far as comparing apples to apples, instead of physiological disabilities, why not look at regularly observed sociological abnormalities? Someone who is born with an extra Y chromosome, or a chemical imbalance, or one who has had a particular head trauma, may have strengthened or impaired moral faculties. When negative, this is something which should be treated if possible. Obviously, some are born with less or more violent tendencies than others (as sex and therefore testosterone levels are genetic, and overwhelmingly make men more prone to violence than women).   This paragraph is strikingly ironic.  It readily admits that the negativity of biological abnormalities, and that they should be treated, if possible.  It even admits that there are some biological conditions which are not abnormal at all -- quite normal, in fact, that still should be resisted and controlled and otherwise judged as often negative.  (BTW, I've never heard of an abnormality that strengthened moral faculty, except when the impaired, faced with his/her own mortality, decides to behave better!)   What determines whether the net behavioral effect of any biological condition is positive or negative?  Intellect does.  And, by definition, is any abnormal condition not negative?  Maybe in my own fantasy where common sense prevails.    By way of illustration, when God put mankind on the planet, He gave us dominion over everything else in the creation (nature).  He made us to be inquisitive and able to learn.  Science (the study of the creation/nature) is our name for this.  Does anyone, then, disagree (whether one relies on the Bible, or natural law) that science is an effective tool only insofar as it helps mankind to control our environment?  Mankind is not a tool to be manipulated by nature, nature is a tool to be manipulated by mankind.  Nature is without intellect.  God and people are with intellect.  As intellect perceives nature, it must make choices about how to respond to nature.  THAT equates to MORALITY, folks.   My argument is philosophical, I know, but the philosophical difference between the ideological left and right is critical to arguing this issue. The leftist agenda rejects God.  "Left" without a greater intellect to respect and conform itself to, and faced with no way of establishing its own intellect as greater than the intellect which argues against it, it seeks out and worships nature.  This practice is as old as the hills.  The thought is that nature (often these days via the auspices of science) is the only true standard against which our behavior can be evaluated.  This contains an inherent contradiction, though, because intellect is required to interpret nature.  Nature cannot interpret intellect.  Think upon that.   Gay advocates have been looking tirelessly for a conclusive biological link to point to that explains the existence of homosexuality, so that they can gain a linchpin in calling it natural.  However, intellect is required to interpret whether such nature is positive or negative -- a moral decision.  Without recognizing that a higher intellect authored nature, and without the ability to establish that gay advocates are more intelligent than advocates of Biblical morality, the gay agenda appeals to nature itself as the greatest evidence for its legitimacy.  That is, the left submits its intellect to, and subservient to, nature.  Their argument is that what nature makes possible, it must therefore (mindlessly) intend; thus, what creature of intellect can be so arrogant as to call it wrong?  This is why I earlier argued that, confined to the realm of nature alone, homosexuality eventually wins and I (and others of like-mind) lose.   But the great fallacy of homosexual normalcy is mired in a self-contradictory explanation of its own existence.  It seeks to use nature as a pillar to define homosexual behavior as intended by it.  Yet, enigmatically, chooses to reverse its logic and appeal to asserting intellect above nature whenever its agenda suits it.  Take, for instance, the closely allied (often overlapping) agenda of extreme feminism. Eve Ensler's college classic (link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109532,00.html) implies not only that lesbianism is superior to heterosexuality (something biological science irrevocably rejects), but also that all men are violent toward women (via the very act of heterosexual sex).  In her viewpoint, the above assertion that the violence streak runs dominantly in men might receive her nod, but she does not excuse men, who should otherwise exercise the moral choice to choose against their very nature.  It causes bewilderment when one considers what Eve and her fans might have to say about the necessity of male violence throughout the ages to compete for resources, the use of sport for skill-improvement, fighting in self-defense, and all such positive manifestations of male violence that give rise to the possibility of stable family and society.  All this doesn't even approach explaining how humanity would continue to exist if all women withdrew from men as sex partners.   In my mind, the hypocrisy of the extreme left and its abuse of science is not only without rational explanation, there is little point arguing with it.  God said in Ephesians 4:19 that they are given over to their immorality.  It is those in the vague "middle" of society, often raised with Biblical morals, but who are sympathetic to the left's contradictory arguments, that baffle me.  I understand somewhat the appeal to be popular with the young through avoiding critical attitudes toward groups that claim social progressivism -- an overly complex explanation for "rebellion to authority" (church, moral, parental, traditional, whatever).  I even understand their fear that if homosexuality falters before morality, then so might some of the other self-abusive activities which they may have participated in, like recreational drug use, multiple sexual partners, etc.   Such sympathetics use strange logic to support the gay cause.  One type is an attempt to create an appearance of legal unfairness by trying to draw a parallel between the legality of a man and a woman marrying vs. SSM.  The thought is that a straight person has a right that a gay person does not.  This is a logical fallacy.  A "gay" man has as equal a right to marry a woman as a straight man does.  For the gay man to seek to marry EITHER a man or a woman is a new right.  Ah, but the twist of logic is necessary to convince the witless.   Another conundrum is the rejection of the evidence of harm from homosexual behavior.  Note, that it is "evidence" that left-apologists reject, because it most certainly has presented itself -- but it consists mostly of spiritual, emotional and relational problems that apologists dismiss without scientific demonstration.  Again, this is the point at which worshippers of nature selectively choose to submit to nature (science) that which its moral intellect cannot refute.   I once challenged ouini to state a case, an example, of some fact that would change his mind on the issue.  He brought forth 6 quotes of himself, and in none of them was an example presented.  Every single quote was some variety of his claiming he would need to see a "reason" to disallow SSM, but never did he give an example of what an actual reason might be.  After the list of quotes, he did imply that a "study ...[causing] harm", obviously scientific in nature, might do the trick, but then, the definition of "harm" is left open to definition by intellect interpreting science, so he left himself a big back door, eh?   In the face of not being able to refute the God-centered argument against SSM, the last bastion of defense of SSM has been lack of [absolute] "scientific proof" against its ill-effect in society.  I insert "absolute", because that's pretty much what it would take to convince very many, and I say even that hesitantly.  But any scientist of repute will tell you what a prominent astrophysicist once told me .. "There is no such thing as absolute proof, but there is practical proof."  No scientific study has been done to prove that two men having sex cannot produce a human child.  Nor has one been done to prove that human cohabitation in a cave with a wild grizzly bear isn't a swell idea.  So, how do we know that these things are true?  I have not actually tried to produce a child, as a man with a man, nor have I known anyone who did attempt this.  I have never met a grizzly bear.  How do I know these things to be true?  Am I disrespecting the bear?  Am I ignorant for not trying to have a baby with another man?  Conclusion: there is no logic in saying something should be allowed until scientifically proven otherwise, because this is practically ridiculous.  The totality of the human experience and learning through the ages has not been from the direction of doing something until we shouldn't, but not doing something until we should.  Doing something "because you can" is a silly argument.  At the risk of appearing daffy, however, someone might attempt to argue otherwise.   So our as our torches continue to blaze on this, I'd like to invite a proponent of SSM to, for once, formulate a well-constructed, clear, fluid, and intelligent essay on why SSM should be supported by society.  Why does God support SSM?  Why does nature support SSM?  Even if a proponent can't refute that God rejects it, so he rejects God instead, and even if nature doesn't really support it (because it can't naturally produce children), but doesn't prevent it either, then why should society overcome these religious and natural obstacles and support SSM anyway?  Similar past experience?  Can any example be put forward of something that God did and still does reject, and that science does not prove the wisdom of, but which humanity instituted anyway that has in retrospect worked out to our great benefit?   Good luck trying. jkoenig I'm certain that what we average joes have to offer has been offered here to the best of our collective ability.  Interested readers ought to be able to discern for themselves which arguments hold more water. As far as the question put to me -- I will explicit instead of implicit.  Accepting homosexuality as normal, supportable behavior would require a reasonable (exegetically sound) interpretation of the Bible that indicates God intended it, permits it, and blesses it.  Within the realm of natural law, the ability to naturally produce children between homosexuals without radical medical intervention would also be very conducive to changing my mind. There is no sociological study or philosophical reason which could sway me, because this domain is subservient to both the moral and natural laws.  Sociology has more contradictory indicators than economics, and offers less practical proof than a political speech.  That it is often used in an attempt to overcome moral intellect and common sense says to me that it is useful only for those who refuse to submit to what their moral consciences and rational minds tell them. I do not possess an intellect capable of supplanting, through debate, the arguments that result when morality and rationality have been impaired by social conditioning.  I concede that such conditioning is often overwhelming, extremely attractive (via providing socially stimulating benefits), and increasingly pervasive. Overcoming social conditioning to a positive end requires personal experience that motivates willing submission to an often painful process of self-examination. With courage, this process, though, can result in building character that leads to a worldview based on truth rather than social trends. mandibles it's going to happen.  The world is also going to end, this is yet another decision that is bringing us closer.  Satan hates people, why would he want them to reproduce?  Back to Top   jhoytosu Why would he want them to love? Back to Top   ErkRik what is love? baby dont hurt me, dont hurt me, no more ok, serious now: how are you defining love here?  __________________ "A clever quote has never proven anything." "You don't seem to be consistent Erk..." -Lindsy Back to Top   matt I'm lost. What are we talking about here? __________________ Matt Heerema www.mattandnancy.org Back to Top   in_submission dude, first i read jeff's post and have to take 10 extra minutes to understand all the big words.  then i read the next two and i got COMPLETELY lost.  i'm with you matt.  what happened?  where are we?  what's that smell? __________________ James 1:2-5 James 1:26 Back to Top   jkoenig The fairness doctrine Cal Thomas (archive) March 1, 2004 | Print | Send The argument most often heard in favor same-sex "marriage" is that it is the "fair" thing to do. This is an interesting position, because having jettisoned one standard for marriage, those pushing for the inclusion of same-sex "marriage" now appeal to the public on the basis of another standard. But if there are to be no standards, or only "standards" that shift with the changing winds of culture (which then don't count as standards at all), on what basis are advocates of same-sex "marriage" appealing to the majority of us who, according to opinion polls, want to keep marriage for heterosexuals only? Let's put it this way. If you tell me you do not believe in God and then say to me that I should brake for animals, or pay women equally, or help the poor, on what basis are you making such an appeal? If no standard for objective truth, law, wisdom, justice, charity, kindness, compassion and fidelity exists in the universe, then what you are asking me to accept is an idea that has taken hold in your head but that has all of the moral compulsion of a bowl of cereal. You are a sentimentalist, trying to persuade me to a point of view based on your feelings about the subject and not rooted in the fear of God or some other unchanging earthly standard. The mayor of New Paltz, N.Y., Jason West, recently performed same-sex "marriages," saying it is the "moral" thing to do. Moral? According to whom? If only according to Mayor West, he is practicing moral relativism, not objective morality. Thomas Jefferson did not speak of rights being endowed by the courts or vigilante mayors and judges who take the law into their own hands like a lynch mob in frontier America. He knew that for certain rights to have meaning, they must come from outside the reach of man. He also knew that in order to protect institutions essential to the preservation of the constitutional republic, it was necessary to create a system that would control human urges and appetites. The idea of marriage did not originate in San Francisco or Massachusetts or even with the Founders. Like it or not, it came from the book of Genesis, where, after the fall of man, God said, "A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Homosexuals may become "one flesh" in their own eyes but not in a biblical sense, no matter how many Scriptural heretics with degrees from seminaries that are mostly schools of unbelief are trotted out. The problem is that too many people either no longer accept this historical view of marriage, or they don't wish to "impose" their view on others (for fear of being called a bigot), or they have a "live and let live" philosophy that has opened the door to virtually any and every experiment in social arrangement. If same-sex marriage is allowed, it is going to be nearly impossible to prohibit the sanctioning of any other kind of human "relationship" - from close relatives of different sexes who wish to marry (that has been outlawed because of biological and incest considerations) and polygamists to adult-child "marriage." I recently asked Republican New York Gov. George Pataki if he favored same-sex marriage. He said he doesn't but thinks some accommodation could be made to homosexuals offering similar benefits. What about polygamy? He quickly rejected that, saying "it is against the law." The New Paltz mayor is violating the law, but New York's Attorney General won't stop him. If things that are illegal violate cultural trendiness, our new definition of "truth," they are simply permitted. I don't know how you reverse such a trend. Political activism isn't working. Appeals to higher standards aren't successful, because same-sex "marriage" is evidence that the standards have already been abandoned. How does a nation that has tolerated about 40 million abortions suddenly acquire a moral sense about same-sex marriage? Maybe those of us wishing to preserve marriage for heterosexuals, imperfect as we may be at it, ought to ask those pushing for its redefinition what they mean by their "fairness doctrine" and upon what it is based. At least we heterosexuals have a reference that is thousands of years old. What's theirs and how do we know it won't change tomorrow? Back to Top   ouini Wow. I'm always impressed by Cal Thomas' consistency in presenting partisan strawman arguments. That piece so stereotypes and misrepresents the same-sex position Cal is supposedly trying to argue against (as well as the position he's supposedly trying to stand for!), that I wouldn't know where to begin disectiing it. But I think all the non-arguments presented therein have been covered in the thread already, so it would likely be a pain and a repetitive waste of effort to bother. Maybe I'll look for an article to cut-and-paste in response to it, later. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   jkoenig ad hom·i·nem   (hm-nm, -nm) adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. Back to Top   jkoenig Fallacy Name: Genetic Fallacy Category: Fallacies of Relevance > Ad Hominem Arguments Explanation: Another variation of the ad hominem fallacy does not necessarily attack the person directly, but instead attacks the origins for the position they are proposing. This is called the Genetic Fallacy, because it is based on the idea that the original source of an idea is a sound basis for evaluating its truth or reasonableness. Examples and Discussion: Like other forms of the ad hominem argument, the genetic fallacy typically occurs when a person is unable to found a strong basis for his or her position. Back to Top   jkoenig The Wall Street Journal: March 10, 2004 RULE OF LAW A Shotgun Amendment By EDWIN MEESE III "Hasty marriage seldom proveth well," Shakespeare warns. For thousands of years, every society, and every major religious faith, has held that marriage is a unique relationship by which one man and one woman are joined together for the primary purpose of forming and maintaining a family. Then along came the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts -- following in the footsteps of a trial court judge in Hawaii, a superior court judge in Alaska, and the Vermont Supreme Court -- proclaiming in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that marriage is "an evolving paradigm." Traditional marriage is out of step with the times, we're told. It's arbitrary, irrational and inherently discriminatory. The institution must be reformulated to accommodate homosexual couples that are legally entitled to marriage under the Massachusetts state constitution. To make this leap forward, the Massachusetts court seized upon a premise dangled before it by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas -- that all individuals have a right to "seek autonomy" in their private relationships, including "personal decisions relating to marriage." Perhaps this isn't what the Supreme Court intended, but what advocates of same-sex marriage have in mind is clear: to deconstruct marriage, in the name of an invented right, so that it includes and publicly affirms homosexual unions. In light of such vast claims and harsh language, is it any wonder what is happening? With an air of defiance, from San Francisco to New Paltz, N.Y., and from Sandoval County, N.M., back to Multnomah County, Ore., local officials are actively violating the law in order to catch the perceived wave of social progress sweeping the nation. Should Americans, renowned for their live-and-let-live spirit, care? * * * We ought to be disturbed when judges circumvent the lawmaking process and assume the powers of legislating. We also should be troubled by the ease with which these judges are willing to discard clear laws and legislative intent because it fails their perception of rationality. Constitutional government is threatened when judges alter the definition of things and reinterpret duly approved laws in order to achieve their own policy preferences. But even worse than the way the courts are making these decisions is the substance of what they are dictating. Think about what's at stake. The basic unit of society is the family, but the cornerstone of the family is marriage. The essence of marriage is the union of man and woman as husband and wife. This unique association provides social, economic and health benefits for children and adults. It brings significant stability, continuity and meaning to society, transferring basic cultural knowledge and civilization to future generations. To redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers and children undermines the institution by separating it from its very nature and purpose. President Bush put it this way: "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." There is "an overwhelming consensus in our country," as President Bush observed, that marriage is between a man and a woman. If opinion polls are any guide, most Americans understand that this is not just a shouting match over living arrangements. But do we need to amend the Constitution? One's first reaction is to hesitate. No state formally has legalized homosexual marriage, and, as a result, there is no case that threatens to force the issue on other states or the nation. There is as yet no challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. These battles lie ahead, and each will be important. Legal certainty, however, is not the standard of political judgment. The Defense of Marriage Act might stand constitutional scrutiny -- but it might not. Regardless, it does not protect the nation from state judges like those in Massachusetts who insist on same-sex marriage by misconstruing their state constitutions. Nor does it address the legal anarchy that now abounds. A constitutional amendment is the only sure and democratic way to stop activist judges from imposing their will on the people. But do we need to define marriage in the Constitution, making national what has always been the province of the states? Again, the first instinct is to say no. In our system of law, the powers of government are divided between the federal and state governments. The framers rightly left marriage policy -- as so many other things -- with the states. Yet this is not a matter for state-by-state experimentation. Society isn't harmed when high-tax states live side by side with low-tax states. The market adjusts to the inconsistency. Not so with marriage. A highly integrated society such as ours -- with questions of property ownership, tax and economic liability, and inheritance and child custody crossing state lines -- requires a uniform definition of marriage. In a free society, certain fundamental questions must be addressed and settled for the good of that society. States can't impair the obligation of contracts, or coin their own money, or experiment with forms of non-republican government. We learned the hard way that the nation could not endure half slave and half free. If marriage is a fundamental social institution, then it's fundamental for all of society. As such, it is not only reasonable but obligatory that it be preferred and defended in the law -- and, if necessary, protected in the U. S. Constitution. This doesn't mean that marriage must be completely nationalized or should become the regulatory responsibility of the federal government. Policy decisions concerning questions such as degrees of consanguinity, the age of consent and the rules of divorce should remain with the states. But we must protect the integrity of the institution as such by defining the societal boundaries and determining the limits beyond which no part of society can go. A constitutional amendment that defines marriage would protect the states' capacity to regulate marriage by sustaining it as an institution. In order to guard the states' liberty to determine marriage policy in accord with the principles of federalism, society as a whole must prevent the institution itself from being redefined out of existence or abolished altogether. * * * Let's not fool ourselves: it is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution. The framers, in their wisdom, made it hard -- precisely to assure that any changes were important enough to have broad-based support among the American people and in the states. The question comes down to this: Is marriage sufficiently important to protect in the U.S. Constitution? If the correct answer to this question is yes, then we should take that fact, and not political expediency, as our principled starting point. The very consideration of an amendment that focuses on marriage would be an important vehicle for a nationwide debate about the nature, purpose and legal status of the institution of marriage. States are already strengthening their laws, passing state defense of marriage acts and considering state constitutional amendments -- all of which should be encouraged. A meaningful national conversation about an amendment to defend marriage will further this process and become the centerpiece of a larger and longer-term effort to promote and strengthen marriage and the family. The defenders of marriage did not choose this debate or force this issue on the nation. Americans are a wonderfully tolerant and very reasonable people. But the issue having been joined, and the decision having been forced, we must now act on our basic principles and deepest convictions -- to preserve constitutional government and protect marriage. Mr. Meese, a former U.S. attorney general, is chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. He was assisted in writing this piece by Matthew Spalding, director of Heritage's B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies. Back to Top   ouini jkoenig, if I call an egg rotten, is it still ad hominem if the egg actually *is* rotten? partisan - Cal wrote: If you tell me you do not believe in God ... not rooted in the fear of God or some other unchanging earthly standard ... Scriptural heretics with degrees from seminaries that are mostly schools of unbelief are trotted out ... At least we heterosexuals have a reference that is thousands of years old. Of course, he's trying to appeal to his religiously conservative (Christian) base, here, who even follow the same stripe of Christianity as he. strawman arguments misrepresents the same-sex position - Cal wrote: The argument most often heard [in SSM] is that it is the "fair" thing to do ... having jettisoned one standard for marriage... there are to be no standards, or only "standards" that shift with the changing winds ... no standard for objective truth, law, wisdom, justice, charity, kindness, compassion and fidelity exists in the universe ... same-sex "marriage" is evidence that the standards have already been abandoned. This is, of course, not the case. First, we only have to agree to standards with regards to law in this country, not the universe. The standard for laws in this country are those of constitutionality, and of striving for said law to give people the freedom they once couldn't enjoy in other coutries, by the government fairly treating all people and not oppressing them or treating them unequally. This has always been the American standard for law. Ironically, after mischaracterizing or ignoring that view in favor of simply following Christianity's ideals (in this one particular case, at least), he even suggests asking SSM advocates what they mean by fair, and upon what it is based. I wish he would have. stereotype the same-sex position - Cal wrote: Homosexuals may become "one flesh" in their own eyes but not in a biblical sense ... they have a "live and let live" philosophy that has opened the door to virtually any and every experiment in social arrangement ... polygamists to adult-child "marriage." Trying to stir revulsion by evoking same-sex imagery to heterosexuals, and equating homosexuality to polygamy and pedophilia, are certainly nothing new to heterocentrists like Thomas. Racists used to (still do) emote imagery equating blacks to uncivilized primitives. Except for those to whom he targets his message of hate, this sort of thing gets old quick. It really does. (stereotypes and misrepresents) the position he's supposedly trying to stand for - Cal wrote: ... rooted in the fear of God or some other unchanging earthly standard ... Like it or not, [the idea of marriage] came from the book of Genesis ... Oy vey. Marriage has been around much longer than the Bible. And given how many ways the earthly standard issued by the divine has been interpreted over the centuries (and not just Christianity), it's weird that that point keeps coming up. the non-arguments presented therein have been covered in the thread already - Cal wrote: The problem is ... If same-sex marriage is allowed, it is going to be nearly impossible to prohibit the sanctioning of any other kind of human "relationship" - from close relatives of different sexes who wish to marry (that has been outlawed because of biological and incest considerations) and polygamists to adult-child "marriage." Yes, we've covered repeatedly why those are state-interest issues which are right to be made illegal, and SSM is not. pain and a repetitive waste of effort - this post. an article to cut-and-paste in response - she wrote: Dear President Bush, Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US Constitution, and set in Federal stone a legal definition of marriage. I would like to know why. In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to protect marriage in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like you, I believe in the importance of marriage and I feel that we as a society take the institution far too lightly. In my circle of family, friends and acquaintances, the vast majority have married and divorced -- some more than once. Still, I believe in marriage. I believe that there is something fundamental about finding another person on this planet with whom you want to build a life and family, and make a positive contribution to society. I believe that we need more positive role models for successful marriage in this country -- something to counteract the images we get bombarded with in popular culture. When we are assaulted with images of celebrities of varying genres, be it actors, sports figures, socialites, or even politicians who shrug marriage on and off like the latest fashion, it is vitally important to the face of our nation, for our children and our future, that we have a balance of commitment and fidelity with which to stave off the negativity. I search for these examples to show my own daughter, so that she can see that marriage is more than a disposable whim, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As a father, I'm sure you have faced these same concerns and difficulties in raising your own daughters. Therefore I can also imagine that you must understand how thrilled I have been over the past few weeks to come home and turn on the news with my family. To finally have concrete examples of true commitment, honest love, and steadfast fidelity was such a relief and a joy. Instead of speaking in the hypothetical, I was finally able to point to these men and women, standing together for hours in the pouring rain, and tell my child that this is what its all about. Forget Britney. Forget Kobe. Forget Strom. Forget about all the people that we know who have taken so frivolously the pure and simple beauty of love and tarnished it so consistently. Look instead at the joy in the beautiful faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon - 51 years together! I mean, honestly Mr. President - how many couples do you know who are together for 51 years? I'm sure you agree that this love story provides a wonderful opportunity to teach our children about the true meaning and value of marriage. On the steps of San Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne, suits and veils, horns honking and elation in the streets; a celebration of love the likes of which this society has never seen. This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief transformed into outrage, and my peace became anger. This morning, I watched you stand before this nation and belittle these women, the thousands who stood with them, and the countless millions who wish to follow them. How could you do that, Mr.President? How could you take something so beautiful -- a clear and defining example of the true nature of commitment -- and declare it to be anything less? What is it that validates your marriage which somehow doesn't apply to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power, what authority are you so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and this nation and hold their love to a higher standard? Don't speak to me about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don't tell me that the difference lies in the bedroom. I would never presume to ask you or your wife how it is you choose to physically express your love for one another, and I defy you to stand before Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and ask them to do the same. It is none of my business, as it is none of yours, and it has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage." I'm sure you would agree that marriage is far more than sexual expression, and its high time we all started focusing on all the other aspects of a relationship which hold it together over the course of a lifetime. Therefore, with the mechanics of sex set aside, I ask you again -- what makes a marriage? I firmly believe that whatever definition you derive, there are thousands upon thousands of shining examples for you to embrace. You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr. President. Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate examples of what a marriage should be. Together, let us take couples who embody the principles of commitment, fidelity, sacrifice and love, and hold them up before our children as role models for their own futures. Together, let us reinforce the concept that love is about far more than sex, despite what popular culture would like them to believe. Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society, for the sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise of protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do not endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment. Bette Midler Edited by ouini on March 11 2004 at 12:40pm __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   jkoenig   The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" -- Elizabeth Drew This quote, while cynical, seems to reflect all too-often how people share ideas. Critical thought and well-reasoned (logical) analysis is not being engaged as often as it could be. Due to recent legal events, this SSM issue is becoming a defining one for our generation, and needs to be treated carefully. We are entering the height of the debate in the U.S. now. It is not clear where we will end up in just a few more years. American Heritage dictionary defines opinion as a belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof. It also defines logic as reasoning in a clear and consistent manner. For a review of logical fallacies: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_index_alpha.htm. Ouini, I am simply trying to point out that your post of March 10 was, each and every sentence, illogical. It was a wonderfully fine post as an appeal to emotion and group identity, perhaps entertaining or even validating to someone who already shares your viewpoints (or frustrating to someone who does not), but it did nothing to logically counter Mr. Thomas's points of argument nor support any of your own. It simply came across as exasperated. In fact, each of the paragraphs in your last post today, clarifying your March 10 post, still did nothing to weaken Mr. Thomas's case or build your own. You ended with an article which, having not thoroughly checked it out, turns out to be a hoax and not written by Bette Midler at all: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_bette_midler.htm I have posted two articles recently coming from two different angles and sources on this very divisive issue. They themselves aren't perfect, but they do make some points which anyone venturing here could choose from and discuss. I am hoping any such discussion will be excellent and not emotive or lazy -- something which comes no more naturally to me than to anyone else. It is a challenge, but a very worthwhile one, I think. I'll put one concept forward and throw a few things out we call all chew on? In my reading and experience, it is a very valid point to say that the concept of "fairness" is very central to the SSM debate. Getting out my dictionary again, "fairness" conveys the idea of being consistent with rules, logic, or ethics (i.e., consistent with a "standard"). However, it also means free of favoritism, unbiased and impartial. The former sense is somewhat more objective, and the latter somewhat more subjective. Ouini, you touched on both senses in your last post. Measuring against the Constitution represents that former sense, while measuring against people's subjective ideal of what the country "stands for" reflects the latter sense. I think it's best to try to stay away from subjective measurement, because it is too difficult in written debate to sufficiently define and agree on subjective standards, let alone agree on how we should measure ideas against such subjectivity. So, I would tend to focus on Constitutional fairness as you have many times (I grant you). With that in mind, I assert that not permitting homosexuals to marry legally is entirely consistent with our Constitution as it currently stands. I have pointed out before, and no credible argument has been made against this, that the very definition of marriage throughout human history has always been between an adult human male and an adult human female. This stands up under the written definition of the practice in all organized societies throughout the ages. No logical refutation of this is possible. I grant, however, that many people are increasingly being persuaded to a point of view that adhering to this definition, and holding the Consitution and the law up to it, is not ethically or morally fair. Good debaters in favor of SSM may argue that appealing to the traditional definition of marriage is a logical fallacy in and of itself because it is an Argument from Antiquity and thus invalid. But if society is to be expected to abandon this age-old definition of marriage, and re-evaluate it from a clean slate, then some new standard needs to be put forward. (I believe that this goes to what Mr. Thomas was trying to point out.) What should that standard be based upon? Those on my side of the argument put forward a Christian one, based on the Bible, and argue by way of comparison that our present Constitution was also based on that standard. Many on the other side of the argument, who do not claim Christ as having authority over their lives, do not agree willingly with continuing that standard. However, they are in factual error when they argue that our current Constitution is either not based on Christianity or not constrained by the traditional definition of marriage. The evidence for the influence of Christianity and the definition of the term "marriage" at the time our Constitution was written simply overwhelms any theories to the contrary. To be effective, proponents of SSM need to abandon attempts to redefine a past that cannot be changed through specious arguments. Instead, they must get on with proposing by what new standard marriage should be defined. I believe that they find this overly difficult, because if they admit that the standard is new, or a change from the past, then they logically become burdened with a need to justify why it should change at all. They have difficulty with this from a natural law perspective (homosexuality does not naturally produce children and robs potential adopted children of the benefits of either a mother or a father); also, from a religious perspective (because homosexual relationships are simply not accepted by the overwhelming majority of theists – which most Americans are, even the ones sympathetic to their cause, and thus in conflict with themselves). So, to avoid dealing with this difficulty, SSM proponents work hard to discount and even dismiss that the traditional standard ever truly existed in the first place (Constitutionally or otherwise).  This is dishonest on its face, and doesn't advance their credibility. The newer, third approach to the issue by SSM proponents, now developing, is one of forced subjugation of the majority by the minority.  Every poll I am aware of shows Americans disapprove of SSM by a significant percentage.  Judges and court clerks are causing a constitutional crisis of massive proportion through illegal action.  This is forcing legistlatures to take up the issue to speak for the people (majority). This makes the issue all the more difficult for SSM proponents.  If they support judges and clerks acting beyond their Constitutional power by the end justifying the means, then they erode the integrity of their appeals to the Constitution as it stands.  If they support the Constitution as it stands, then they must welcome proposals to amend the Constitution to define marriage more specifically, which brings with it a debate and a vote by the people that they fear they well may lose. But if we are going to say fair is fair, then we must allow the Constitutional process to work as it was defined, and put this to the people.  At best, SSM proponents can only hope to defeat a Constitutional amendment, but this leaves them no further from where they started, SSM is still illegal.  They will NOT get an amendment in this generation to nationally legalize gay marriage. If judges and others acting out in civil disobedience, meanwhile, try to circumvent the Constitution and redefine the law through creative redefinition of the very words in the law, and are not stopped by the amendment process, we may well see very disruptive times ahead in the stability of our Constitutional Republic. I'll pause here.  Thoughts? Back to Top   ouini I'd agree critical thought is not often engaged where it should be (which is in logical persuasions or proofs). I'd also say peace, love, and understanding are not engaged nearly as often as it should be (human interrelations, countering irrational hatred). Not everything we say or write is a logical proof of something. My post of March 10th held my conclusions, without the supporting reasons. It was not a exhaustive logical argument any more than a couple of posts stating the definition of ad hominem is an argument in and of itself, except (in both our cases) where the reader can figure out for themself our thought-processes used in reaching our observations. But to illucidate, I was exasperated. I've read unsupported illogical arguments like Mr. Thomas' before (even within this very thread), and have responded to them exhaustively before, without great effect. It shouldn't matter that these arguments come from WSJ, or Mr. Thomas, you, me, Bette, or some blog poster named Stephanie (As far as the 'Bette Midler' open letter, you're right. I found out it was phony later that day, a couple hours after you posted). The source of sound reasoning shouldn't matter. But a lot of how we bicker (in a fairly civilized manner, here) has to do with how we're always talking past each other, using words which seem to simple and straightforward to some, while seeming "loaded", or at least complex, to others. I, too, would hope someone venturing here would discuss the issue, maybe throw something less stale into the mix. And logical discussion would be a great thing to strive for, but maybe too much to realistically hope for (I think it's reasonable and expected, within a Hot Topic forum, to comment on divisive issues emotively). But hopefully we can at least stay civil. Fairness is very central to the SSM debate. Appealing to fairness is much of what the pro-SSM folks argue for, much like appealing to family is much of what the anti-SSM folks argue for. But of course, the ideas of fairness and family with respect to this issue, held in each proponents' heads, aren't necessarily identical to the general definitions laid down in a dictionary. Fairness isn't necessarily just being consistent with rules or logic or ethics, or being free of subjectivity. Obviously, being consistent with rules which are lopsided is itself unfair (even if that's sufficient to fulfil Noah Webster's broad ideal, or if it's sufficient to pass constitutional muster). Measuring a law against the Constitution is an agreed upon standard, but even that's been open to interpretation for centuries. (I'm a tech writer. We have (and sometimes use!) a tool called "simplified English". All it means is that any given word or phrase that you use in a technical manual has exactly one meaning which has been predefined, using agreed upon terms. No word is used interchangably as both a noun and verb, or noun and adjective, etc. There are no synonyms. For English, if it isn't in the AECMA (simplified English dictionary), it isn't in the manual. Neither our founding fathers nor our legislators had and used this tool, for whatever reason. Hence: interpretation ensues. It doesn't matter if you're a Constitutional textualist or a partisan activist. Even the Constitution, unfortunately, isn't free of subjectivity.) That said, the Constitution is a better standard than most. The issue, then, is at least two-fold: 1) is disallowing SSM constitutional 2) is disallowing SSM fair. SSM is constitutional, and I believe disallowing it is unconstitutional. Many who support an anti-SSM amendment do so for fear of activist courts. But many do it because they, too, feel disallowing SSM is presently unconstitutional, and would have that changed. So that's an arguable point, which may be fun or exhausting, but ultimately fruitless to argue on a web board beyond, "I think it's constitutional" and "I think it's not". So, is disallowing it fair, legally and ethically? Some argue that, to allow it, would be changing a commonly-held understanding of what marriage is. Legally, to argue for pure textualism while arguing that marriage "obviously" requires heterosexuality is a prerequisite, is taking both sides of the argument. Textualists run into a problem by enforcing "common" legal meanings of a word. Common present-day? Common when written? Majority opinion of what it probably meant when it was written? Majority opinion of what it "should" mean? Part of the understanding of what marriage was, outside of law, was used in defining marriage as a legal term, inside the law. It has had to be clarified in written law over the centuries precisely because not clarifying it left the door open to legal, but somehow "undesirable", marriages. At first in the states, after evolving for millenia before this country was founded, marriage was "understood" to mean one white man and, usually, just one white woman, whose parents forced them to or at least had to consent that they could marry, and who sometimes simply stood up in a tavern and declared themselves married, or more often simply started living together, or (especially in the upper class) were declared married solely by a religious ceremony -- no legal documents involved, but legal standing none the less. To say it implied non-white, universally monogamous, heterosexual, chosen by the couple themselves, recognized by the state only after sufficient documentation unions, is to recognize that to be wed is something which has had to be legally redefined many, many times. It is to read something into it. What standard has driven all this change? In a word, many. Community and national ethical standards, often using the en vogue understanding of what it meant to be biblical at the time, placed restrictions on who could be wed. Ideas of "fairness" and sometimes monetary and legal concerns over the past hundreds of years have added many of the hundreds of rights now granted by legal marriage, tweaking its legal meaning further. By interpreting 'marriage' in its vernacular, you may not be trying to, but you are interpreting it holistically. By recognizing the rights marriage gives, you recognize that marriage is as much what we've declared that it legally is, as opposed to some fictional original and unchanging meaning. As far as marriage goes, of course the majority assumes it means heterosexual. If you mentioned a friend, I'd assume your friend was heterosexual -- that's much more common. A given mentioned marriage means whatever we're currently used to it meaning ... but that's regardless of the real history of the word. Marriage, despite what some would have you believe, hasn't meant the same thing over the past hundreds of years by a long shot. In terms of eligible sexes, in the mainstream, sure. But a lot of aspects of it have changed, and have had to be redefined by the letter of the law, because presumptions about what the word meant simply fell apart with time, and the previous laws could not hold up to the scrutiny of the courts. And that's the point ... the meaning of marriage has and continues to change. Your belief that some new standard need arise is therefor unfounded. The law and its enforcement, with regards to marriage or anything else, has always and will continue to be an amalgam of constituent desires based on perceived needs for rights (monetary, civil, or legal) and on political conviction and/or expediency. I won't get into whether our Constitution is based on Christ's teaching or not. To do so is to argue as Original Intent judges do in interpreting the Constitution. That is, it's irrelevent. Anyone, including clerks, acting beyond their lawful power should be judged. If the law they broke is held to be constitutional, they should be punished. I think most everyone is in agreement with that, even those who perform civil disobedience. The issue of whether SSM is presently legal or not is up in the air, but if disallowing it is held to be unconstitutional, SSM proponents have advanced their cause tremendously, with SSM being recognized as nationally legal in a relatively short amount of time. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   jkoenig It's hard to think of an idea that is more threatening to society than one which argues that the intent of our Constitution/laws is irrelevant.  Without intent, without the weight of purpose behind it, the law is arbitrary, even irrational; 'Why?' becomes a useless question.   As for the colorless, uninspired words of law that such an idea leaves us with, it is argued that that we must not be "textualists" (meaning don't interpret the words too rigidly).  In the end, being without the spirit of the law, we are now also without the letter.  The law is rendered meaningless.  At best, the "law" just becomes a product in a competitive exchange, continuously being redefined as "new and improved"; morality being for sale to the highest bidder; the most aggressive marketing campaign reaping the profits.   Seemingly from this perspective, comes the assertion ouini wrote: that some new standard [for marriage] need arise is therefore unfounded.   Indeed, this claim only makes sense if one believes no standard ever realistically, justifiably existed in the first place.  Remember that early appeals to the Constitution & marriage laws in support of SSM were made on this thread.  The fact that this could not stand up to scrutiny has led to a rear-guard argument that the law doesn't really matter anyway – its intent doesn't count, and only the loosest interpretation of its words (as determined by the reader) is advisable (S.F., Mass., N.Y., please take your bows).   Thus the argument for SSM, still declaring Constitutional support yet backing away from reading it too critically, shifts once more to that often-pleaded, ethereal standard of collective values, which relies on populist opinion for its persuasion: ouini wrote: I'd also say peace, love, and understanding are not engaged nearly as often as it should be ... Fairness isn't necessarily just being consistent with rules or logic or ethics, or being free of subjectivity.   These are appeals to emotion and sentiment, and ironic amidst paragraph after paragraph about how language is so difficult to define.  In our mental helplessness, barely able even to appeal to a dictionary, how can we possibly know what peace, love, understanding, and fairness mean much less know how and when to apply these ungraspable concepts?   Why is it so easy to get lost in this debate?  Why indeed.  It's like fighting a guerilla war.  Pro-SSM arguments briefly take a legal hill, then readily surrender it when it can't be held, only to later be found shooting at it again.  Its proponents accuse "stale" "textualists" of unfair rules of engagement when we argue that dangerous precedents are being set for other kinds of sexual relationships in the future (adult-child, polygamy, etc.), while SSM advocates are all too willing to stretch logic and draw comparisons to earlier race and gender equality movements that had little to do with sex at all.   So, the pro-SSM argument seems to be stuck, as it were, between two forces, neither of which favors it much.  On one side there is the law being appealed to and simultaneously minimized.  On the other hand, there is an equally uneven appeal to populism, as sympathy for the homosexual cause seemingly grows, and yet the vast majority of Americans still vote 'no' to homosexual marriage in survey after survey.   But the heart of this debate is not about the institution of marriage.  If marriage were legally disavowed tomorrow, and there was no legal recognition and no publicly underwritten benefit from its practice, the SSM movement would instantly vaporize.  This debate is really about sex.   The sexual urge has been the bane of a morally stable society since the Garden in Genesis.  When the uncontrolled human appetite is permitted to range outside of its intended design, it is never satisfied.  Its uglier side has wormed its way into U.S. culture, under the guise of much-hailed "revolutions".  In the 1920's public affection and sex before marriage made its publicly visible debut.  In the 1960's it invaded our youth, and openly-declared homosexuality emerged.  The 1990's saw not only illicit affairs in the highest public view, but the press for legal standing among unwed sexual partners whether hetero or homosexual.  Sex among high-school students, and now even grade-school students is almost completely unprovoking.  We yawn at casual sex of all types on TV and even depict rape and incest in movies for cinematic "effect".  Soon to come is the re-evaluation of consentual sex between adults and minors, with the academic research having already begun. (Clearly, we're soon going to need to begin reinterpreting legal use of words like "minor", "consent", etc. to make room for the new thought.)   Joel Belz argues in this week's World Magazine that this culture of moral permissiveness is a mindset that "does not simply seek permission to engage in [traditionally prohibited] ... behavior.  It seeks instead to ensure that everyone else in society also ... gives it tacit approval."  Belz is right.  Sexual gratification is not happy to simply be left alone to invisibly exist.  It craves attention and wants to be recognized and applauded.  Anything that might detract from it, even the vast institution of Christianity, must be brought to heel or torn down.   Accepting homosexual sex as "normal" (and if support cannot be found in God, then we'll just pretend He doesn't care or doesn't exist), is all that the pro-SSM lobby needs to gain access to legal marriage sooner or later.  Anyone reading here knows intuitively that if they sympathetically support open sexual expression of ever-increasing variety, then they can hardly stand in the way of any legal or religious limitations on it.  If you know that sex is a beautiful gift but have recognized that it has its place and definite limits, you can't treat this issue lightly.  Those who sympathize with homosexuality and civil unions but vote against SSM may not have taken off their uniforms yet, but they've already turned and run from the field. Back to Top   ouini jkoenig, I don't mind that your misrepresenting my argument if you truly don't understand it. But what you've written amounts to a strawman, misconstruing my intent (see how easy it is, even with the words right in front of you?), restating a new argument in a way which is easier to attack, and then trying to tell me (and others) what I must have meant and why such an argument is wrong. Let me try to clarify for you. I appeal to the Constitution in support of SSM, since there's nothing in it against SSM, and a call for equal protection under the law in support of SSM. This fact will or will not stand up to scrutiny once a case has been heard before a court whose function it will be to hold pro/con SSM laws up to the Constitution. Until then, it has not failed such scrutiny. That "law really doesn't matter anyway" is your argument, if it is anyone's. I certainly didn't say that. In my context of original intent judges, I was talking about judges who read intent into the Constitution, when the words do not support their claim. I think it is hard to think of an idea that is more threatening to society than one which argues that the *words* of our Constitution/laws are irrelevant, or at least more irrelevant than whatever arbitrary meaning (unsupported by the words) which the judge would read into it. Original intent judges do not use straightforward English, nor often even the "weight of purpose behind it" supported by context, but simply read "intent" from quotes they've mined from their favorite history books. This law is much more open to a wide array of interpretors, depending on whom they quote and for what arbitrary social agenda they serve. Luckily, the spirit of a law can almost always be found within the law itself. And who has a problem with textualists around here? Even the Constitution has lots of context to draw from, and most textualists aren't so fanatically pedantic that the "life and limb" clause, for instance, means double-jeapoardy applies only to cases involving the death penalty (or dismemberment penalty, I suppose). The law gets its meaning from the words which comprise it. As Justice Hugo Black used to say, "So you, a judge, are telling me either that the words aren't supposed to mean what they say or at least say what they mean?" That's a tough argument to refute. If you think reading the Constitution critically and doing our own informal Supreme Court hearing in this forum to determine whether you and I will be able to get married some day will serve some function, then have at it. Collective values, when held by the super majority (see many of my previous posts) like it or not, is what the Constitution is all about. Just understand the majority doesn not decide when the Constitution should or should not apply (though the supermajority can). If you can't know peace, love someone, or have empathy for them without a dictionary under your arm to consult, I really don't know what to do about that. I say this tongue-in-cheek of course. I know you can love, etc. But to attack me for holding these as good principles, as opposed to how law works, is pointless and I would hope not your real opinion of me. Is it not consistent to argue that, when arguing for or against SSM, we are distinctly *not* arguing about the seperate issues of discounting the harm done (or the state-interests broken) with adult-child relationships or polygamy? By the same token, if there were a supportable argument that inter-racial marriage did in fact cause harm, or that gender equality somehow conflicted with a compelling state interest, I for one would of course drop the analogy. Just like with inter-racial marriage and with gender equality, the issue in the minds of those being denied equal rights is, surprise, about equality of rights. I'll compare apples to apples, and ignore arguments which bring up oranges. Only in the minds of those opposed to this equality on their own personal grounds does the issue become one of sex. As far as arguing with someone who doesn't "get" gay, I'm begininning to think that there isn't anything out there, eloquent or crude, long or short, that will change someone's mind who is already deeply entrenched in their belief system. They have to first entertain the notion that they might, just might, have something to learn. People have been having sex before marriage long before the 1920s. For millenia, in fact. Young people have as well (long before the 1960s). Same sex sex has been around forever as well, and public officials having prurient interests or being unfaithful has been the norm since Roman times. The only difference is, nowadays we're trying more earnestly to hold these things to the light of day, and are more willing to talk about them in open dialogue, instead of ignoring them with a wink and a nod, or gasping in amazement when such every day occurances are inevitably uncovered. What is or was shocking to previous generations, or nowadays, is a whole 'nother topic for discussion. Lastly, I find it hard to wrap my mind around the fact that you seem to, and I could be wrong here, think SSM it's all about sexual gratifaction and its craving attention. Couples wish to be legitimicized, yes, but I don't know of any weddings, gay or straight, which hold as a central theme (or even mention) antics in the bedroom. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   jkoenig ouini wrote: If you can't know peace, love someone, or have empathy for them without a dictionary under your arm to consult, I really don't know what to do about that. Next time I will state for you when I am being tongue-in-cheek as well. I ran across an interesting list.  Most people appealing to the U.S. Constitution have at least a fair idea of what it says.  Few people know what their State Constitutions say.  Here's the opening line of every one of them below. Would anyone like to argue that the men who signed each of these documents, in supporting the language they contain, were not of faith that held the Bible up as truth?  I think reasonable people will stipulate that they were overwhelmingly Christian.  I think reasonable people will agree that not a one of them intended to include homosexuals in any law they ever wrote sanctioning marriage.  I think reasonable people who honor our Constitution(s) will hesitate greatly before going off to try and twist the words of our Constitution(s) into whatever they want them to mean. What's one of those phrases gay characters in movies like to use ... "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt"? Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor_and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution . Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land . Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution... Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government... California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe. Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy . Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ... Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty . establish this Constitution... Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution... Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution. Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings . Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors. Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government. Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings to establish this Constitution Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges . establish this Constitution. Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties... Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy. Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction. Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty... Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe ... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ...and devoutly imploring His direction . Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work. Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ... Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty. establish this Constitution Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .. establish this Constitution Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution... New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors. New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty . New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings. North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those . North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain... Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common .. Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this .. Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.. Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of he State of South Carolina. grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution. South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil! and religious liberties ... establish this.... Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefensible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience... Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God. Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution .. Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man... Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator .. can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other .. Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful! to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia . reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God . Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ... Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution .. After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong! Back to Top   jkoenig I don't want to exasperate anyone too much , so let's try a different subtopic for a while just for something fresh and see what people think. This week the CA Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that Catholic Charities had to start providing birth control as an option in its counseling services.  Here are the facts (let's hope) no one can argue: 1) Catholic charities is a Christian organization based on the values of the Catholic denomination of Christianity. 2) While not the same 501c3 organization as the Catholic Church, it is still a church (religious charity) existing under the same rights and rules as a 501c3.  (Similar to having 1000 different Evangelical churches that are separately organized, but still all hold the same values). 3) Catholic faith holds that birth control is wrong. 4) Catholic Charities exists not for itself, but to serve others.  It does good works in the community. 5) No one is forced to go to Catholic Charities for assistance. Topic for discussion:  Does anyone think that if gay marriage is legalized federally and across all fifty States, that a day may come when groups are suing to get the courts to rule that churches can be forced to marry gays who come to them asking to be married in the church? Back to Top   ouini It seems the above list and comments can be credited to William Federer, president of Amerisearch, Inc. And lest he forget a preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Nor should he forget that pretty most state constitutions have a section (in the legally binding area) allowing that no religion shall be established or prohibited by law. But I for one would argue that Mr. Federer is right, jkoenig. The majority who penned each of these documents, in supporting the language they contain, were of faith that held Christianity as true. (Or at least, perhaps, copied closely the boilerplate from other, earlier state constitutions.) I'm not so sure I would argue their lawful intent of such preambles, in terms of rights the state restricts its citizens from, was to supercede their constitutions or marriage laws beyond what was written in them, though. I think reasonable people who honor our Constitution will hesitate greatly before going off to try and add government restrictions which aren't written down. But then, there's a new approach in this culture war which could possibly make all this moot. In a thinly-veiled attempt to circumvent eventually finding DOMA unconstitutional, HR3920 was just introduced. It's purpose? To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court, if both houses approve override with a 2/3 vote. Near as I can tell, it completely warps the checks and balances intent of the Constitution, while (at least at first blush) following it to the letter. As for the Catholic Charities topic and points, I'd agree generally with points 1, 3, 4 and 5, but think I disagree with point 2. jkoenig wrote: 2) While not the same 501c3 organization as the Catholic Church, it is still a church (religious charity) existing under the same rights and rules as a 501c3. (Similar to having 1000 different Evangelical churches that are separately organized, but still all hold the same values). I've read some of the opinion (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S099822.PDF). It turns out the Catholic Charities doesn't fit (and acknowledges it doesn't fit) any of the four requirements to be legally considered a religious employer. The requirements listed in the opinion seemed pretty good to me, except the fourth one (some paragraph in the Internal Revenue code) which I didn't actually look up (its purpose isn't to spread belief, it doesn't primarily employ [Catholics], it doesn't primarily serve [Catholics], and it not a code-following non-profit org). It's fine for a religious entity to claim exemption due to the Constitution. CC says the law conflicts with the practice of their religion ... but CC isn't legally a religious employer. Yes, the board of the charity probably holds certain religious views. But as far as employment goes, they don't impose a requirement upon their employees that they be Catholic. The employee can say, "I'm Hindu", and CC, by hiring them, says, "that's fine with us. You see, we don't impose a requirement upon our employees to follow any of the Catholic doctrine. We just expect them to follow the law." Except, by denying them birth control, they actually do impose a requirement upon their employees to follow Catholic doctrine, and not just the law. It turns out the reason the state mandates certain levels of coverage (at least in this case) is because health insurance is so much more unreasonably expensive for women than for men, unless contraceptives are covered. The opinion cited a cost of up to 68% more for women than men. Employers aren't mandated to provide insurance, but if they do, the state is free to regulate "the content of insurance policies for the purpose of eliminating a form of gender discrimination in health benefits." [opinion, p 19]. They have to offer a gender-equal plan to all similarly hired employees. Coverage for only, say, prostate problems, viagra prescriptions, testicular cancer treatments, and MPB, would not be allowed as it would be highly discriminatory against women, effectively covering men, but not women. So the government requires that if you provide drug-coverage, part of that must be (secularly defined) birth control, though the law makes some religiously targeted exceptions. To avoid every employer's saying, "Hey, I'm religious. Sign me up for no regulation!", there exist standards for being considered religious. People of all religions, or anyone worried about government interference into legitimately religious affairs, should remain on their guard in this matter. And I think that this kind of case strays near the grey area of what the state should be allowed to regulate, in terms of the practical implications of applying religious beliefs to a governement-regulated setting. In this particular case at least, I agree with the courts. That said, I'd have to know a lot more than I do to conclude that all the decisions leading to this one were correct. Do I think a day may come when groups sue to get courts to force churches to marry gays? There may be some hacks who try (in fact, a few days ago the converse happened -- a county DA filed criminal charges against two Unitarian ministers for solemnizing gay marriages -- but I think at issue is whether they knew the two had a marriage license or not.) But similar to how the state hasn't gotten involved with allowing blacks to run the Mormon church, or women to be pastors in churches where that's not allowed, I don't think that path will be seriously pursued, no. Edited by ouini on March 19 2004 at 1:13pm __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. ErkRik i have no idea if this has been hit upon yet, but i was thinking (imagine that one) and i wonder now if the church didnt screw up in letting government get its hands dirty in marriage in the first place...a somewhat viable argument can now be made that marriage the way the government looks at it is not a religious institution at all when two people can go to a judge or a guy in vegas dressed like elvis and get a piece of paper signed that says they are "married" have we just been frogs placed in water and are just now realizing the water is boiling when the government is on the verge of redefining, in a human sense, something the church effectively gave it the power to do? __________________ "A witty quote proves nothing." ~Voltaire Back to Top   matt ErkRik wrote: have we just been frogs placed in water and are just now realizing the water is boiling when the government is on the verge of redefining, in a human sense, something the church effectively gave it the power to do? Here's the deal... This is kinda what I've been thinking as well. However, as long as the government is asking my opinion (which it does, in the form of elected officials, and the voting system), I will continue to pull for my belief system. That is how our country works. (well, how it is supposed to work) Majority rules. __________________ Matt Heerema www.mattandnancy.org Back to Top   niki matt wrote: ErkRik wrote: have we just been frogs placed in water and are just now realizing the water is boiling when the government is on the verge of redefining, in a human sense, something the church effectively gave it the power to do? Here's the deal... This is kinda what I've been thinking as well. However, as long as the government is asking my opinion (which it does, in the form of elected officials, and the voting system), I will continue to pull for my belief system. That is how our country works. (well, how it is supposed to work) Majority rules.   Majority rules, but lets not forget about minority rights. Back to Top   nickrock jkoenig wrote: Would anyone like to argue that the men who signed each of these documents, in supporting the language they contain, were not of faith that held the Bible up as truth? [...snip...]  I think reasonable people will agree that not a one of them intended to include homosexuals in any law they ever wrote sanctioning marriage.  They also didn't intend to include blacks or women in many / the majority of these state constitutions (as well as the federal).  But obviously, of course, that's a rhetorical move that you've likely already heard, much like the observation that the "founding fathers" did not practice or preach the same Christianity you and most modern Christians do. I think the distinction most important and relevant to topics like this is that legalist Christians feel that law is something set in stone (like literally with the Ten Commandments), and thus that laws remain unchanging/unchangeable and "perfect" no matter what has happened between their origin and now. Others, be they non-legalist Christians and (some) non-Christians, feel that laws are flexible codes that do change, that have to change, as our knowledge, understanding, and experience of the world collectively accumulates and changes / expands over time. The sides in topics like this just argue themselves blue in the face due to this difference in philosophy or perspective.  This whole SSM thing is really, in some ways, a concrete example of the more abstract argument over whether the Constitution should be followed "as is" or if it's a "living document" meant to bend and change to fit each generation/era of America and Americans. At least, those are my two cents, for what they're worth. Back to Top   jkoenig This is an excellent speech.  Keyes argues his position with logic and plain facts. http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/04_04_03texasrally.htm   Back to Top   matt This article from Breakpoint (yes, a Christian editorial) pretty much sums up my current feelings on the whole topic: Chuck Colsen wrote: BreakPoint Cultural commentary with Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson http://www.breakpoint.org July 8, 2004 De-Lovely Couples - Mocking Marriage In De-Lovely, the new film about songwriter Cole Porter's life, Porter tells his wife, Linda, about his homosexuality. Linda, who is the inspiration behind his genius, tells him that his music comes from his talent not from his destructive behavior. But she does beg Porter to give up his scandalous behavior so as "not to put us at jeopardy," a promise Porter isn't prepared to make. The prospect of a marriage where children, permanence, and fidelity are in doubt is supposed to make us pity Linda Porter, even if she was complicit in her own plight. After all, who would opt for such an arrangement? Well, according to one scholar, many Americans have. And understanding how and why this is the case is crucial to understanding the push for same-sex "marriages." According to Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University, homosexuals don't want marriage, at least not marriage as understood for most of the past two millennia. They want what "marriage has become" as a result of cultural changes and bad policy choices. Historically speaking, marriage was an institution "defined by religious doctrine, moral tradition, home-centered commitments to child rearing, and gender complementarity . . . " Today, it is a "highly individualistic and egalitarian institution." Marriage no longer "[implies] commitment to home, to Church, to childbearing, to traditional gender duties, or even (permanently) to spouse," so writes Christensen. Traditionally, the "husband-wife bond" was defined by "mutual sacrifice and cooperative labor." But that has been replaced by "dual-careerist vistas of self-fulfillment and consumer satisfaction." According to Christensen, no one should be surprised that homosexuals want "the strange new thing marriage has become." After all, "contemporary marriage . . . certifies a certain legitimacy in the mainstream of American culture." In addition, it "delivers tax, insurance, life-style, and governmental benefits." And, best of all, from the homosexual's perspective, it does all of these things "without imposing any of the obligations of traditional marriage." If childbearing, sexual fidelity, and permanence are no longer central to our culture's understanding of marriage, but the benefits are the same, why not agitate for marriage? Christensen says that it would be a mockery to issue marriage license to couples who, by definition, "can never have children," "will not resist the temptations to extramarital affairs, and will not preserve their union for a lifetime." But, as he reminds us, this mockery of wedlock started "decades ago." It started when hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples started "buying basset hounds rather than bassinets; started indulging in extramarital affairs; and started fulfilling divorce attorneys' dreams of avarice." The result was marriages that more closely resembled the one depicted in De-Lovely than the traditional model. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight the attempt to extend the marriage franchise to same-sex couples. It's still a mockery of a sacred institution. But it does mean that our efforts should be part of what Christensen calls a "broader effort to restore moral and religious integrity to marriage as a heterosexual institution." Until that happens, marriage, regardless of who gets a marriage license, will remain an institution in jeopardy. __________________ Matt Heerema www.mattandnancy.org jkoenig "Fundamental human rights should never be put up for a popular vote," said Matt Foreman (search) of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We'll win some states and we'll lose some states, but eventually the Supreme Court is going to look at the Bill of Rights and isn't going to give a damn what's in any of these state constitutions." While this quote is anecdotal and represents the view of just one gay agenda leader, everyone should take note of this attitude.  Mr. Foreman is calling for nullification of existing law by fiat, while allowing the simplest understanding of history to escape him: the fact that all codified human rights in this world's history came to be via the process of free election (voting). For Mr. Foreman, there is no document, rule of law, or process that is legitimate except that one which lets him have what he wants. It is also fact that there is nothing written with the force of law in his favor other than from a few rebellious, scattered local officials and activist judges. What he is advocating here is minority rule and an a non-constitutionally bound, activist judiciary.  His justification needs be nothing more in his mind than a belief that he is right. That isn't our system of government and that isn't America.  Democracy isn't an ethereal concept that can be redefined.  It has the inherent characteristic of self-determination.  For self-determination to exist, every person's vote counts, and the vote in eleven states last night to ban gay marriage demonstrates where the majority of Americans stand on gay marriage. For Mr. Foreman to accomplish what his quote implies would be the greatest voter disenfranchisement and the height of hypocrisy.  One who starts from a position of tolerance for a minority viewpoint cannot credibly call for bigotry against opposing points of view through the hijacking of the American legal & political process. Back to Top   nickrock Not to put words into your mouth, but I have the gut feeling that if Matt Foreman was a Christian saying the exact same thing in favor of traditional marriage, pro-life, etc, that you would not be having the problem with his comments that you are showing.... -nick   Back to Top   jkoenig Well then you should be pleasantly surprised, nickrock, when I tell you that your gut misleads you. Should it ever come to pass that a bonafide majority of Americans really do have no moral problem with gay marriage, it would be the wrong response for Christians in positions of power to attempt to rule by minority.  That approach doesn't work.  History is replete with examples of minority rule leading nations to ruin and failure. Why does the gay agenda think it will be the first to successfully force others to accept a belief such those others will hold onto it and continue to practice it without constant oversight and control? The only way moral issues get decided without political strife, and only one generation at a time, is through open communication -- using our human gifts of persuasion and reason.  How have minority ruling interests always maintained for a time what power they manage to grab?  Through the active suppression of opposing points of view. Christianity cannot be effective at winning converts by force or militant control any more than Wahabbi extremism, the old South African regime, or Socialism can lead to peaceful, free societies. We musn't be so dim.  Fascism is independent of the ideals that are propogated through it.  One can be a Communist fascist, gay fascist, Islamic fascist or Christian fascist.  Or, one can believe in any of those ideals and nonetheless be free and extend that right of free thought to others.  Stalin's atrocities came only after an errant philosophy in which he believed was freely disseminated. If a generation of Americans loses its Christian values and heritage and the principles by which it then governs itself radically shifts, then Christians have failed to pass on what they have learned.  If Christians tried to turn the tide by resorting to force, they would only fail further and lead others to reject Chrstianity all the more. We are in the midst of a culture war right now and the gay agenda is in the thick of it.  Faced with the prospect of losing ground under freedom and the free exchange of ideas, thoughts like those of Mr. Foreman above are born.  They are desperate moves by people on the back foot who have sold themselves out for their cause, for which they will sacrifice any other principle they might have once cherished in order to win that cause. Always remember: the greatest atrocities of power don't just suddenly appear.  They are often born out of intellectual philosophies that were hatched under freedom, that sounded deceptively good, and that made great promises to the people that those philosophies seduced.  But as soon as the philosophy doesn't work out so well or invites resistance, unwilling to abandon it, its adherents often turn to ideas such as Mr. Foreman's, above, and a new brand of fascism is born. You can reject my Christianity and my prayers for you or conversations with you will not do you harm.  The Bible gives me no other recourse and I believe in no other way to win you.  But if I reject your faith in the gay agenda and you decide that I must be forced to adopt it, you will have no choice but to do it forcefully, because I will not yield to it.  You must either live and allow me to do the same knowing I disagree with you, just as I would permit you the same, or you must subjugate me. So nickrock, who's America would you rather live in, mine or Mr. Foreman's? Edited by jkoenig on November 03 2004 at 5:59pm Back to Top   nickrock Personally I don't think it comes down to a choice between you or Mr. Foreman.  I will first admit that I see nothing fundamentally wrong with his argument.  Perhaps this makes me facist, but I feel the same way about abortion that Mr. Foreman appears to feel about gay marriage.  To me, abortion is murder.  I have tried really hard to find reasons to justify it, or at least tolerate it, and for a long time I've even felt that it was okay to morally oppose it but legally accept it, and I still think there's some validity to that - I think education about the reality of abortion might prove more affective than simply outlawing it. But ultimately, I've come to the realization that if I personally feel abortion is unjustified killing - i.e., murder - then I really have no choice but to say it should be illegal.  I wouldn't make that kind of exception for someone shooting a 10, 20, or 60 year old in broad daylight, why is abortion any different? So personally, I'm fine with what I take to be Mr Foreman's basic sentiment as given in the quote: some things are simply so true (or wrong) that to say they need to be treated the same as a tax bill or the right to own guns seems ludicrous to I'd think many many people.  Perhaps that does make me a fascist, but that's simply how I feel.  And I don't know if I agree with him on the sacredness of (gay) marriage be such that it should be above the law - as someone else on this thread has done quite a good job in my opinion of demonstrating just how entangled in law marriage has been since this country's beginning.  But, as I say, I do agree with the basic sentiment, and I don't think (and certainly hope that it doesn't) make me a fascist to think that way. Plus, I really can't accept that Christians have been any better at promoting free discourse and resisting the ugly side of human emotion and experience.  I mean, as far as I know, I've never heard of homosexuals going to Christian funerals with signs reading "God Hates Xians", "Jesus Burned in Hell", or "Die, WhateverTheChristianEquivalentOfFagsIs". So, to repeat, I just don't see a difference between you and Mr. Foreman in terms of one being free and the other fascist.  I mean, I do understand what you're trying to say is the difference, but I just don't feel you're right on your reaction to his words.  Now, complete caveat: I've no idea who Mr. Foreman is or the full context of that quote.  Maybe he is some nutwing that really wants to do what you say, but from that little snippet, it's just not how I read it.  Especially, as I tried to point out, I can fully accept and commend a belief that some things are just so sacred that to say some law or even constitution has to recognize that they are good and rightful (or wrong and evil) seems almost silly in my opinion.  Maybe he's wrong that marriage, gay or straight, is sacred enough to warrant that level of belief, but the general motivation itself seems commendable, or at least better than the cynics or relativists who say everything is temporal and adjustable like laws are, that no values are eternal. But, repeat: just my opinion. -nick Edited by nickrock on November 04 2004 at 2:10am Back to Top   jkoenig I understand your points, nick.  So for the sake of this thread, it comes down to whether this issue, gay marriage, is simply so right and true that its aims cannot be refused or refuted.  And if so, then is forced acceptance by America, as Mr. Foreman calls for by the suppression of States rights AND voting on the issue, warranted? Can I pretend that the Spanish conquistadors did well in their approach to Central American Indians because they were bringing Christianity, or even that early America did well with our native Indians?  Absolutely not.  That has been an enduring blemish on our history. My whole argument is that Mr. Foreman's advocated approach, by definition and proven in history, cannot succeed.  Even if you and I agree that abortion is murder, we cannot be the only two and expect to forcefully ban it as a means to winning others on that issue. The only way for the gay agenda to win the majority of Americans over is to establish that gay relationships are inherently good and an inalienable right, are harmonious with other collective beliefs and values, and harmless.  Based on Tuesday's voting, their response should be that they have not convinced us of this, and therefore have more work of persuasion to do, not that they are going to force it down our throats one day soon no matter what. Mr. Foreman's advocated actions do more than just inflame an ongoing culture war ... its line of reasoning threatens the very principles that make our nation's system of government work, even the very same principles that permit him to publish what he thinks. Not only are reason and persuasion the only way to make changes that endure, they are indeed much more powerful than forced change.  That is why I argue that those who force change always follow quickly with suppressed freedom of expression. As for the gay agenda's merits, regardless of which side one is on, most see homosexuality as just plain right or just plain wrong.  Moral issues are absolute.  Our generation is being asked to make a judgement on this one.  Our nation in eleven states, enough voters thousands of times over to be a valid statistical sample, have voted down gay marriage. The best response the gay community can make and stay true to American ideals is to acknowledge that they have not made their case, and to begin again trying to remake it.  Mr. Foreman's response was a wrong one.  Personally, I think the gay movement has had its best opportunity to make its case and has had more than enough help from public education and entertainment media, and it has not been convincing, as Tuesday demonstrated. Faced with either giving up or finding some way to succeed, we may continue to see more desperate efforts.  A desperate effort will be any effort, on any scale, that removes someone's choice to disagree with the gay agenda. Back to Top   nickrock But again, I guess I just don't read his comment the same you do: "Fundamental human rights should never be put up for a popular vote," said Matt Foreman (search) of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We'll win some states and we'll lose some states, but eventually the Supreme Court is going to look at the Bill of Rights and isn't going to give a damn what's in any of these state constitutions." To me, he's not suggesting that the "gay agenda" is going to force its desires down our throats.  To me, this reads more as "Currently, we'll win some battles and lose some battles here and there, but sooner or later once this reaches the Supreme Court they will have to see that the Constitution simply does not ban same sex marriage and that regardless of what the individual states may try and enact, they will have to accept that there's no current legal basis for continuing to ban gay marriage." Again, whether you agree with his assessment of how the Court will act is one thing, but as I said I don't see this as a threat to subvert or bypass the legal system, but his commentary on how he thinks things will play out.  Again, if I knew more about him maybe he'd appear differently, but it just seems to me that you are misreading his comments and putting more authoritarian malice in them then he did.thinking through the issue and coming to a traditional value/belief, and those who simply rejected it out of fear or a gut reaction against it without actually thinking it through in a calm and reasonable manner, like is going on with this thread.  Not to paint everyone who voted against it as a kneejerk reactionary, I don't think that's the case, but that it's important to know why people voted before rushing to claim something as a victory. my 2 cents, -nick   Back to Top   jkoenig nick, I think we need to stick with what Mr. Foreman actually said.  Don't you agree that it is more valid to take his statement at its word, literally, than to attempt to interpret it otherwise?  You may or may not be right about what Mr. Foreman meant, but all I have done is comment on what his words literally mean. The problem with the first part of his statement is it assumes facts not in evidence.  Who gets to decide what is included in "fundamental human rights"?  If Mr. Foreman's statement is to make any sense, then gay unions must already be expressly allowed by the Bill of Rights which he later refers to.  Since the Bill of Rights does not specify, indeed no foundational document of our nation specifies, any right of gay legal union, a reader is left with no other choice but to conclude that Mr. Foreman is advocating a nullification of them all. This is further supported by Mr. Foreman's direct call to circumvent, undermine, and otherwise ignore States' Rights and specifically their constitutions.  No power to do this is granted to any federal court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, except as specifically granted in the U.S. Constitution.  Mr. Foreman is either legally undereducated, or doesn't care what power the court has but advocates a federal judiary overstepping its bounds in order to further his cause. Your comments are an attempt to interpret Mr. Foreman's remarks as something other than what he actually said.  You may claim he didn't mean it, but you cannot claim he didn't say it.  Mr. Foreman says plainly that gay marriage should not be left to the will of the people or to the jurisdiction of the states.  Mr. Foreman is not calling for a U.S. Consitutional amendment to allow gay union, but IS calling for an illegal federal court ruling (in the sense that the federal courts have no power to make such a ruling). I'm not sure how you can propose that millions of people in eleven states did not really think through the issue of gay marriage.  I suppose the only way you can conclude that is with the assumption that whoever voted yes to the ban is not sufficiently thoughtful, while anyone who voted no is.  I guess you don't believe that reasonable people can disagree?  This issue has gotten more than its share of attention in the last decade.  And, how hard is it really to understand?  Any adult of sound mind knows about marriage customs, knows what gay sex is, and knows the traditional definition of legal marriage.  If you consider your fellow Americans thoughtful enough to vote up or down on a taxation issue, something far more complicated and requiring an understanding of financial and economic principles, then why do you consider them dim on a basic human relationship? Edited by jkoenig on November 05 2004 at 2:56pm ouini Nick's point seems sound. Sticking with what Mr. Foreman said, and assuming he means it, literally, at his word, we can deduce what he thinks on this issue -- that the U.S. Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, somehow (obviously indirectly) guarantees that the government not stop SSM. What his words say: - "fundamental human rights should never be put up for a popular vote," which is legally true of the Bill of Rights he later refers to. - "we'll win some states and we'll lose some states," also seems to be true and not at all fascist. - "eventually the Supreme Court is going to look at the Bill of Rights and isn't going to give a damn what's in any of these state constitutions." If the Bill of Rights somehow federally assures SSM, then it's true that the Supreme Court won't care what state constitutions say. The states don't have the power to supercede the U.S. Constitution (nor its amendments). You can argue that the BoR doesn't legally mean what he thinks it does, but neither side can say for sure until it comes to court. That is, his statement doesn't assumes facts not in evidence any more than anyone fighting existing law believing it unconstitutional. In fact, I don't think it's necessary to believe that the the Bill of Rights is the conclusive list of fundamental rights he refers to, especially given the 9th amendment (which perhaps a bit oddly and ironically specifically states that the Constitution's enumerating certain rights does not deny further rights the people keep). The assertion that Mr. Foreman must be advocating a nullification of the BoR is adversarial, and I think not likely at all. Mr. Foreman says plainly that fundamental human rights should not be left to the will of the people or to the jurisdiction of the states. If he means the human rights the authors of the Constitution thought were fundamental enough to put into the BoR, he's 100% correct. What remains to be legally shown (and which may be debated by each side, but in fairness should not be gainsayed or second-guessed on behalf of the "other" side's point of view) is whether SSM is actually a constitutional right or not. Moving on: As for millions of people in eleven states not really thinking through the issue of gay marriage, I think that's a good possibility. People tend to vote conservatively (not politically conservatively, just conservatively) and emotionally reactively on issues they come to believe are issues of personal threat to them. This issue has been billed for the past decade by social conservatives as a "threat to marriage". That many (not "whoever") who voted yes to the ban did not seek out proponents of the other side of the issue to listen thoughtfully to what their full arguments were, is very likely. That most didn't even fully read the wording of the proposition is also, I think, quite likely. Now, I also think many who voted 'no' also didn't look very deeply at the issue. The issue has been around for a long time, but many folks/voters have had an initial emotional reaction to it and never, not even in the past twenty years, took the time to study both sides of the issue carefully. Nobody but you suggested that Nick thinks reasonable people cannot disagree. This is true of many things voted upon by the public, btw. Tax issues have been around for a long time, too, and many folks/voters have an initial emotional reaction to it and never take the time to study both sides of the issue. Slavery, women's rights, civil rights, evolution, blue laws, same way. Heck, lawyers often select juries based on who they think they can convince emotionally, not logically, when their case is weak. But nobody's discussing taking voting rights away from people too indifferent or lazy to look at an issue. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   jkoenig Hmm, so ouini is clarifying nickrock, who is clarifying Mr. Foreman, who did not mean what he said and therefore needed to be reinterpreted and clarified.  Further, nickrock & ouini are also able to clarify the voices of millions who voted by claiming it likely that they did not understand what they were voting about.  A+ for boldness!  Gay marriage is "indirectly guaranteed" by our Bill of Rights (because it doesn't prohibit it clearly enough for a few).  Should I have an abnormally cuddly relationship with my dog leading to a betrothal, the silence of our founding fathers also indirectly guarantees this.  ouini wrote: fundamental human rights should never be put up for a popular vote," which is legally true ... ... naturally ... that is ... but not until after the first vote that establishes said rights. Oh, and of course, when we want to come up with some new ones.  OK, really what we all mean to say is that you can only add fundamental rights, but you can't take any away, and since none can be taken away, any that we think of have already by definition been granted ... oh my head hurts! ouini wrote: You can argue that the BoR doesn't legally mean what he thinks it does, but neither side can say for sure until it comes to court. ... a necessary concept (the dominance of the court, that is) in order to ensure the success of an activist judiciary.  Maintaining a balance of power with the legislative and executive branches, which are tied back to the votes of the people, would otherwise erode the ability of the few in our midst who are thoughtful enough to determine what is a fundamental human right and keep it from being voted on. ouini wrote: People tend to vote conservatively and emotionally reactively on issues they come to believe are issues of personal threat to them. Despite the "fairness" ouini calls for toward opponents, this statement cleverly associates emotional reaction with conservatism.  We all know how stoic and unemotional the left is about everything.   I daresay I may have difficulty containing my emotions while my wife travels on business if one of her coworkers legally attempts to seduce her, but if I were more thoughtful about it and perhaps not so threatened, I would understand her coworker's fundamental human right to make such an attempt and my wife's ongoing right to choose whether or not to honor her marriage covenant with me.  I feel so peaceful now that I have embraced this philosophy.  Life surely will deal me no disappointments, I think.  ouini wrote: but many folks/voters have had an initial emotional reaction to it (gay marriage) and never, not even in the past twenty years, took the time to study both sides of the issue carefully.  Did someone say facts not in evidence?  Nah, must've dreamed that.  Ouini, you must have traveled the eleven states and conducted focus groups so that you know this, right?  BTW, the ultra-left in academia could learn from you to help make their case that terrorism isn't really terrorism and may be justified.  After all, most of us have had much less than twenty years discussing that issue and we are emotional, reactive, threatened, haven't thought through Al Qaeda's and others' positions, and are just being conservative -- hence why the elites called us in the red states "uneducated".  Oh, hey, all you young ones who failed to vote at all were also labeled "those little bastards" by a liberal pundit this week -- his was the thoughtful, responsive, non-threatening, liberal, educated response. [QUOTE=ouini]Slavery, women's rights, civil rights, evolution, blue laws, same way. [/QUOTE] Yup, we don't know jack, Jack. ROFL! The absurdity of some of these arguments slay me.  I suppose someone may feel the urge to call me a meany for saying so.  It's far better in today's usage of rhetoric to vaguely insult your detractors while maintaining the plausible appearance of an intellectual debate.  If so, I lose.  I just enjoy calling the duck a duck too much to vaguely infer that it's fowl.  To the humorless, I apologize.  Comedy show over.  Thank you and good night. ouini Meow, JKoenig. I would think that if you're okay with reinterpreting what Foreman said to mean he advocates nullifying the BoR, you'd be okay with others giving their interpretation of what his literal words may have meant too, no? You also seem to be saying that you *can* vouch for the millions who voted, and personally guarantee that they're all savvy voters. Let's face it: America isn't in general terribly savvy on politics, but that's entirely different from painting them not thoughtful in general. Saying the majority of voters don't tend to examine any given issue thoroughly, from both sides, impartially, is not any kind of revelation. That's not a left- or right-thing. And despite anti-SSM claim, it's not just the judiciary we have to keep our eye on, now and always. We all learned in 7th grade that giving *any* branch power, not just the judicial, without checks by the other two is a necessary ingredient for overreaching government. The powers granted to the executive branch are guaranteed by the Constitution, the will of the majority is to be reflected by the legislature, and that's up to and until it conflicts with the Constitution as interpreted by non-lawmakers (the judiciary) which can't be voted away by simply majority. Our original Bill of Rights doesn't prohibit anything from anyone -- it only guarantees certain rights to people and states. The amendments which follow pretty much do the same. jkoenig wrote: ouini wrote: If you don't think tend to vote conservatively and emotionally reactively on threat issues, show me how they don't, or even ask for evidence that they do. Telling me that I'm attacking conservatism, saying they don't know jack, and putting forward the strawman that I implied the left are the only unemotional and reasonable people out there, is simply bunk. This is Hot Topics (you meany ;), but that doesn't mean you have to attack sarcastically instead of putting forward arguments. Put simply, please quit trying to tell me (and others) what I'm saying, especially if you aren't going to use elipses fairly (or at all) to show where you've edited my words. If you don't know what I mean by conservative vs. politically conservative, just ask. __________________ "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -M.L.K. Jr. Back to Top   jkoenig OK, sorry for my sarcastic wit -- but I did have a lot of fun, and I think showed the weakness in the arguments being made. We've got a captive audience (of probably 3),  so let's take a different tack. Anyone? Anyone? Someone please list for me the positive benefits of a "healthy" gay marriage (as defined by a proponent of such). Back to Top   nickrock I didn't say the "no" voters were any more intelligent; I just question the simplistic notion that in a democracy the "moral" choice is always the one that wins out.  You may yawn and find such examples as slavery and women's rights to be old hat and cliche, but they remain true.  The New Yorker magazine had an article a while back about just how woefully non-thinking the typical American voter is; a decided majority, in fact, simply do not comprehend the typical "issues of the day".  I will try and find that article, but I don't normally read the magazine and only read the article from a printout a friend gave me. Personally, I don't feel I am reading anything into this guy's comments, and I certainly haven't made any argument that "he didn't mean that, he meant this".  If anything, I agree with ouini that jkoenig is the one who is doing the word-putting-into-mouth thing.  I have a couple friends who are quite liberal and quite easy with comparing/linking both christians and conservatives to facism and Hitler.  So I try and keep from doing that sort of thing, and to me you really have to demonstrate malice and intent to prove that something is to the extreme of being fascist or communist or whatever other extreme belief you want to label it. Not to wander off topic, but I will say this in puzzlement about how big an issue gay marriage is with elements of the Christian culture: as this issue is purely a secular issue, don't we all have something better we could be doing with our purported faith?  What serves Christ more?  Ranting and raving over homosexuals wanting to get married down at the local courthouse, or serving the poor with shelter and hot meals? I used to very much be "into" the so-called "fundamentalist" scene, everything from charismatic to Nazarene, but I was ultimately surprised to find what I felt was the true spirit of Christ not in any of the numerous non-denoms I'd attended but in the Catholic Church.  Everytime I went to homeless shelters and food drives, I often found more Catholics (or Lutherans) than I did all my friends, who had infinite energy and time to get worked up over homosexuals in their midst, legal abortion, and the like, but seemed to never be bothered with actually lifting a finger to help someone else, busy as they were with eleventeen worship services per week plus all the jesus rock getaways and retreats. I apologize for offending any of you by what I've said, and I by no means hold up the Church as an exemplar - it's as fallen as the rest of the humanity in a lot of ways, sadly - but at the same time I find my faith bettered by putting aside my wordly concerns and tending towards the needs of others. Honestly - is this why Christ died for your sins?  So you go on over the possibility that some day two men or women can go get a legal marriage at a courthouse?  Perhaps this is a mistaken use of the bible, but I for one eventually realized I had to simply give to Caesar's what is Caesar's and take care of the rest.  My hot button issue isn't gay/marriage but abortion, and I had to realize at some point that, just like (in my opinion) with this issue, God is likely calling us to do something more meaningful with ourselves than wallow in our fears and self-righteousness. At least, for me, faith didn't come from simply learning the ten commandments by rote and then yelling them at anyone within earshot.  Please, Mr. "Jkoenig" and anyone else, do not take too much offense at what I'm saying.  I can't speak for your faith and even if I could it is not my place or ability to be judging it, so I apologize for in effect doing so, but I cannot help but think stuff like this doubly harms the faith/faithful: it misleads us into thinking that our own personal sense of what is right or wrong, no matter how much we think our church or bible justifies it, is more important than living a life that is really true to our faith, and it simply reinforces in others the image of Christians as those who are more about reacting in fear/hate/disgust/etc than in more proactively following our faith towards doing good works (sorry; I tried to avoid the whole faith/good works debate, but I guess that is the crux of my point). I guess my point comes down to this: if St. Peter asks me "What'd you do with your faith?" I'd rather be able to answer "It moved me to help the needy" rather than "It prompted me to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in one nation." Sorry for this off-topic tangent at the end, but it's only fair to put out the cards on the table that lead me to disagreeing with you on this subject. -nick   Back to Top   jkoenig nickrock wrote: I just question the simplistic notion that in a democracy the "moral" choice is always the one that wins out. I agree with you there, nickrock. (e.g., Abortion won out.  It's not the moral (correct) choice.) nickrock wrote: What serves Christ more?  Ranting and raving over homosexuals wanting to get married down at the local courthouse, or serving the poor with shelter and hot meals? It's an interesting question because it assumes that one form of obedience serves Christ better than another.  Are you saying that some wrongs are acceptable as long as certain other things are done well?  Do you perceive Christ as willing to equivocate? nickrock wrote: I felt ... the true spirit of Christ ... in the Catholic Church That's fantastic, but it doesn't support your stance on SSM, because the Catholic Church also teaches that SSM is wrong.  If you trust the Catholic church based on its example, why don't you trust its stance on SSM?  This simple logic reveals that your stance on SSM has nothing to do with any denomination, whether one you like or one you don't. nickrock wrote: I find my faith bettered by putting aside my wordly concerns and tending towards the needs of others Slight correction: caring for the poor betters your compassion.  It doesn't better your faith.  Faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).  You can see the poor.  You have assurance that feeding them helped their physical condition.  But bettering your faith means you believe what God has told you even if you disagree with Him, and pursue what He calls righteous even if it isn't what you would have called righteous if you were in His place.  Do you disagree? nickrock wrote: simply give to Caesar's what is Caesar's You may wish to note that the example of deferring to earthly authority here had to do with money.  Christians were martyred by not deferring their beliefs and moral obedience to Caesar, or to the Jewish authorities.  Your example is offered out of context. nickrock wrote: do not take too much offense None taken .. never have.  This paragraph excellently makes the humanistic argument.  You would be a worthy Bhuddist, Bahai, or Universalist with this statement of belief.  If I could summarize and restate your argument, it is the "be true to yourself" school of "faith".  It means that we will be individually judged by God against the standard we set for ourselves, not individually judged against His own consistent standard.  I'm not willing to gamble eternity on my own standard.  Are you willing to gamble eternity on yours? If St. Peter asks me what I did with my faith (not the primary question, so this answer isn't what grants access to Heaven), I would respond that I trusted God and did what He asked of me whether I or anyone else agreed with Him or not. Good, honest post, nickrock.  I understand where you're coming from .. do you understand me? And to keep it on-topic, could you list for me the positive benefits of a "healthy" gay marriage? Back to Top   nickrock jkoenig wrote: It's an interesting question because it assumes that one form of obedience serves Christ better than another.  Are you saying that some wrongs are acceptable as long as certain other things are done well?  Do you perceive Christ as willing to equivocate? No, but neither am I advocating equivocation.  I do believe some forms of service are indeed more important than others, I will not hide from that charge.  Saying good works is more important than politicking for laws isn't equivocating: I'm not saying that the problem is necessarily with the belief (against gay marriage) but that, in the larger scheme of things, I just don't feel that faith is helped or developed through all these legal arguments and debates. The reason I pointed towards the "Caesar's what is Caesar's" comment is that ultimately I feel my faith demands more from me doing good stuff rather than the secular world (including our government and its laws) agreeing with or condoning my moral beliefs.  To use abortion as an example...while, as I've mentioned previously, find it very difficult to accept its legality, at the same time I am not convinced my best efforts against it are in trying to recriminalize it.  That may lower the numbers, but abortions will still be done, both in clinics and in alleys, just as they were prior to Roe.  I think the unborn would be better served with increasing the efforts by some to inform and support potential mothers who are considering abortion to not choose it. I know when one thinks one is right, one wants to think that the world around should be in total agreement with what can seem so obvious.  To me, it is very difficult to comprehend how people cannot see abortion as the killing of a legitimate human being, not some soulless or meaningless fetus or embryo or group of cells even.  So I know how troubling it is to see that abortion is legal and accepted by some.  But when I really think about it, and try and remove the instinct to judge, it becomes more apparent to me that legal battles may not be the most desirable use of people or energy in trying to change public opinion. To me, it feels like a lot of people (and this is on either side of the aisle) simply want the law first, and then use it to batter down any dissent or rejection.  Perhaps, I guess, this is what you saw in this activist's discussion of some possible future Court ruling favoring gay marriage.  I still don't see his words as meaning that, but even if he was, then he's still making the same mistake I think a lot of Christians, especially legalistic ones, make (in my opinion), which is the belief that law (esp secular laws) must dictate morals, when it seems to me in a democracy that the opposite should hold true: the people's morals dictate law, hence my reservation about the two in my last post. I do not fully agree with the Church - I really believe it is wrong on clerical celebacy, although I can understand the intended purpose of it, and to a lesser extent I'm not so sure about its exclusion of female clergy.  Yet, I accept the Church's authority to determine its positions and its reasoning for how they align with tradition and theological correctness.  Just because I'm a member doesn't mean I cannot dissent or suggest "improvements", so to speak. I'm somewhat divided when it comes to gay marriage and the Church.  In a secular sense, I really see no problem with it being legal.  If most Americans accept it, or civil unions or whatever you want to call it, I accept that as the way democracies govern themselves.  I have no desire for America to become a theocracy.  At the same time, I'm not sure homosexuality is compatible with traditional Christianity, which is my orientation.  Perhaps the faith needs a revolution, the way certain American sects once needed to "realize" that blacks were also human, or perhaps there will never be a reconciliation one way or the other. As for what makes or demonstrates a "healthy" homosexual relationship, I'm not really the one to ask.  My guess is that it's the same as for heterosexual relationships, by encouraging fidelity and love for one another and allowing for their relationship to support their own relationship to God (assuming they are believers, gay or straight). Personally, I think love is not as simple as some of us wish it to be - i.e. that it's as simple a thing as reproduction and Adam and Eve and "one flesh" and all that.  My own personal experience, which has only been hetero, mind you!, is that it can be a very complex thing, with or without Jesus, and I'm left being not so sure that two people of the same gender can't have as fulfilling a relationship as one man/one woman.  So-called "Christian" examples, like Bob Jones University, which still forbids interracial dating, make me very wary of thinking we Christians really know what the heck we're talking about when we ponticate on "God's law" or "God's will".  It seems that when even the devil can use scripture and church to get his way, it is very hard for me not to find a lot of hubris and human pride/ego in those who claim to know God's will like the back of their hand.  I must often come off as similarly smug or superior in my rejection of them, and that is something I'm trying to work on, as it is not intentional. I know that these opinions must make me sound like a humanist or relativist, but I don't mean to suggest that it's up to one's own way.  I guess I can only say that I think things are often much more complicated than we want to admit or accept them as being, and as such, I would rather do something for my faith that is tangible and readily good than something which depends heavily on me presuming to know God's will.  I know "it says so in the bible" is a popular reasoning, but there's also the old adage that one can find almost any position on any subject somewhere in the good book.  For me, "living my faith" means "helping others."  I know it is a common critique of Catholicism to suggest that when one talks of "good works", one is implying that he or she can make their own salvation.  I, for one, do not believe this.  I honestly do not know if I have lived a good enough life to warrant being spared damnation, but as much as I would love to be assured, I am somewhat put-off by those who are completely convinced that they know they are (and this is something that seems much more common in "faith alone" communities than in "faith + works", from personal experience, for what it's worth). I guess what I'm saying is that, for me, the purpose or focus of faith should be on doing good works and serving others as I think Christ wished us to serve others.  Focusing on one's own salvation I think is somewhat questionable at best. jkoenig wrote: Slight correction: caring for the poor betters your compassion.  It doesn't better your faith.  Faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).  You can see the poor.  You have assurance that feeding them helped their physical condition.  But bettering your faith means you believe what God has told you even if you disagree with Him, and pursue what He calls righteous even if it isn't what you would have called righteous if you were in His place.  Do you disagree? I understand what you are getting at, but I would disagree so far in that I don't believe faith is simply or only about trusting in God.  I don't think God or Jesus would consider blind dependency to be the end-all, be-all of faith.  Yes, at some point, one must submit to the greater authority of God, but if you put on the blinders and turn off the brain you get the deranged forms of Islam we see in the world (not to mention quite a few iffy versions of Christianity as well).  I guess I would perhaps quote James 2:19 at this point in regards to the issue of faith.  I don't think God is happy with us just trusting and believing in Him; in my heart I feel He calls us to more substantial things; I'm just not sure blocking secular gay marriages is one of those substantial things. And I thank you for being patient with my replies.  I rarely talk about my faith, as my family is rather uncommitted towards the subject, and most of my friends are either neutral or openly hostile towards religion. -nick   Back to Top   jkoenig nickrock, your reasoning seems to place a heavy value on sacrificing the pursuit of truth in the name of keeping the peace, which is a value many born after Viet Nam want to hold. nickrock wrote: I just don't feel that faith is helped or developed through all these legal arguments and debates. (and following paragraphs) I would argue that debate is both healthy and necessary.  Somehow, in the last couple of decades, we have gained a trendy social idea that values concensus over truth.  To illustrate how unsustainable this is, if two of your boys were kicking their sister under the table, causing her to cry, would you send her to her room without her dinner to achieve peace for everyone, or discipline the boys even if it results in three crying kids in the short-term? I agree with your core belief that Abortion is wrong, and I also agree with you that our morality should dictate our laws.  Doesn't that justify an energetic debate?  Shouldn't the strongest arguments be made, no matter how uncomfortable it makes the room to be in?  But others here, and even Mr. Foreman have held that the morality of SSM is not relevant, or even questionable -- do you agree? Yet, recognizing that Abortion is wrong but then shying away from the struggle to recriminalize it because someone will still use a hanger in the alley is like allowing the drug dealer to sell crack on his stoop, because if we tell him he can't, he'll just sell it in his backyard.  Is this rational? nickrock wrote: I really see no problem with it [SSM] being legal. That is, unless you believe SSM is immoral.  Otherwise, you wouldn't be true to your own statement that morality should be the basis of the law.  So we return to the central issue .... nickrock wrote: As for what makes or demonstrates a "healthy" homosexual relationship, I'm not really the one to ask.  My guess is that it's the same as for heterosexual relationships ... I hope you don't mind my pointing out some irony in this.  The latest round on this thread includes suppositions that those who voted to maintain the traditional definition of marriage were not sufficiently thoughtful or knowledgeable on the issue.  As someone who I would say is thinking about this quite a bit, your statement is telling.  You aren't sure what makes a healthy gay relationship??  If not, how do you know it can be healthy?  Yet, you advocate voting to change our laws against the morality of a majority of people? nickrock wrote: ... it can be a very complex thing ... things are often much more complicated  ... Well said!  We fallen creatures often insert a lot of unnecessary complexity and subtle arguments to try to reason our way out of aspects of God's intentions that we don't like or that don't make us popular.  If I feel a little constrained, just add a few drops of obscure thought foam, allow the mix to expand and cure, and woolah!, I have 'wiggle room'. BTW, Bob Jones University?  There are millions of reasonable Christians with sound Biblical understanding who would disagree with such Christian extremism as banning interracial marriage.  There is no guilt by association, here. nickrock wrote: I would rather do something for my faith that is tangible and readily good ...  Does that mean something noncontroversial and easier to get secular approval for? nickrock wrote: ... than something which depends heavily on me presuming to know God's will ... Most anything you do, if you claim Christ, presumes you know His will (otherwise called a 'conscience').  How can you live any other way?  Does your understanding of scripture lead you to conclude that God does NOT want you to know His will?  How is it presumptuous to know something that isn't a secret? nickrock wrote: ... when one talks of "good works", one is implying that he or she can make their own salvation.  I, for one, do not believe this.  I honestly do not know if I have lived a good enough life to warrant being spared damnation ... Now, this would be something worth spending more time thinking through, because you kind of contradicted yourself.  You are disclaiming works-based reconciliation to God, then casting doubt on whether you've been good enough.  What exactly do you believe gets you into right standing with God? It's so curious to me that some find discomfort (i.e., "put off") with the surety of having been spared eternal punishment, or find peace with not knowing.  This must be what those standing trial feel like just before the verdict ... but which is worse, knowing or not knowing?  I think most people prefer to know.  Or, could it be that those who have not found their assurance of forgiveness resent/envy those who have, leading them to cast doubt on it?  Such stress is so unnecessary. I might understand this sentiment if, by way of analogy, I had the only ice cream cone, and you didn't have one.  But if I can point you to the ice cream stand, tell you it's free, and explain that the ice cream is in unlimited supply, would you resent me for the smile I was wearing and my joy in sharing the information with you?  NO, that is, unless you thought the ice cream doesn't taste very good in the first place. Is the God of the Bible so distasteful to some that they would rather die forever than live for Him now?  Incredibly, many choose just that.  Nickrock, elevating good works and discounting obedience to socially unpopular ideals is usually a strong indicator of one who is trusting in his own "I'm good enough" meter than in God himself through Jesus.  Jesus said of Himself, and many witnesses confirmed, that there is no way but grace.  Works are a response to grace, not a replacement for it.  Get this right.  You don't want to be caught dead without it my friend. nickrock wrote: I don't believe faith is simply or only about trusting in God I'm sorry if being so direct and sure puts you off, but faith is completely about trusting in God.  All else flows from this.  How could you think that Jesus doesn't appreciate "blind" dependency, the connotation notwithstanding, when He Himself said "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed"??  (Remember Hebrews 11:1 above?)  And yet, He and the Apostles, by His Spirit, didn't leave information so sparse, but gave us plenty of to chew on anyway. nickrock wrote: I don't think God is happy with us just trusting and believing in Him; in my heart I feel He calls us to more substantial things; I'm just not sure blocking secular gay marriages is one of those substantial things. Indeed, we are called to many substantial things.  But that comes after trusting in Him, and we haven't really trusted in Him if we reserve for our own judgement, out of all He says in His Word, what we are going to believe and what we are going to reject.  A great irony here: the Bible has much less directly to say about abortion than it does about unnatural relations between those of the same sex.  Yet, the Bible's consistent support for the sanctity of life and your own heart convicts you on abortion.  Why is supporting a much more direct command of God against gay sex so difficult for you to accept? I'm always happy to talk with you about faith.  I appreciate and enjoy the exercise. I'm still waiting for someone to really just list out a nice set of positive benefits of gay marriage.  I don't think it's that hard, but I don't want to speak for those who say I try to make their arguments for them.  One would think that anyone arguing for SSM ought to be able to start with a list of reasons for it, wouldn't you?  I wonder why no one is stepping up to answer this question in detail? Edited by jkoenig on November 17 2004 at 6:22pm Back to Top   nickrock Sorry for the delay in response, but Thanksgiving got in the way! Firstly, to make two general responses to what seem like things you repeatedly criticized me of: On the value of debating:  I don't discount having a healthy debate, or saying they aren't valuable - I think they are- but I am very cynical about the reality of debate.  My personal experience has been that most people - regardless of the issue or their situation on it - do not engage in genuine debate practices, which to me includes the ability and willingness to let your ideas and beliefs be honestly challenged and to honestly consider other points of view.  Both liberals and conservatives, atheists and believers, on the issue of God, abortion, homosexuality, the war in Iraq, whatever, often view debating as the means of strongarming others to their camp, not genuinely exploring the issue at hand and certainly not entertaining any possibility that what they hold so dear, what they are so convinced of, may possibly be wrong or off. So, perhaps rather cynically, I've come to discount the validity or value of most debating.  I don't mean to suggest that I think you or anyone else here engage in that - I don't know you enough to say that - but it is my typical perception of things and so in general I just don't feel debate is a genuine good act or value or whatever, no matter the cause.  I mean, if I were completely a atheist liberal advocating Bush/Republicans out of power or help for the poor/homeless, I would still feel that it'd be better just to do something that tangibly helps achieve my beliefs rather than arguing or debating it.  I realize it's a cynicism of mine, but that is why I feel Christians are called to more important things than debating public policy issues. 2.  As for judging what makes a "good" gay marriage and what you seem to think is my hypocrisy for "advocating" it, my response is that I don't necessarily advocate gay marriage or the lifestyle.  What I was attempting to demonstrate was the distinction I make between my Christian faith and secular America.  I don't think America should be a Christian theocracy, and as such I don't need its laws to come into alignment with my personal beliefs.  My argument was: if secular America (i.e., the laws and voters and all that) decide they are fine with homosexuals getting married in their courts, that is fine with me from the standpoint that as members of a democracy they have every legal right and basis to go do that. But, to re-emphasize, that doesn't make me personally advocating homosexuality or gay marriage, hence I do not feel the need or responsibility to defend either.  If you ask me my personal thoughts, I would say that I understand the Christian basis for rejecting them.  I do not pretend to myself know for sure what the "correct" attitude is to take on them, other than perhaps that - regardless of personal opinion / morals - I really don't see how the government can keep restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.  I just don't see it, legally-speaking.  Again, that doesn't equate to personal advnocacy, only what I think is a valid perspective on the legality of it all. Besides, as far as examples of "good homosexual marriage" or whatever you're demanding, my guess is that advocates see no difference between straight and gay marriage (in terms of benefits), so there's no benefits that are special to gay marriage.  So if you really want to argue that specific debate, I think you could probably just begin with "generic" benfits that apply to straight marriage already. jkoenig wrote: nickrock, your reasoning seems to place a heavy value on sacrificing the pursuit of truth in the name of keeping the peace, which is a value many born after Viet Nam want to hold. See, this is why I reject so much debate.  You use two common tactics I've found that many always use:  you attempt to totalize my beliefs with broad generalizations and make implications by linking them to unrelated subjects. I do not believe in peace over truth - would I seriously suggest to some Christians that their conception and emphasis of faith and grace is errant and in need of examination if I feared rocking the boat more than (hopefully) helping others to get at the truth? And what does Vietnam have to do with this?  Do you seriously think people weren't making these (or similar arguments), weren't being morally relative or choosing peace over truth before 1970?  Maybe that war serves as a nice shorthand for those who think hippies and godless liberals took over from that point on, but I for one don't care for that tactic. jkoenig wrote: Yet, recognizing that Abortion is wrong but then shying away from the struggle to recriminalize it because someone will still use a hanger in the alley is like allowing the drug dealer to sell crack on his stoop, because if we tell him he can't, he'll just sell it in his backyard.  Is this rational? Well, has the drug war been rational?  My claim is that legalism for the sake of legalism (what I would term "the law for the sake of appearances") isn't morally acceptable.  To continue your example, is it moral for a society to take non-violent drug offenders, imprison them, and 5-10 years later release hardened criminals who then move on to murder and rape? Now, obviously, two wrongs don't make a right.  I don't think drug use is morally right or acceptable, nor should drug use be legalized simply because it's better (morally) to have addicts than killers and rapists. However, I would say that morally, relative to the current American justice system, it is better to have true rehabilitation programs or - at the extreme, given the contemporary situation - it'd be better to legalize drug use then to continue the manufacturing of even worse criminals. To me, and again I apologize for the offense, I feel that most Christian concern regarding outlawing abortion or gay marriage more for the sake of appearances than to actually construct a more moral society.  My disinterest in outlawing abortion is because I think the alternative - developing a moral argument not reliant on arguments/sources (faith, the bible) that some/many will reject out of hand, or that they will just circumvent (outlawing) - will work better in the end. To use slavery as an example, nowadays America doesn't have slavery not because it's outlawed but because morally the country turned against it (I know that's a bad example, given the Civil War and all, but hopefully you'll get the main point of my argument).  You don't find Americans trying to subvert the law by enslaving African-Americans in 2004 the way you would still find women (and men, I suppose) subverting a law against abortion. Again, two wrongs don't make a right.  We shouldn't NOT ban abortion just because some people WOULDN'T heed it, but I just personally think that it's more meaningful and important to focus on what will actually produce more good than what will look more moral. I guess it's kinda like the issue of is man for the sabbath or sabbath for the man?  Does the moral dictate what is law or does the law dictate what is moral?  Personally I think it's the former, but I think many legalist/fundamentalist Christians choose the latter, and I think this is a mistake when it comes to secular law.  The laws of this nation shouldn't dictate God's will, but the common agreement of the populace, which again is why I don't feel neither morally compelled to alter our secular laws or that such altering is itself a morally valuable act. Now, a common criticism of that will be "so if the majority supported murder, you'd accept it"?  This argument is misguided; firstly, it acts like this is something shocking or new.  The law supported slavery, women's disenfranchisement, etc for quite some time.  So this has and at times still does continue, and just as many Christians as others said nothing or even supported those laws, so it seems that what makes something moral isn't its legality but its morality.  Secondly, people always legalize (or vote to legalize) what they ultimately feel to be moral.  Murder would never be legal because whatever act of killing is being legalized, be it the death penalty, abortion, etc, is in fact not being viewed as murder, but a justified killing.  Again, it wasn't the law that realized slavery was immoral, but the true moral sense of the eventual majority that realized it was immoral to keep slavery legal. So, if a society, like Nazi Germany, is misguided and has legalized what is wrong, you must change the moral view, not the legal code.  To go after the law to change morals is like putting the cart before the donkey.  It seems to me that one leads the other, and thus it's more effective/practical to go after changing people's moral beliefs if one wants to change their actions. jkoenig wrote: Well said!  We fallen creatures often insert a lot of unnecessary complexity and subtle arguments to try to reason our way out of aspects of God's intentions that we don't like or that don't make us popular.  If I feel a little constrained, just add a few drops of obscure thought foam, allow the mix to expand and cure, and woolah!, I have 'wiggle room'. This is almost the exact opposite of my experience:  many Christians often insert a lot of unjustified simplicity into these arguments to try and reason they know God's will and because they can't stand the grey areas that life actually gives us.  As T.S. Eliot, himself a convert and no enemy to the faith, once said, people can stand only so much reality.  And the truth is that, unfortunately, such manifestations of Christianity (same as with Marxism, atheism, or any other system), where the ideology purports to simplify reality and say that's a good thing to want and experience, often perverts what is originally a moral system of beliefs into a crutch for those who'd rather limp safely than walk unsteadily. This spills into my other issue, and that is the self-righteousness of too many believers.  Trust me, I would love to know for certain that I have been saved, to know that, but the problem is that I find such attitude to be highly blasphemous-seeming, because it seems to imply one has access to God's eyes and mind and can speak for him.  Certainly, I believe that religious tradition plus our innate rationality and critical judgment, when honestly applied, can let us know at least in general (and at times very specifically) what is ir is not compatible with God and the good.  However, due to our nature as humans, we can never truly know God's will (humility, people!) in the kind of exact and certain way that, at least to me, such statements as "I know I've been saved" reek of. Again, I apologize for any offense, I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from on this issue, since this appears to be one of the major sources of contention or at least disagreement between how you and I define "faith". jkoenig wrote: BTW, Bob Jones University?  There are millions of reasonable Christians with sound Biblical understanding who would disagree with such Christian extremism as banning interracial marriage.  There is no guilt by association, here. Perhaps, but why is there no thread here on such "Christian extremism"?  I think there is a guilt by association, for all of us, insofar that I routinely find Christians more obsessed with perceived enemies or others (homosexuals, abortionists, etc) than those who are actually distorting and perverting the faith. It's kinda hard when the public, non-believer perception of your faith is summed up with those who shoot abortion doctors and those with "God Hates F-gg-ts" signs at the funerals of gay men, and when they look to us Christians they find overwhelming silence and the focus on passing some laws rather than defending the faith from the false prophets wrapping Jesus in the garb of hate and violence. jkoenig wrote: I might understand this sentiment if, by way of analogy, I had the only ice cream cone, and you didn't have one.  But if I can point you to the ice cream stand, tell you it's free, and explain that the ice cream is in unlimited supply, would you resent me for the smile I was wearing and my joy in sharing the information with you?  NO, that is, unless you thought the ice cream doesn't taste very good in the first place. Or "No, because you don't own the ice cream stand and it's not yours to give away for free." /just saying.... jkoenig wrote: Is the God of the Bible so distasteful to some that they would rather die forever than live for Him now? Well, I believe one of the founding members of our country, Thomas Paine, once said that it'd be better to have no God at all than the God of the bible (Old Testament specifically, I believe), who if I remember correctly he labelled as being an immoral God (my words; I think those are close to his own words but don't have them on hand to verify).  Not that I agree, but yes, there are those who do find the Christian God "distasteful" (Paine was, btw, a deist, who deemed the entire Christian faith fraudulent, so take him for what it's worth). And, no, I am not trusting in my own "I'm good enough" meter.  What I'm doing is trying to do good works and think good thoughts and leaving it to God to decide, as is rightfully His decision to make, whether what I've done is worthy of his salvation.  The whole point of my stance is that any other, at least to me, seems tantamount to proclaiming to be something I'm not (God). Sorry for the length of this post; I'll try to be more condensed in the future. -nickrock   Back to Top   nickrock Also sorry for the format of that post.  Don't know why the font/size looks all over the place in it. And, one thing I forgot to edit: I know I sound contradictory when I talk about drug user and prison and then turn around and say it'd be better to not imprison them.  It's a temporary contradiction brought on by the horror of large segments of our prison system; I feel in some cases it is almost better not to arrest certain criminals than to do so and put them through some of what goes on in there.  Personally, I hope you realize - even if you disagree - that this is less me being a "moral relativist" than being a strong commentary from me on what I think of our current justice system. -nickrock   Back to Top   jkoenig From your comments on debate, I would summarize your thoughts like this: you value debate as a concept, but as a practical matter you don't think this value is achievable.  You admit to a cynicism that seems driven by a perception that people aren't genuine in their motives, yet I would ask, is debate possible without genuine differences of opinion?  What other peaceful way is there to exchange and challenge ideas except through dialogue?   Putting words into action (perhaps done in part by a selfless act of charity) has merit, but does not replace the need for verbal dialogue.  Case in point, no one is going to elect a candidate for office by comparing silent movies of what the candidates are doing.  I disagree with characterizing any debate as a strong-arm tactic.  Strong arm tactics are physical force.  Words exert no physical force but may persuade a change of mind.  This process is voluntary, however.  It is impossible, through any debate, no matter how heated, for someone to physically force another's mind to change, a truth which tyrants and terrorists know well, which is why they squash verbal expression and seek to dominate by force.   This latest thread began as a commentary on one SSM proponent who is advocating judicial activism to overturn the multi-millenial definition of marriage without a debate.  That more closely resembles a strong arm tactic, the idea being that if people haven't been persuaded to accept SSM, then force it on them.   America isn't a theocracy.  Never has been.  Nothing to realistically worry about there.   Our laws reflect our beliefs as a voting whole.  America loudly voted against gay marriage, even in the leftist bastion of Oregon, and have done so continuously poll after poll.  SSM zealots refuse to be satisfied with dialogue alone.  They increasingly act to force change in their direction, even if it shortcuts our free electorate.  You are right to say that if a majority of Americans change their mind on this issue and vote to permit SSM, then a legal right has been established.  That is not what is happening.  So, how can you say that you don't see disallowing SSM legally??  It is already and always has been illegal.  It is established fact based upon a democratic majority, not an ethereal philosophy.  Hoping SSM is legal one day is not a legal mandate to start acting like it already is.  Analogy: if I expect, in the future, that we will not pay taxes based on income, can I use that future expectation to stop paying them now?   I suppose you may attempt to argue that SSM was not illegal until states started specifically banning it.  I'll tell you what has happened by way of another analogy.  Apes are not permitted to obtain a driver's license.  Now, ironically, there is no writing or law that specifically bans apes from driving.  An enterprising lawyer or activist without a cause may wish to argue that as long as the ape can take and pass the driving test, the law does not permit discriminating against him.  A movement may start to legitimize the driving rights of Apes.  When common sense has been sacrificed to zealotry, and the fervor rises to forcing legislatures to declare "enough of this" and start specifically banning Apes from driving, I suppose some may want to start advocating the inalienable right of the Apes should not be put up for a vote.   Is it so different from the SSM movement?  50 years ago, no one needed to clarify what marriage means.  It had always been understood.  Even putting it in the dictionary hardly seemed necessary, except for 2nd graders learning basic vocabulary and looking up its spelling.  Yet, it seems a minority of people who have jettisoned common sense want to cost this nation billions in time and money to force a constitutional crisis over it.  It is not conservatism, driven to a constitutional amendment or state bans, that is costing us this.  It is a physically aggressive SSM minority forcing the issue that has put us where we are.   In Solon, IA, a single schoolteacher and the chairperson of the school board have reportedly subverted the will of a majority of parents and educators in this small IA town to force children to read material that promotes homosexuality.  It will be another year before the individual on the board can be voted out.  I expect that vote to clear this up, and yet, in the meantime, just two people are controlling the public education of a community of parents and children to insert a minority political viewpoint on a moral issue.  Removing all religion and Christianity for the sake of argument, this is an affront and an abomination to our freedom and the Bill of Rights as it actually reads.  This should scare anyone who values America as the land of the free.  As a secular moral issue, children have a hard enough time with adolescence without having their minds sexually stimulated and their sexual development used as a political battleground in a place where they are supposed to be learning apolitical life skills.  I'll say plainly that anyone who disagrees with this remark is someone who is already behaving like what they accuse conservatives of -- imposing their religion (in this case, a belief system built on homosexuality), even on children.   In the interest focus on the topic of this thread, I'll cut short responding to the rest of your comments.  You offer a lot of wide-ranging thoughts which would be worthwhile to talk through, but probably impractical to tackle on this thread.  I would invite you to review your own comments and examine it for circular reasoning, anecdotal evidence, and conflicting emotions which are keeping your argument from being really effective. Back to Top   nickrock Do you really want to be on the record comparing homosexuals to apes?  I think the vast difference in expanding a basic human right - marriage - to a group of humans is self-evident from expanding a civil right - driving - to another species. The problem with "protect the children" is that it cuts both ways.  Don't you think it compounds the difficulty of adolescence for kids who know they are gay but sense that they won't be accepted for it by turning it into a hush-hush secret? Similar to the historical debate.  Americans used to never question what marriage racially meant.  Or what the term "voter" (ie. land-owning white male) meant.  Is this circular, anecdotal evidence betraying my "conflicting emotions"?  Doubt it. Also, "promoting homosexuality", "a belief system built on homosexuality"?  Were women, who were asking for the right to vote, promoting femininity?  Were blacks, asking for the same legal rights as whites, forcing a belief system built on raciality upon traditional white America?  Sorry, but statements like yours only demonstrate the warped vision of homosexuals that most of us Christians have, making the kind of broad claims, generalizations, and attributions whose equivalents you would (likely) never apply to any other group of people. And I'm the one with bad logic?  The one with arguments that don't stand up?  This is, in my humble opinion (and only that, an opinion), the primary problem with these "debates", and that is that the Christian side is more often than not simply reactionary, relying on the same old tired rationalities and logic that has fueled white bigots, male bigots, Protestant/Catholic bigots, nationalist/patriotic bigots, and more than likely (and quite ironically if so) the pagan bigots that attacked Christians in the first centuries of the faith.  Maybe the other side does it as well, but then, they don't represent me or my beliefs. And that is why I stated my disregard for most debating in modern America.  Again, debate itself, a true debate, where people honestly appraise the opposing view as well as their own (which doesn't, as you seemed to imply, equate to everyone always agreeing on the same thing), is perfectly fine, wonderful, and desirable.  The problem is that it is simply not done anymore, or at least in any meaningful amount.  For every liberal calling Bush a neo-Hitler fascist there's a conservative calling someone a godless evil such and such.  It just becomes a parody of itself, the same tired arguments on either side, none of them effective or meaningful as the sides have already made up their minds. That is why I dismiss it.  Not because I'm oppressing anyone's rights, but because I'm not gonna pretend that a few Bible quotes and appeals to tradition constitute a valid argument this day and age.  Whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not, Christians are going to need to produce something better than "fifty years ago they did it right".  (and it goes without saying that this applies to both sides) -nick   Back to Top   jkoenig nickrock wrote: See, this is why I reject so much debate.  You use two common tactics I've found that many always use:  you attempt to totalize my beliefs with broad generalizations and make implications by linking them to unrelated subjects. nickrock wrote: Do you really want to be on the record comparing homosexuals to apes? Wow, nickrock, how does your charge above compare to your previous statement on debate?   For the proverbial "record" I made no such comparison.  Instead of Apes I could have said "cute little fuzzy bunnies".  The analogy simply needed a subject.  I used an absurdity to point out absurdity in the SSM stance.  And just because it is absurd, doesn't mean people don't trample common sense and try it.  In the 80's, in the attempt to discount the gap between apes and humans in evolutionary theory, some people did claim semi-human status for apes and seek to gain their legal, civil rights. By the way, the topic of gay "marriage" as it relates to this entire thread has always been about its legality and status as a civil right.  You, like Mr. Foreman, are elevating it to what you call a "human" right, something which Mr. Foreman believes places it in a protected class as a non-voting issue (and, naturally to his mind, unquestionably permissible). Don't you find ironic the SSM claim of status as an inalienable human right, a union which itself cannot create human life, while those who tend toward this belief also tend not to consider human life in the womb as having any inalienable human right to exist?  Do you see any irony in this belief system which calls for universally preserving the lives on death row of those who have taken innocent life?  Is there no inconsistency in the idea of allowing the terminally or chronically ill to have their doctor kill them while demanding the interminable lives of trees and animals used for human food and clothing?  Will you now claim these are unrelated examples?  I think them very relevant as it shows an inconsistency in a definition of humanity except to consistently devalue it. nickrock wrote: Were women, who were asking for the right to vote, promoting femininity? Is this example an "unrelated subject"?  Could you find an example I have given that is "unrelated" as you define it while still permitting the one you give here as relevant? nickrock wrote: Were blacks, asking for the same legal rights as whites, forcing a belief system built on raciality upon traditional white America? ditto. nickrock wrote: Sorry, but statements like yours only demonstrate the warped vision of homosexuals that most of us Christians have, making the kind of broad claims, generalizations, and attributions whose equivalents you would (likely) never apply to any other group of people. It's interesting to note that within the above accusation of "broad claims, generalizations, and attributions" you broadly and generally attribute a "warped vision" that "most" Christians have.  You make a hasty generalization, a tu quoque argument. nickrock wrote: For every liberal calling Bush a neo-Hitler fascist there's a conservative calling someone a godless evil such and such. I rest my case. So, at some point nickrock, the merit of your argument is going to have to rely on whether you have made one that takes a position rather than trying to see things both ways, and that doesn't contradict itself. Continuing to discount the merit of debate is only a circumstantial argument. Claiming to "understand" the Christian stance has no value.  Most opponents on an issue understand each other's arguments, they simply don't agree with them either in premise or conclusion. Claiming Christians arguments are old and tired ought to at least be hailed as consistent.  Does an argument hold more water with you simply because it is "fresh" and "new"? Why are you so quick to defend the minority rule in the Solon school district?  Do you, indeed, similarly agree with Mr. Foreman that SSM should not be subject to a vote?  Should young minds also be sexually stimulated in public education?  Is this also not subject to the will of voters (that is, the parents)? Let's have your answer, nickrock.  Do you believe SSM should be a legal, civil right?  Where (state by state, nationwide)?  By what means should this be granted?  On what merits does SSM deserve this change in status?  As those who promote it do so with religous fervor, is there any violation in "church and state" by state support of homosexuality education in public school -- or does congregating w/o using the word "church" allow SSM advocates to skate under that radar, allowing them to push their morality while outlawing the dissemination in schools of Christian morality?  Does the will of parents matter? We all need to acknowledge, nickrock, that we are engaged in a culture war.  There is today a conflict between systems of belief.  Is the Bible so old and tired?  Read Proverbs 29:27.  We were told by this old, tired belief thousands of years ago that these opposing belief systems consider each other to be an abomination.  Mr. Foreman considers Christian morality an abomination.  In his mind, any and every effort to suppress and eradicate it and cause his own to triumph is justified whether within or outside of law.  His allies accuse me and others like me of the same. At the end of the day in America, all we have is democracy.  If Mr. Foreman gets his way, he will erode democracy for the sake of his system of belief.  Christians, on the other hand, thoroughly dominated the ranks of those who put this democracy in place, who indeed made it possible for people, then or now, to disagree with them. I think this proves Christians have been the more open-minded, more charitable, more willing to listen, more thoughtful of the two.  Allow Mr. Foreman's representative group their ways, and you will have tyranny. Meanwhile, you sit the fence, defending anti-Christian morality while still claiming Christ.  Christ said in Revelation 3:16 (among other places) that you cannot have Him and the world.  You cannot claim to be a Christian and supplant clear, long-established Christian morality with something else.  You must make the choice. Back to Top   nickrock jkoenig wrote: Wow, nickrock, how does your charge above compare to your previous statement on debate?   For the proverbial "record" I made no such comparison. You brought up apes' and compared people arguing for them to get DLs as being analagous to homosexuals getting marital rights in the context that in ye olden days everyone knew better and that the definition of marriage was so obvious as to not really be needed spelled out (the same way it's just obvious that apes don't have a right to drive). Here's your exact words:  "I suppose you may attempt to argue that SSM was not illegal until states started specifically banning it.  I'll tell you what has happened by way of another analogy.  Apes are not permitted to obtain a driver's license.  Now, ironically, there is no writing or law that specifically bans apes from driving." Analogy: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analogy So yes, you did make a comparison, just as I claimed you did.  Use bunnies, chipmunks, squid, snakes, books, tacos, or whatever else you want, you're still making a comparison. Oh!  But what's this?!!  The one insisting on rockhard meaning, on the value of debate, who says that only Christians are democratically honest discerners and debaters in the modern culture wars, now claims that he really wasn't making a comparison!  He didn't really mean what he said!  It was just an absurdity!  Just some prop so he could make a certain argument!  And somehow comparing humans to bunnies is more acceptable than with apes!  Homo-sin-uals' right to the same human laws regarding marriage as us heteros is just as absurd as Tinkerfluffy gettin' behind an SUV!!  [/end sarcasm; apologies, but it seems absurd to find the dogmatic Christian being the one arguing that his words don't mean what they indicate] jkoenig wrote: Don't you find ironic the SSM claim of status as an inalienable human right, a union which itself cannot create human life, But yet again, you refuse to acknowledge the counter-argument.  If homosexual infertility disqualifies homosexual union, does it also disqualify infertile heterosexuals?  The elderly?  Those who simply don't want children? jkoenig wrote:  while those who tend toward this belief also tend not to consider human life in the womb as having any inalienable human right to exist?  Logical fallacy; one's stance on abortion has nothing to do with one's right (or not) to marriage.  Different topics.  Should pro-choice heterosexuals not be allowed to marry, either? jkoenig wrote:  Do you see any irony in this belief system which calls for universally preserving the lives on death row of those who have taken innocent life? Again, logical fallacy.  Stances on capital punishment have nothing to do with the thread topic. jkoenig wrote:   Is there no inconsistency in the idea of allowing the terminally or chronically ill to have their doctor kill them while demanding the interminable lives of trees and animals used for human food and clothing?  Will you now claim these are unrelated examples?  I think them very relevant as it shows an inconsistency in a definition of humanity except to consistently devalue it. Depends on what you mean by "these".  In terms of the thread topic, they are unrelated; it comes off as if you cannot directly challenge their claims, so you try and undercut their morality by attacking unrelated opinions and beliefs. If you mean being pro-"mercy killing" and pro-"vegetarian" (or whatever you want to label either issue), I see no conflict at all.  The most basic argument they make is that it is good to decrease suffering.  So if a patient is suffering from something that is permanent and cannot be cured, then it is good to mercifully kill them if they so wish.  Similarly, they believe that animals can suffer and as a result that such suffering shouldn't happen simply to clothe or feed us. I may happen to disagree with both such positions, but I can accept the philosophies as honest attempts to discern the greater "truth" or true way of living.  I may not agree with them, but I can respect them as honest attempts nonetheless. jkoenig wrote:  You make a hasty generalization, a tu quoque argument. So you would disagree with this statement/accusation I'm making?:  Most Christians not only are morally against homosexuality, but they also believe there is a homosexual agenda pushing for homosexual values to be recognized (forcibly) by the rest of us. Do you disagree that this is a fair portrayal of how most Christians view homosexuals and homosexual "issues" (such as SSM)?  It may be anecdotal evidence, but I have found this to be a rather majority-held opinion within various Christian circles, and I highly doubt I've been wandering through the only Christian communities that ascribe to such sentiments. jkoenig wrote: nickrock wrote: For every liberal calling Bush a neo-Hitler fascist there's a conservative calling someone a godless evil such and such. I rest my case. So you agree with me then?  Thank you.  jkoenig wrote: Claiming to "understand" the Christian stance has no value.  Most opponents on an issue understand each other's arguments, they simply don't agree with them either in premise or conclusion. Please support this assumption.  You disregard my opinions on the merits of public debate as having no foundation, yet I see you provide none of your own. http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?040830crat_atlarge New Yorker wrote: Skepticism about the competence of the masses to govern themselves is as old as mass self-government. Even so, when that competence began to be measured statistically, around the end of the Second World War, the numbers startled almost everyone. The data were interpreted most powerfully by the political scientist Philip Converse, in an article on “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” published in 1964. Forty years later, Converse’s conclusions are still the bones at which the science of voting behavior picks. Converse claimed that only around ten per cent of the public has what can be called, even generously, a political belief system. He named these people “ideologues,” by which he meant not that they are fanatics but that they have a reasonable grasp of “what goes with what”—of how a set of opinions adds up to a coherent political philosophy. Non-ideologues may use terms like “liberal” and “conservative,” but Converse thought that they basically don’t know what they’re talking about, and that their beliefs are characterized by what he termed a lack of “constraint”: they can’t see how one opinion (that taxes should be lower, for example) logically ought to rule out other opinions (such as the belief that there should be more government programs). New Yorker wrote: Just because someone’s opinions don’t square with what a political scientist recognizes as a political ideology doesn’t mean that those opinions aren’t coherent by the lights of some more personal system of beliefs. But Converse found reason to doubt this possibility. When pollsters ask people for their opinion about an issue, people generally feel obliged to have one. Their answer is duly recorded, and it becomes a datum in a report on “public opinion.” But, after analyzing the results of surveys conducted over time, in which people tended to give different and randomly inconsistent answers to the same questions, Converse concluded that “very substantial portions of the public” hold opinions that are essentially meaningless—off-the-top-of-the-head responses to questions they have never thought about, derived from no underlying set of principles. New Yorker wrote: Seventy per cent of Americans cannot name their senators or their congressman. Forty-nine per cent believe that the President has the power to suspend the Constitution. Only about thirty per cent name an issue when they explain why they voted the way they did, and only a fifth hold consistent opinions on issues over time. Rephrasing poll questions reveals that many people don’t understand the issues that they have just offered an opinion on. jkoenig wrote: Claiming Christians arguments are old and tired ought to at least be hailed as consistent.  Does an argument hold more water with you simply because it is "fresh" and "new"? Did you read what I wrote?:  "I'm not gonna pretend that a few Bible quotes and appeals to tradition constitute a valid argument this day and age.  Whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not, Christians are going to need to produce something better than "fifty years ago they did it right".  (and it goes without saying that this applies to both sides)" My simple point is that both sides - left and right - have been making the same cases, arguing the same points, for how long now?  And if you ask me, I don't see either side winning anytime soon.  Soooooo...logic dictates to me that if you are in a relative stalemate, you need something new to finally break it.  Not that the new completely replaces the old, but that the old by itself doesn't appear to be getting the job done. Would you disagree with that sentiment?  Do you feel it's wrong for Christianity to find new arguments to try and solve issues that appear stuck in the same old rut?  Is Christian rock - ie a new way of doing Christian ministry/witnessing - unacceptable as well?  Does the very presence of Christian rock bands automatically imply that traditional hymns are obsolete and worthless? I personally see nothing wrong with Christianity pursuing new means or methods of uncovering and transmitting the truth.  I don't think it's zero-sum, with the new wiping out the old to make space. jkoenig wrote: Why are you so quick to defend the minority rule in the Solon school district? When did I defend them?  I simply said the argument you used can cut both ways.  I know nothing of the Solon case so I can't comment on the specifics, and I didn't; I simply made a general point that the arguments you keep thinking are effective pro-only-Christian arguments are often neither, but based on logic or portrayals that would not be effective or even acceptable when they've appeared in other forms. jkoenig wrote: Let's have your answer, nickrock.  Do you believe SSM should be a legal, civil right? Yes, because I do not see anything in our Constitution that specifically bans it, and our constitutional system is based (and includes directly) the belief that the people are reserved any and all rights not specifically handed over to government or the law.  Since you yourself admitted (in your ape analogy) that many states do not directly ban SSM, it seems to me that means the people, ie homosexuals, are thus entitled to the right. In my opinion, it doesn't matter what I or you personally think about homosexuality; the law and tradition make it clear that people's rights are only curtailed when the Constitution/law specifically takes that right away.  In addition, our laws are meant to be based on the belief that all people are equal.  So unless you are willing to argue that homosexuals are less than human, then there's no way you can arbitrarely deny them a civil right like marriage on no other basis than religious tradition.  The latter would also support bans on interracial dating, on various women's rights, etc etc, but we eventually realized that it is not good democratic law to start divvying up the population and make some people more equal than others, to say we can discriminate against some entire groups but not others, on the basis of what religion says. Look, I'm not gonna lie: I'm personally still uncomfortable with a lot of homosexual "values" or "lifestyles" or whatever you want to call it.  Regardless of whether homosexuality itself is good or bad, I would think most people would agree that it isn't healthy to make sexuality such a dominating element of self-identity the way some homosexuals do (just as some heterosexuals, the Brittney Spears and the like, do).  I come from a conservative background and am just not comfortable with it.  But my mind and my heart, reason and faith, tell me to move past instinct and actually consider the situation.  To me, legally, simply saying "my God says "no"" is not a valid reason to keep them from marrying.  I see no valid legal reason for banning SSM.  I think it's quite possible, quite realistic, for the legal and moral sides on an issue to be separate.  I don't feel Jesus' point was to become the Romans with a different religion, but to be good Christians; we simply don't need secular alignment or validation for our beliefs.  To me this is pursuing the world for the sake of your soul, to wrap nationalism and religion so tightly that one must be in accord with the other. Again, you keep wanting to twist this into me spouting some tyrannical opinion that is oppressing your democratic rights, but that's simply not the case.  If that fantasy lets you sustain your self-righteous beliefs, then so be it, but it simply is not the case.  You can make all the moral arguments you want against homosexuality in regards to whether or not Christianity should accept them, but I think legal precedent and the common, traditional basis of our legal system and philosophies all indicate that you simply cannot bar an entire group of people from marrying simply because you dislike their sexual orientation. Again, I think that's the simple legal reality of the situation.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but that's simply how I see it. jkoenig wrote:  On what merits does SSM deserve this change in status? My guess is on the same merits the ending of slavery and granting of women's suffrage: the legal system used to be wrong and now it's being corrected. jkoenig wrote:   As those who promote it do so with religous fervor, is there any violation in "church and state" by state support of homosexuality education in public school -- or does congregating w/o using the word "church" allow SSM advocates to skate under that radar, allowing them to push their morality while outlawing the dissemination in schools of Christian morality? Wow.  I can't tell if that's sad, pathetic, or just stupid.  No one in their right mind - i.e., no one beside a desperate homophobe - would actually try and portray homosexual acceptance as a religion that violates separation of church and state. Just...wow. jkoenig wrote: There is today a conflict between systems of belief.    There's always been conflict between systems of belief.  This is nothing new.  Today the focus is Christians/non-Christians; in the past it was Capitalism/Communism, Catholic/Protestant, Christian/Pagan, Democracy/Monarchy, Communists/Fascists, etc etc. As the good book says, there is nothing new under the sun.  Your hyperventilating tone and totalizing view of those who hold different viewpoints as enemy combatants (culture war) seriously weakens your claim that somehow you're a better democratic citizen then those who simply want to get married. jkoenig wrote:  Christ said in Revelation 3:16 (among other places) that you cannot have Him and the world.  You cannot claim to be a Christian and supplant clear, long-established Christian morality with something else.  You must make the choice. I agree, so maybe you should leave the world - ie secular politics and laws - to its own fate and concentrate on your own soul.  Instead of fantasizing about America coming in line with your belief system, maybe you should instead concentrate on leading the kind of life Christ called us to, which I still feel has a bit more substance to it than obsessing over what the two dudes living next door to you do at night.... -nickrock Back to Top   nickrock jkoenig (may I call you jkoenig? ), After taking the time to distance myself a bit from this discussion, I would like to apologize for the sarcastic and hostile tone of my last post to this thread.  Although it ultimately is an honest account of how I see things regarding this issue, I let the better part of my judgment lapse.  I hope you will forgive the uncharitable personal attack that was carried in that tone. To reiterate the key points I've been making (or trying to make) all along, as free as possible from emotional and rhetorical bias: 1. When it comes to secular law, I do not believe that SSM can continue to be banned.  I believe this to be due to the reasons given in my prior post, primarily that the only major objection I've ever heard to the practice - on any one of numerous religous grounds - simply isn't enough when dealing with secular law. 2.  I do not believe that America was, is, or should be a Christian nation.  It is a pluralistic, democratic republic, based upon tolerance and secular law, and that is the way it should be.  I am very disturbed by what I see as the nationalizing of Christianity in America, this obsession of bending American law to (perceived) Christian law; Christ was the very antithesis to such religious nationalism in his sacrifice for all peoples and his call to all the nations.  Thus, I am unconcerned when American law does not reflect or endorse my personal views; I may disagree, but I have the freedom to voice it and to work in areas where I feel true, honest change can be accomplished.  Such is the very nature and truth of a truly democratic society! 3.  Tradition, both Christian and otherwise, has often been very right, or at least very good, on many a subject and situation.  However, such traditions have also led to the Biblical and patriotic support of some very dubiuos, and some downright evil, beliefs, practices, and institutions.  Thus, as both an American and Christian, I do not feel that an appeal to tradition in and of itself is a valid argument.  An appeal to tradition once would have meant rejecting Christ because tradition (Jewish) didn't allow for Jesus to be the messiah or the son of god. 4.  My cynicism over debating such issues is not a rejection of debate altogether, either between friends or at a national level.  Only, I think in modern America our mass media has become, for lack of a better word, "Euro-ized."  That is, like in Europe, our media has polarized itself into ideological camps that smear and reject out of hand any argument or fact they don't like.  And, it seems, this has also come to pass with individual Americans; we seem less interested in genuine debate than in simply sticking to our favored ideologies. 5.  Speaking of which, I'm slightly disturbed and saddened by what seems to be the death of progressive Christianity.  To me, Christ's message is one that troubles the world, makes it more complex for us followers, because it teaches us that ideological stubbornness, of basing our view of right and wrong on what makes us personally comfortable, is not the way to go.  Christianity should be a very hard road to walk on, yet I often see the exact opposite mindset in many Christians these days.  Beliefs are simply what my parents or pastor taught me as true.  The purpose of faith is to make life simple, not hard.  It is desirable and good to think I'm saved and focus on how everyone else is going to hell. For me, this is very disheartening.  Modern Christianity seems to want to nostalgically look back rather than triumphantly move forward.  "Progress" doesn't mean overturning or modifying every value or tradition we have, but it does mean - to me, at least - that we should never grow comfortable, never think like the Pharisees that we've learnt all the rules and got them right. Again, I apologize for passing judgment and acting in an unChristian manner to you in my last post.  I have tried to present my arguments and beliefs as simply my opinions and beliefs.  While I believe I have rather valid reasonings and arguments as the basis for them, I try not to act as God's mouthpiece, nor anyone else's, including the (Catholic) Church. sincerely, -nickrock   Back to Top   jkoenig Surely, but don't call me Shirley. No apology necessary and accepted all the same.  This is a hot topics "flame" thread, after all.  My regard for you has not slipped in the least.  My last post was firm and direct, and I know this can push people outside their comfort zone. I believe I can proove my position on SSM well even entirely outside of religious grounds.  This is why I invited you or anyone to list for me the significant (even if only secular) reasons SSM is no different from a traditional definition of marriage.  That invitation is still open.  I want to treat the response fairly without assuming what those reasons are.  So, feel free to do this in a bullet-point (short) format, and I'll demonstrate my proof, entirely on secular grounds.  Really, I can! If I characterized America as a Christian nation, I do not mean this in the theocratic sense, but in the sense that the majority of its inhabitants claim Christianity.  Without any change in government or law, should most of its habitants become Muslim, I would then characterize America as a Muslim nation.  That said, I would argue that Christianity has largely been denationalized since 1900, and that a significant number of people have even made removal of all reminders of Christianity from public view into a cause to be fought for.  The fact that some Christians take this seriously and defend our Christian heritage as Americans is not a new nationalization, but only an attempt to stem the hemorrhaging in the other direction. I don't wish to be critical, but only impersonally point out problems in an inconsistent argument.  You said that you are unconcerned when American law does not reflect your personal views, but then freely admit feelings of being disturbed by Christian influence in the law (to summarize #2).  I would argue that anyone who has opinions, (and who doesn't?), cares very much when our laws don't reflect those opinions.  Are you being honest with yourself in this? Christ may not have said or done much to support religious nationalism as you might define it, but is there any doubt for either you or me that he was inarguably antithetical to evil as He would define it?  If you look at these ideas comparatively, I think I can make a pretty strong case that Christ would not subjugate what He taught as right or wrong to an His alleged overarching lack of regard for religious nationalism.  Otherwise, he would be unwilling to approve of or bless any nation which based all of its laws on N.T. ideals and actually lived by them.  That would be like Hillary Clinton seeing every law passed that any Democrat ever writes, and then complaining that the country was too Democratic (in the party sense). In fact, arguing that Christ was against religious nationalism is only true in the sense of that religiosity being false at heart, and not genuine.  Remember, God did create Israel as a theocracy, and promised neverending blessing if Israel did all as He commanded.  Are you implying that with Christ, God ushered in an age of secularism where following His commands would now be unimportant?  That would result in God being a contradiction to Himself. I've quoted John Adams before, where he says Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.  By his own stated Christian belief and those of his contemporaries in his day, it is unquestioningly Christianity which he assumes.  It simply doesn't hold water to say that we have a secular, pluralistic, republican society independent of Christianity.  We have a secular, pluralistic, republican society based wholeheartedly upon Christian morality and practice.  Many today are trying to believe that we can have all of the benefits that Christian morality ever brought to this nation with none of the adherence to it, and even a disdain for it.  It is simply nonsense, and outrageous. Yet (though you gave no specific example, I can think of a few myself) the idea that people have wrongfully distorted Christian principles to their own evil end gives cause for dismissing those same Christian principles from our secular purposes is as illogical as retaining those principles based on tradition alone.  To correct your perception, I have never argued for this or that law based on tradition.  My appeals to tradition have been to correct distortions of historical fact, like the claim that the word 'marriage' never meant solely between and man and a woman, or the claim that our Constitution and laws are not largely based on Christian morality.  These have been responses to people who think wishing makes something true. I can't broadly agree with you more about #4, though ironically, the debate rages about which "slanting" of the media (Fox vs. NBC) is the "true" outrage.  I'll say quick and plain that if there is an opinion in a piece of journalism, then it ceases being journalism.  Proper journalism reports all available facts without selection, coloration, conclusion, or comment, and leaves the opinion up to the viewer.  As such, no news agency does very well these days.  In my honest opinion, all journalism is a product for sale to those who want to be told what they want to hear, motivated purely by profit, and I even lump TV evangelists and Christian "journalism" like Jack Van Impe into that Characterization.  (You pro Van-Impe Christians can weigh in and flame-away at me! ) Your point 5 and on is huge, really.  Christianity has and always will be progressive to the point of being offensive to our fallen human natures.  You can't get more progressive than Christianity.  Yet, it is equally true that Christianity itself does NOT "progress" in the sense of changing, getting better, or evolving into a greater state.  Your Bible says repeatedly that God does not change and His Word is eternal.  Eternal perfection both means it can't get better going forward, and it never got better in the past.  I think you may actually agree with what I am writing here, but you didn't make my point clear enough yourself.  Now then, progress in terms meaning that we ourselves working to obey a timeless standard and better follow it rather than resist it is a form of progressiveness I would agree with.  BUT, most people don't think something which feels less comfortable to their human nature and human minds is very progressive.  Just the opposite -- many people who want to keep the Christian identity continually try to make it more comfortably support worldly, self-seeking opinions.  Without any intent to offend, I am afraid that you, nickrock, have tried to make the self-pleasing agenda of SSM "fit" into Christianity like a melon fits an acorn shell.  It just isn't ever going to happen.  If I am overstating this, and your Biblical understanding really agrees with mine on SSM, but your secular mind demands giving ground the other way for purely governmental purposes, I would challenge you to show me where, even in your view of Christ, He advocates that we support godless doctrines (meaning views that don't consider God's opinion) and still erstwhile cling to Him. So have I or any Christian learned everything the N.T. authors, by God's inspiration, taught, and gotten it all right?  I have a mixed, perhaps surprising answer for you.  I think it is quite possible for individuals, in fellowship and not left by themselves, to interpret all Biblical principles correctly and to continually teach and remind each other of them, at least insofar as those principles are given in the Bible.  There are some mysteries for which we have no answer in this life, but then I don't think we are held responsible to figure those things out.  Where the issue gets cloudy for some is harmonizing universally correct interpretation with universally consistent and correct application.  In a nutshell, you can always know what's right.  We have both God's Word and His Spirit (a "helper") to help us know that.  What we usually fail at is actually following it.  Sin isn't failing to know, it's failling to act on what you know.  Did you know that the Bible teaches that if there was no way for us to know, that is, no communication (from God), then God would not have held us responsible for our wrongs?  Yet, the inherent knowledge of Him, the OT prophets, His Word of the Bible, Jesus, the Apostles, and His Holy Spirit all DO tell us what is right and wrong, regardless of our most brilliant efforts to reason around it, and we ARE responsible for our wrongs.  Therefore, the argument that no one can get it all right (as far as living it out, I agree, but as far as knowing it, I DISagree) is a convenient excuse for too many that consoles them into denying truth. Too many Christians today are sacrificing their belief in knowing right from wrong at the altar of being unable to know, motivated by their unresolved guilt for so often failing to seek God's wisdom or to do what they already know to be right.  They find the world too attractive, and their own guilt too uncomfortable, and then good doctrine gets crucified.  It develops its own critical mass, such that some self-proclaimed Christians have a lot of bad doctrine from the start because they've been taught by others who have already strayed from it.  Warning after warning about this was given by the Apostles in their N.T. letters. It is tragic that Christian guilt drives Christians into bad doctrine, and non-Christians away from Christianity.  All the non-Christian perceives from reading my words is a bunch of rules that, if he believed them, would convict him, make him feel guilty, and therefore cannot be good.  His logic says that a good god wouldn't create bad feelings.  But the tragedy is that, "Christian" or not, this guilt response is itself a bad doctrine and bad response to what Christ did.  He taught what was right to show us our sin.  But what He did was die a human death, having committed no sin Himself, in our place.  We do not have to live with our guilt any longer.  I think there are a lot of saved Catholics who have a basic faith, but as in 2 Timothy 3:5, their form of godliness has been denied its power, the power to be free of the penalty of our sins.  The biggest problem with Catholic tradition is that it is very difficult to find God's grace in it, as it is filled with so many religious rules, the very traditions you attempt to argue against in being too "religious".  The problem with those clinging to the world while still claiming Christ is that they are walking around trying to run from guilt that they feel, because they never understood Christ's sacrifice in the first place.  I fear most for these, because if you haven't understood what He did, how can you accept it (i.e., Him??)  It is about these, who called themselve Christians, that Jesus prophecied in Matthew 7:23, 25:12 and Luke 13:27.  Read and tell me who you think He meant. For one who claims Christianity, It is not the truths of the Bible which demand testing by the world's ideas, but the world's ideas which must be tested against the truth of the Bible.  The non-Christian has nothing to test his ideas against except his own mind.  Which best describes your approach?  Any homosexual practice under any guise, even SSM, is absolutely condemned in God's Word.  Even the world's false religions contain a grain of truth in condemning it.  Are you testing SSM against God's Word, or testing God's Word against SSM looking for a way to find it acceptable? I make religious points with you, because you claim Christ.  Disclaim Him, and I pledge to you to stop making any religious argument with you, and we will debate SSM on secular grounds alone.  Notwithstanding that, give me that bullet list I ask for above, and keep me honest.  I'll win the debate, even in the secular box.  (I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek hoping you'll rise to the challenge.) For example, a variety to get you started:  Same-sex married people are no different from heterosexual married couples because they: 1) Live in the same household and increase economic stability through combined resources, 2) Allow one to make health care decisions if the other becomes unable, 3) Support each other through troubles by always "being there", ...just continue the list.  It's probably impossible to think of everything, but just 10 good ones will do. Back to Top   nickrock jkoenig wrote: I don't wish to be critical, but only impersonally point out problems in an inconsistent argument.  You said that you are unconcerned when American law does not reflect your personal views, but then freely admit feelings of being disturbed by Christian influence in the law (to summarize #2).  I would argue that anyone who has opinions, (and who doesn't?), cares very much when our laws don't reflect those opinions.  Are you being honest with yourself in this? I believe you misinterpret me and see a contradiction where none exists.  My point concerning "Christian influence" is when it becomes an unseemly or unjustified influence.  For example, I simply know that most Christians who attempt to argue for nativity displays on public property under the pretext of "religious freedom" would immediately turn around and attack any similar argument for pagan, Satanic, or other holidays.  This may sound like a generalization, but I know it to be true.  I've been around enough Christians to know it to be true.  Another example would be the very mindset that the removal of Christian messages or images constitutes some form of coordinated attack on the faith and its adherents. There was a recent letter to the editor in the Iowa State Daily from a Jewish student discussing the differences between "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays", both of which he hears often as a bag-boy at a grocery store.  His basic point was that he appreciated those who wished him "Happy Holidays" instead of just assuming he was a Christian like everybody else with "Merry Christmas."  I wish I could find it at the Daily's online section (it was in the Monday or Tuesday issue).  His desire for customers to use a non-Christian wellwishing had absolutely nothing to do with attacking or silencing Christianity, but simply out of a desire that people, even when in the majority, still recognized and thought of how there are other traditions and beliefs which they would like to be acknowledged even at the simplest level of choosing "Happy holidays" over "Merry X-mas". Unfortunately, it seems that all too many Christians have come to take any such suggestion as an attack on them by a hostile enemy.  Are there those groups, both liberal and conservative, that wish to blot out all or certain types of Christian images, themes, etc?  Indeed.  But it does no one any good to generalize all non-Christians as the enemy who seek to overthrow or undermine us. This mindset, in my opinion, has led to what seems to me to be the nationalizing of Christianity.  In order to reject such pluralism or secularizing, Christians routinely make pleas towards tradition, especially the notion that the Founding Fathers were Christian.  Simply put, I beg to differ.  A good primer can be found here: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm Of note on that page: R.P. Nettlehorst wrote: Why do some Christians imagine these men are Christians? Besides a desperate desire that it should be so, in a selective examination of their writings, one can discover positive statements about God and/or Christianity. However, merely believing in God does not make a person a Christian. The Bible says that "the fool says in his heart, there is no God." Our founding fathers were not fools. But the Bible also says "You say you believe in God. Good. The demons also believe and tremble."         Merely believing in God is insufficient evidence for demonstrating either Christian principles or that a person is a Christian. and Nettlehorst wrote: If this were a Christian nation, then why are so few Americans Christians? Even the most optimistic Gallup pole shows that barely 1/3 of the U.S. population claims to be "born again". Interestingly, that's up considerably since the time of the nation's founding, when barely ten percent, if that, claimed intense religious affiliation. (if it matters to anyone, btw, Nettlehorst identifies himself as a Baptist) Of course, we can also just directly look into the reams of comments the founders of our country themselves made: The Forefathers wrote: Thomas Jefferson:  "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." More from Jefferson:  "Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus." Yet more from TJ:  "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." And more:  "We discover [in the gospels] a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." And finally:  "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Benjamin Franklin:  "As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity." More from Franklin:  "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." More from Franklin:  "My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting [puritan] way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist." John Adams:  in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (which he signed as President):  "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." (of note, from the website above:  "This treaty with the Islamic state of Tripoli had been written and concluded by Joel Barlow during Washington's Administration. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on June 7, 1797; President Adams signed it on June 10, 1797 and it was first published in the Session Laws of the Fifth Congress, first session in 1797"). Thomas Paine:  "Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." And more:  "It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible." More from Paine:  "The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion." Yet more:  "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity." James Madison:  "What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." And more:  "It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE." Another:  "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?" Also from Madison:  "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." Abraham Lincoln (not a founding father, but interesting nonetheless):  "My earlier views at the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." Another from Lincoln:  "The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." It seems quite plain to me that America's origins are not that of a Christian nation, but of a secular democracy.  The Founders were smart enough politicians to know when to make popular appeals to God, but it is quite obvious that they rejected virtually the entirety of the Christian faith, from Roman Catholicism to the Protestants to Christian theology and the bible itself.  These latter two are especially important, as they go beyond even sectarian disagreements and straight to the core of the faith. Near the bottom of the website linked above, Nettlehorst quotes the following letter to the editor: Rev. Richard T. Zuelch wrote: Gordon S. Wood, in his 1992 book, "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," states that, by the 1790's only about 10% of the American population regularly attended religious services - to quote just one statistic. Not exactly an indication of a wholehearted national commitment to Christianity!         It is a matter of simple historical fact that the United States was not founded as, nor was it ever intended to be, a Christian nation. That there were strong, long-lasting Christian influences involved in the nation's earliest history, due to the Puritan settlements and those of other religious persons escaping European persecution, cannot be denied. But that is a long way from saying that colonial leaders, by the time of the outbreak of the Revolution, were intending to form a nation founded on specifically Christian principles and doctrine.         We Christians do ourselves no favor by bending history to suit our prejudices or to accommodate wishful thinking. Rather than continue to cling to a "Moral Majority"-style fantasy that says America is a Christian nation that needs to be "taken back" from secular unbelief (we can't "take back" what we never had), it would be much healthier for us Christians to face reality, holding to what Jesus himself said in the Gospels: that Christians should never be surprised at the hostility with which the gospel would be greeted by the world, because most people would fail to believe in him, thereby strongly implying that, in every age and country, Christianity would always be a minority faith. (Rev. Richard T. Zuelch, Letter to the Editor, Los Angeles Times, August 1995) This separation of church and state, of course, leads into what seems to be one of your major complaints, that Jesus wouldn't allow me to distinguish secular and moral laws, i.e. how can I seemingly support or be indifferent to laws I am compelled to find morally offensive?  You've rejected this before, but again I point to Luke 20:21-26, Gospel of Luke wrote: 21. And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly: 22. Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? 23. But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me? 24. Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. 25. And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. 26. And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace. I would like to raise two points:  firstly, Jesus Himself states here that what is worldly is to be left to the world.  The coin bears the image of Caesar, not God.  Secondly, as 20:23 indicates, Jesus knew that this is not just a "theological" question, but an attempt to stumble someone.  It was not a question asked honestly and innocently, but one intentionally asked in order to cast Jesus as either pro or against Caesar, either position being deadly in Judea of the ancient world. I raise that second point in part to answer not only this issue, but also why I do not provide you with the reasons why SSM is the same as traditional marriage, and why I ask you to investigate your own heart.  You have indicated repeatedly that you already know how to shoot down such reasonings or arguments; what you seek is not an honest, open-ended debate but one in which the other person acts as a foil for your predetermined answers.  Thus, you ask not a legitimate question for an honest debate between Christians, but to set up an obstacle or rocky path on which you hope Christians like me will stumble.  To be quite frank, you seem more concerned with judging other Christians than fulfilling Christ.  As James 4:11-12 states, James wrote: 11.  Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters.  Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12.  There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy.  So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor? (apologies for so many James quotes of late but I've been reading and thinking on it of late) As I've said before, I feel no need to reconcile American secular law to my faith.  You may find this to be disingenuous, or whatever, but that is simply how I feel.  I don't believe the purpose of my faith is enforce some Christian notion of America, but to live out my own life as best as possible in accordance with what is moral and just.  Christianity will never be a dominant faith, because it is too difficult, too hard.  The temptations of this world are great, the doubts and turning away all too easy.  Any dogma, any stance, or value or thought that becomes truly popular, I think one should be especially wary of immediately embracing as true Christian teaching.  I say this because it is always easier and more desirable for many to bend and corrupt the faith to suit their needs, rather than bend themselves to the truth of the faith. You claim that this is exactly what I have done, but I ask you, just for a moment to consider: what is easier to do as a Christian these days?  To accept the accumulated traditions of twenty (or five or one) centuries or to seriously question if our faith has been seriously corrupted at a fundamental level? jkoenig wrote: I think there are a lot of saved Catholics who have a basic faith, but as in 2 Timothy 3:5, their form of godliness has been denied its power, the power to be free of the penalty of our sins.  The biggest problem with Catholic tradition is that it is very difficult to find God's grace in it, as it is filled with so many religious rules, the very traditions you attempt to argue against in being too "religious". I really do not want to get into a denominational argument over who's more right; mostly as this would perhaps stray even further off-topic then we already have, but also because this invites the temptation to pass judgment on another Christian's faith with a power or authority I do not claim or believe to possess. But I do want to comment on this characterization of the Church.  All faiths, all religions, have rules, and the path towards grace can become blocked or entangled in any of them.  I've heard - tho' never seen firsthand - of some Protestant churches so "conservative" in their theology that they allow the beating of women by their husbands.  I once knew a Protestant family - I wish I could recall their exact denomination but this was years ago - that intentionally ate meat on Fridays as an intentional and direct (negative) comment on Catholic tradition.  A girlfriend of one of my roommates complains that her church, which I believe to be Presbyterian but don't quote me on that, at Iowa State is quite different than the one in her hometown: there are numerous differences on some of its creeds or statements on issues of faith and society (i.e. one's more liberal and one's more conservative). Catholicism, in my opinion, is no more entangling or misabused than any other denomination.  All churches or sects are ultimately manmade or man-run, and thus will be open to error, misjudgment, or misguidance.  What I've come to like about Catholicism is that it encourages both debate and obedience.  I may not see any secular, legal block to SSM, but I still must accept the legitimacy of the Church's teaching.  I may question its rulings regarding clerical celibacy, but I acknowledge the Church's position.  Personally, I believe this fosters better debate and answers, because it allows for traditionalists and dissenters to still bump elbows at the table, so to speak.  You chastise me, it seems, on the belief that I, like other Christians you dislike, seem to "readjust" Christianity whenever it doesn't suit or please us.  But isn't this exactly what Protestants do, just as your forebears did?  If something of your old denomination is no longer acceptable, do you just move to another church that is?  It seems hypocritical to condemn "liberal" Christians from a position that was once liberal itself, to judge and reject Christians who ask the same disturbing questions of mainstream Christianity that Protestants once asked of the Church. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, either, my friend. If humans in Europe five centuries ago had the righteous power to reject the sum of Christian tradition for what they saw as something more true to God, then why not modern people today?  Do humans no longer have the right to question accepted Christian authority?  Or, do you not wish to question your own beliefs with the same fervor and honesty you have questioned my own or others? (these are all, btw, honest questions; I do not mean to sound like I know the true answer, I simply am pointing out what seems like a problem in your reactions). jkoenig wrote: It is about these, who called themselve Christians, that Jesus prophecied in Matthew 7:23, 25:12 and Luke 13:27.  Read and tell me who you think He meant. "Indeed, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last" (Luke 13:30). Into which camp do us American Christians more likely fall into?  We live in the world's lone superpower.  For us, more often than not hunger is part of a diet plan, not daily life.  We have creature comforts and civil rights not shared by too many of the world.  We are the primary benefactors of a culture and a system that has done much to exploit the resources and the poor of other nations, yet as a whole we seem, as Christians, more concerned with homosexuals getting married than with the re-emerging slave trade in Africa, the situation in Zimbabwe, and the many other points of real despair in this world.  Except, of course, in places like China, where true persecution and martyrdom of Christians can be used to reflect goodly on us as if we deserved such comparison.  As Christians, we seem more interested in judging each other's failings then in helping the poor, the needy, the dispossessed and unloved of this earth. It seems more likely to me we are the first who will be last, for Christ speaks always to us, not to others. jkoenig wrote: There are some mysteries for which we have no answer in this life, but then I don't think we are held responsible to figure those things out.  Where the issue gets cloudy for some is harmonizing universally correct interpretation with universally consistent and correct application.  In a nutshell, you can always know what's right. You seem to contradict yourself, in stating there are both mysteries and our ability to always know what is right.  But I am sure you will correct me on my misreading of your comments.  Personally, I am not so sure on the latter.  I have known people, and read of people, who clearly displayed no ability to know right from wrong.  Mind you, I do not mean of those who twist the two around, or who remain intentionally ignorant, but who genuinely seemed unable.  And just as much, I have often found that the stronger my conviction of some basic truth or fact grows, the more often I have ultimately been proven wrong, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot.  Again, that is no rejection of truth, no statement that we can never know right from wrong, but I think the path to truth itself is often more difficult than you wish it to be, perhaps just as difficult at times as the next step of following that truth once discovered. Again, the point of faith is not to simplify the world, but to discern its true complexity in plotting your course through it.  It is easier to be a demon that simply believes; far, far easier. sincerely, -nickrock