Gay Marriage - What's the big deal?

[KarenNC]

I have a question. I hear Americans talk about Judeo-Christians all the time.

What’s a Judeo-Christian? I’ve met Jews. I’ve met Christians. But I’ve never met a Judeo-Christian that I know of.

To my view, using “Judeo” as a modifier of “Christian” is a way of saying that the Jewish religion had no purpose or existence other than as a foreshadowing of the Christian religion. In essence, it is no different than if a Muslim used the term “Christo-Muslim.” It may reflect accurately the worldview of the Christian (in the first case) or the Muslim (in the second), but not that of the Jew (in the first case) or the Christian (in the second).

My preference is “Jewish and Christian” or “Jews and Christians” as it is simply much more accurate.

The only application that I can think of where “Judeo-Christian’” might actually be accurate is in the case of Messianic Jews, in other words, ethnic Jews who have converted to Christianity.

I know Wikipedia is not a wonderful scholarly source but it was what I could find quickly that referenced the origins and criticisms of the term (this article at least has some references )
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

"The first-known uses of the terms “Judæo-Christian” and “Judaeo-Christianity”, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, are 1899 and 1910 respectively, but both were discussing the emergence of Christianity from Judaism. The term was first used with its current meaning in 1938, and was then used during World War II[3] to as an alternative to using the term ‘Christian civilization’ in light of Hitler’s attacks on Jews and Judaism. Some argue that the term was invented in the United States in an attempt to create a non-denominational religious consensus or civil religion that, by embracing Judaism, avoided the appearance of anti-Semitism.[citation needed]

The term is now commonly used in popular culture as a shorthand for the predominant religious influences upon Western culture."

“Criticism of the term
The term Judeo-Christian has been criticized for implying more commonality than actually exists. In The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Jewish theologian-novelist Arthur A. Cohen questions the theological appropriateness of the term and suggests that it was essentially an invention of American politics.[1]. It has been suggested that the term obscures fundamental differences between the two religions - Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits writes that “Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism”[2] - while erasing continuities between them and other religions, especially other monotheistic faiths. The Slovenian postmodern philosopher Slavoj Žižek has argued in this last point that the term Judeo-Muslim to describe the middle-east culture against the western Christian culture would be more appropriate in these days[3], especially noting the reduced influence from the Jewish culture on the western world due to the historical persecution and exclusion of the Jewish minority. A Judaeo-Christian-Muslim concept thus refers to the three main monotheistic religions that root to the Babylonian civilization, commonly known as the Abrahamic Religions.”

 

[Mirdath]

I have a question. I hear Americans talk about Judeo-Christians all the time.

What’s a Judeo-Christian? I’ve met Jews. I’ve met Christians. But I’ve never met a Judeo-Christian that I know of.

‘Jews for Jesus’ comes to mind But I agree, there were many better ways I could have put it – they just got lost in the sheer volume of these posts. It’s been a while since I put together a ginormous megapost like that. I try (usually successfully) to keep a better rhetorical standard than that, I swear!

 

[edwest2]

The Bible also talks about those who engender strife. So far, we have:

There is no way to tell what’s right and wrong. Then everybody should just stop talking right now.

Your beliefs should not make up the law. Yeah, what about your beliefs?

Do your beliefs just come out of thin air? No. In a group of people as few as say, 10, a consensus is reached so that no two people kill each other or rape each other or steal from each other. Other ideas are relevant but there’s not enough space to list them all. The same thing applies to a country of about 700 million people. Get it?

Anarchists come to this forum to argue for total freedom to do whatever they want. Who’s stopping you? You can literally buy anything, do anything or go anywhere. Is that why the law bothers you so much because you can’t do some of those things legally? Too bad.

If everything is permitted, how will we raise our kids?

My brothers and sisters in Christ, the Holy Bible contains our instructions and it is plain. The Ten Commandments, the commandments given by Christ and all the Words are meant for life. The road to destruction is wide but the road to life is narrow, and as Christ said, few are they who find it.

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions, and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.

God bless,
Ed

 

[brianwalden]

Your absolute moral law or mine? You see the problem, I hope. There is no chance of the law reflecting the One True Absolute Moral Law and remaining fair to others unless they all believe in the same moral truths the legislators do. Since we have free exercise, legislating one particular idea of what is truly moral works against the very foundation of American law.

The law does not legislate morals - the law reflects morals. What part of our current laws concerning marriage legislate any morals. The law promotes heterosexual marriage and restricts homosexual marriage. It doesn’t tell people what they can and cannot believe or tell people what they can or cannot do in their personal lives.

Just because it’s impossible for the law to reflect the one true moral law doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. It’s just as impossible for us as individuals to live perfectly moral lives, but we still should try.

No, it is distinctly unfair. You’re effectively telling homosexuals to buckle down and turn straight just so you can preserve your idea of marriage. Why should that happen?

No one is telling anyone to turn straight. Where is this in the law? You’re making this up. The law doesn’t make anyone to do anything. It gives everyone the option of entering into a marriage with a member of the opposite sex. If they don’t want to take up that offer, for whatever reason, they don’t have to.

Why should you call me wrong trying to get the law to reflect my version of marriage when you’re doing the exact same thing?

Your vision of America has more in common with Animal Farm than it does the founders’ intent. All are equal… but some of us are more equal than others.

I’m the one arguing that everyone should be able to bring their moral beliefs to the table in deciding society’s laws. You’re the one who says we must leave our morals at home.

We are not talking about couples who intend their relationship to be temporary, nor about single people, nor about the widowed. We are talking about couples who wish to have their relationship recognized by the government, and all these cases you introduce are entirely irrelevant to that.

Are lifelong threesomes who wish to have their relationships recognized entirely irrelevant? Are best friends for life who want to have their relationships recognized entirely irrelevant? What about a group of people who want to express their bonding over a lifelong devotion to Bon Jovi? And I don’t know why a lifelong vow of singleness is entirely irrelevant to you but a lifelong vow to another person isn’t. The government has chosen to promote a specific type of relationship and anyone who wants to can enter into that specific type of relationship. That doesn’t mean the government is discriminating against other types of relationships or preventing people from being in them. People can still be in a committed three-way relationship, be loyal to a lifelong friend, and center their lives around their participation in the Bon Jovi fan club without the government giving them special prominence.

And must you do so through laws? Was Jesus planning to stage a coup to enforce Christian morality? He said ‘my kingdom is not of this earth’ when questioned on that very matter! Why do you think you can get away with something Jesus never even considered doing?

As I’ve been trying to explain until my fingers are numb, we’re not doing so through laws. We use laws to promote things which are beneficial for society and to restrict things which are harmful. For many people morals play a big part in deciding what is beneficial or harmful. You can’t divorce morals from such a discussion, morals are the reason we think murder and stealing and all the things we take for granted are harmful.

My minimum is, in fact, two or more consenting, non-consanguineous individuals of legal age from the same species. Going lower than that raises serious questions of consent, and lack of consent should always invalidate marriage.

Super. I’m sure there are many people who agree with you. Currently there are a few more who don’t. Keep working at changing people’s minds. If that happens the law will change. In the mean time people can engage in all the life-long, consenting, non-consanguineous relationships they want. Heck even people in a government recognized marriage can do so as long as their spouse doesn’t mind.

 

[brianwalden]

Funny, the usual answer given by people against same-sex marriage is ‘God said it’s wrong’. Nothing about a detriment to society, or at least nothing that isn’t a hastily-constructed argument shoehorned in backwards.

Many people believe that the family is the building block of society and that changing this family structure is harmful to society. Many people believe this because of religious reasons, but there are also non-religious reasons for doing so. It’s an idea found across cultures and religions. There’s also many people who promote homosexual marriage because of their religious beliefs. Are these people wrong for doing so?

It’s absurd, but probably not for the reason you thought: it’s an entirely faulty analogy. The government does have an interest in weapons, as they are generally manufactured for the purpose of killing people – and I’m sure you’d agree that that’s indubitably a detriment to society.

The fact that you think its a faulty analogy is where you go wrong. The government has an interest in marriage. Marriage makes and develops new citizens - it keeps society alive. There’s many people, some in the NRA come to mind, who think that weapons pose no threat to society and that government should have no interest in regulating them. Does that make it indubitably true? No. Same goes for marriage. More people than not think its beneficial for the government to promote heterosexual marriage and not beneficial for the government to promote homosexual marriage and that’s where the law stands.

 

[Mirdath]

Just because it’s impossible for the law to reflect the one true moral law doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. It’s just as impossible for us as individuals to live perfectly moral lives, but we still should try.

Can you not do so without having it required by law?

No one is telling anyone to turn straight. Where is this in the law? You’re making this up. The law doesn’t make anyone to do anything. It gives everyone the option of entering into a marriage with a member of the opposite sex. If they don’t want to take up that offer, for whatever reason, they don’t have to.

You were saying – and said again – that homosexuals can still marry, they just have to marry people of the opposite sex. What else is that, but telling people that if they want to get married they have to be straight (or at least bi) first?

Why should you call me wrong trying to get the law to reflect my version of marriage when you’re doing the exact same thing?

Because I want the law to reflect not just my ideal of marriage but all of them?

Are lifelong threesomes who wish to have their relationships recognized entirely irrelevant? Are best friends for life who want to have their relationships recognized entirely irrelevant? What about a group of people who want to express their bonding over a lifelong devotion to Bon Jovi? And I don’t know why a lifelong vow of singleness is entirely irrelevant to you but a lifelong vow to another person isn’t.

Because this thread is about same-sex marriage, not menages a trois, friendships, or Bon Jovi.

As I’ve been trying to explain until my fingers are numb, we’re not doing so through laws. We use laws to promote things which are beneficial for society and to restrict things which are harmful. For many people morals play a big part in deciding what is beneficial or harmful. You can’t divorce morals from such a discussion, morals are the reason we think murder and stealing and all the things we take for granted are harmful.

Then show that same-sex marriage is harmful to society before you work to keep it illegal.

Many people believe that the family is the building block of society and that changing this family structure is harmful to society.

And there are many, many different ideas about what constitutes a family in various cultures. Is the Ward-and-June nuclear family better than, say, an extended family living together? Is it necessarily superior to communal child-rearing? How?

 

[edwest2]

Here is the problem with ‘gay marriage’:

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330

God bless,
Ed

 

[brianwalden]

And there are many, many different ideas about what constitutes a family in various cultures. Is the Ward-and-June nuclear family better than, say, an extended family living together? Is it necessarily superior to communal child-rearing? How?

The law says nothing about nuclear families or how children are raised. Extended families and communal living are supported by the current laws even though they are not as popular today as they once were. To my knowledge extended families and communal child-rearing have always been traditionally based on marriage between one man and one woman. Our current laws promote marriage as the backbone of the types of families that benefit society whether they be nuclear, extended, or communal.

 

[Publisher]

I would think that multiple sex partners…even under the banner of “marriage” would not fit into a Christian understanding…polygamous gay marriages would be no more accepted than polygamous straight marriages…Mormons, Muslims??? Polygamy isn’t allowed in the US…even though there is “straight” precedence for it in other cultures…including our own among LDS…so why the “red herring” about polygamous gay marriages?

 

[Mirdath]

Here is the problem with ‘gay marriage’:

I do not see it as a problem

Also, there is precedent in your own faith – look at heroic biblical figures like Jacob the bigamist or David.

brianwalden:

Our current laws promote marriage as the backbone of the types of families that benefit society whether they be nuclear, extended, or communal.

Great. Now how, exactly, does same-sex marriage actively harm society? Last I checked, homosexuals are perfectly capable of being productive members of society alone or together. Even if they do not bear children, they can assist in raising them, foster or adopt – though I suspect that’s a can of worms better left unopened here.

If homosexuals are capable of acting as a family unit, why should the government not recognize that they are?

 

[brianwalden]

Because I want the law to reflect not just my ideal of marriage but all of them?

Why should the law reflect all of them? Other laws don’t reflect all the ideals of the topics they legislate.

If two people want to enter into a same-sex marriage they can. There’s nothing stopping them from marrying themselves. The government, however, won’t recognize it with special benefits. I think you give the government more power than it deserves. You almost seem to think that the government defines what marriage is by choosing which type of marriages it recognizes. It certainly doesn’t define my idea of marriage. It just promotes those marriages which it believes benefit society.

Then show that same-sex marriage is harmful to society before you work to keep it illegal.

If you hold me up to this standard, I also hold you up to it. Show me that same sex marriage is beneficial to society before you work to get the government to promote it. Obviously we’re not going to convince each other. A system where have to convince everyone who disagrees with us before we campaign for/against a certain law is absurd. I’ll take the current system where everyone gets to campaign no matter how popular or unpopular their views are.

 

[Aramis]

The law says nothing about nuclear families or how children are raised.

sorry, but totally untrue.

There is no encouragement (no tax break) for having one’s extended family in the same house. There are penalties for too many people living in a house in many states or localities.

Every state defines certain norms on child rearing, and they differ.

Alaska says that I can not use anything other than my bare hand to spank my children. It further says I can’t have opposite gender children in the same bedroom after age 2 for extended times.

Further, it says I can’t have sex with my wife in the presence of my children. Nor can I let them not learn to read.

In Florida, the law says I can’t use any form of physical discipline with my children. In California, children have to wear coats when it’s below 65°.

Some of these are regulation, some true law, but all have the force of law, and all dictate the nature of rearing my children.

 

[Aramis]

of my friends who are pro-gay-marriage, most of them are also polyamorous.

I know no polyamorous individuals who don’t see gay marriage as a good thing.

The studies I’ve read show that homosexual parents’ children tend to have higher rates of depression, violence, addiction and homosexuality. The latter is effectively immaterial, but the former three are societally significant.

These same three factors are increased in by divorce according to other studies.

and as for homosexuality in animals: it’s a response to overpopulation in many, and a sign of dominance when not in overpopulated conditions. In dogs it is a dominance issue. In rats, a population issue. Banoboes, it’s a form of male-male greeting, but their normal greeting mode is intercourse. Do we really want to model this in ourselves, having sex as a handshake?

 

[Mirdath]

Why should the law reflect all of them? Other laws don’t reflect all the ideals of the topics they legislate.

And that’s a problem.

I think you give the government more power than it deserves. You almost seem to think that the government defines what marriage is by choosing which type of marriages it recognizes.

For purposes of legal recognition, taxation, visitation and inheritance rights, and so on, it most certainly does do just that.

If you hold me up to this standard, I also hold you up to it. Show me that same sex marriage is beneficial to society before you work to get the government to promote it.

I do not say it’s necessarily beneficial, only that it’s not intrinsically harmful. The burden of proof lies with you.

Aramis:

The studies I’ve read show that homosexual parents’ children tend to have higher rates of depression, violence, addiction and homosexuality. The latter is effectively immaterial, but the former three are societally significant.

Cite, please?

 

[emily47017]

I think you give the government more power than it deserves. You almost seem to think that the government defines what marriage is by choosing which type of marriages it recognizes.

oddly enough, this is a really great argument for legalization of gay marriage. government doesn’t define marriage. it just recognizes marriages. where’s the threat to religious institutions who continue to define marriage as they will?

 

[brianwalden]

Great. Now how, exactly, does same-sex marriage actively harm society? Last I checked, homosexuals are perfectly capable of being productive members of society alone or together. Even if they do not bear children, they can assist in raising them, foster or adopt – though I suspect that’s a can of worms better left unopened here.

If homosexuals are capable of acting as a family unit, why should the government not recognize that they are?

In my opinion homosexual marriage denies the complementarity of the sexes and the completion of each sex in union with the other. It denies the natural order of marriage in exchange for man-made concepts. It also denies the natural truth of our sexuality. It turns marriage from a responsibility to procreate and raise children which couples choose to undertake to a relationship people enter into merely to make themselves happy. This type of attitude, which is present in many marriages today, is currently very detrimental the well-being of both the spouses and children in marriages. Homosexual marriage, even more so than our current contraceptive culture, does not encourage its participants to procreate and keep society growing.

I know you don’t agree with me. I don’t expect you to. That’s how society works: lots of people debate their opinions and some of them win out over others. I think we both agree with this. The difference is that I believe the law should attempt to reflect truth even though it may never be possible to fully achieve that goal. You believe the law shouldn’t attempt to reflect truth, but instead place bare limits so that individuals can determine their own truth. We have different fundamental concepts of the nature of law. I think we’re going around in circles on this issue more than anything else.

I agree that homosexuals as capable as anyone else at being productive members of society. I also don’t deny that homosexuals are capable of acting as a family unit. All kinds of people can act as a family unit. It doesn’t mean the government must promote all types of family units.

 

[emily47017]

of my friends who are pro-gay-marriage, most of them are also polyamorous.

count me in the “least” category. i’m ex-gay, ex-promiscuous, ex-everything-other-than-chaste. however, it’s not my business to tell other people how to live their lives.

and as for homosexuality in animals: it’s a response to overpopulation in many, and a sign of dominance when not in overpopulated conditions. In dogs it is a dominance issue. In rats, a population issue. Banoboes, it’s a form of male-male greeting, but their normal greeting mode is intercourse. Do we really want to model this in ourselves, having sex as a handshake?

it’s easy to dismiss animal homosexuality when you’ve only seen a little of the evidence… it seems like it’s only a little phenomenon. the reality is just the opposite, however. homosexuality in animals is ubiquitous and many-faceted, and can’t be written off as anything other than desire. if you’re interested in further educating yourself, you can read *Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity *by Bruce Bagamihl. at 768 pages, it’s quite a tome!

homosexual desire is natural, both in humans and in animals. the catechism is in perfect accordance with this fact, and has nothing to say about the "why"s of homosexuality, only the obligations of faith and chastity. humans are gifted with free will and spiritual awareness, and are not slaves to desire – any desire.

 

[Publisher]

In my opinion homosexual marriage denies the complementarity of the sexes and the completion of each sex in union with the other. It denies the natural order of marriage in exchange for man-made concepts.

That is a religious issue…not a civil one.

It also denies the natural truth of our sexuality. It turns marriage from a responsibility to procreate and raise children which couples choose to undertake to a relationship people enter into merely to make themselves happy.

Yet couples who cannot procreate can be married…again…based on religious beliefs, not on civil law…still it does not demonstrate “harm” to society…if barren couples do not “harm” society…neither do same sex couples.

This type of attitude, which is present in many marriages today, is currently very detrimental the well-being of both the spouses and children in marriages.

Are barren couples causing “detriment” to their spouses?

Homosexual marriage, even more so than our current contraceptive culture, does not encourage its participants to procreate and keep society growing.

But there are couples who can procreate…and do…this arguement makes it sound like if gay marriages are allowe it will stop ALL procreation…no more so than barren couples.

I know you don’t agree with me. I don’t expect you to. That’s how society works: lots of people debate their opinions and some of them win out over others. I think we both agree with this. The difference is that I believe the law should attempt to reflect truth even though it may never be possible to fully achieve that goal. You believe the law shouldn’t attempt to reflect truth, but instead place bare limits so that individuals can determine their own truth. We have different fundamental concepts of the nature of law. I think we’re going around in circles on this issue more than anything else.

You define “truth” through your beliefs…not equality under the law.

I agree that homosexuals as capable as anyone else at being productive members of society. I also don’t deny that homosexuals are capable of acting as a family unit.

You deny it…even though they do act as family units?

All kinds of people can act as a family unit. It doesn’t mean the government must promote all types of family units.

 

[brianwalden]

oddly enough, this is a really great argument for legalization of gay marriage. government doesn’t define marriage. it just recognizes marriages. where’s the threat to religious institutions who continue to define marriage as they will?

The government doesn’t define what marriage is. Neither does any person. No good Christian will say otherwise.

Many people believe that the law should reflect the truth of what marriage is. The current law follows this idea - while it’s not a perfect representation of any single person’s belief in the truth it’s a composite of all our beliefs. Others believe the law should only enforce some bare minimum requirements that let everyone do whatever they want unless they directly harm someone. Many people who promote homosexual marriage follow this idea when it comes to lawmaking.

 

[Nepenthe]

Back to ‘natural law*’ again, are we? You know, it wasn’t very long ago that a lot of people made very similar noises regarding interracial marriage. And there are a sadly large number that still do.

‘It’s not natural!’ ‘It’s against God’s will!’ ‘It will harm society!’ ‘Ew!’

And so on. And I just bet plenty of studies could be produced supporting the terrible social effects of mixed-race marriages, on the couple, on children, and so forth. Should we make interracial marriage illegal? It isn’t as if those miscegenators can’t live together if they insist upon it, but why should society and the government legitimize their disordered urges?

Just in case you didn’t know how you sound.

*which is neither natural nor law in any sense