How to think about gay marriage

[Magnanimity]

Hi all,

So, anyone who’s paying attention and thoughtful these days is going to be confronted with this issue of gay marriage. It’s been around for a while now, sort of looming in the background until the fairly recent phenomenon of numerous state gov’t leaders (whether in the courts, legislature, or exec) coming out in favor of gay marriage. And I find this development to be alarming. It’s almost feeling like a gov’t vs. the people situation and rather than a tyranny of the majority we feel a tyranny of the leadership–social engineering, as some Catholic bishops have put it.

First, I’d like to know if any of you have been sold on the idea that gay marriage proponents have been suggesting: gay marriage is a civil rights issue just like civil rights for minorities in the 60’s or women’s rights in the 20th century. Do you accept that argument?

Second, do you really find it helpful at all to quote the Bible in response to arguments in favor of gay marriage?

It seems like we’re heading toward a basic contention of the Bible vs. civil rights, which, I suppose, we can all see how that is going to end up. Surely there must be more mature arguments against gay marriage which appeal to religion very little, actually. Or perhaps not?

 

[jmcrae]

Hi all,

So, anyone who’s paying attention and thoughtful these days is going to be confronted with this issue of gay marriage. It’s been around for a while now, sort of looming in the background until the fairly recent phenomenon of numerous state gov’t leaders (whether in the courts, legislature, or exec) coming out in favor of gay marriage. And I find this development to be alarming. It’s almost feeling like a gov’t vs. the people situation and rather than a tyranny of the majority we feel a tyranny of the leadership–social engineering, as some Catholic bishops have put it.

First, I’d like to know if any of you have been sold on the idea that gay marriage proponents have been suggesting: gay marriage is a civil rights issue just like civil rights for minorities in the 60’s or women’s rights in the 20th century. Do you accept that argument?

No. To me, it’s like giving driving licenses to blind people. It’s “kind” but completely useless. Homosexuals have no more ability to be married than blind people have, to drive a car.

Second, do you really find it helpful at all to quote the Bible in response to arguments in favor of gay marriage?

No, not really. Instead, I just ask, “What would they gain from being married, that they can’t have by living as room mates?” I don’t see any kind of civil rights issues arising from that - they can still have jobs, they are still free to live with whom and where ever they want to live, they can go to school anywhere that they are qualified to go, and they have the vote, same as everyone else.

The things they don’t have - the ability to produce children, the ability to bond in a Sacramental marriage - these things, they can never have, even if they call themselves “married,” simply because these things are physically impossible for them - not because anyone is being “mean” and withholding it from them.

It seems like we’re heading toward a basic contention of the Bible vs. civil rights, which, I suppose, we can all see how that is going to end up. Surely there must be more mature arguments against gay marriage which appeal to religion very little, actually. Or perhaps not?

Every kind of culture on earth that has lasted any length of time at all without dying out has always forbidden homosexual activity. As soon as it gets in there, the society itself dies out - look at what happened to Greece, which got itself conquered by the Romans when they started allowing homosexuality - and then the Romans themselves were conquered by the barbarians (us) when they started allowing it.

 

[Magnanimity]

No. To me, it’s like giving driving licenses to blind people. It’s “kind” but completely useless. Homosexuals have no more ability to be married than blind people have, to drive a car.

Yeah, good point. But, I think the proponents of gay marriage have moved beyond the unsuccessful “you don’t want to be mean, do you?” type of argument to the much more powerful civil rights framework. That, along with the recent actions of our various state gov’t leaders, has got me very concerned.

No, not really. Instead, I just ask, “What would they gain from being married, that they can’t have by living as room mates?”

Moral legitimacy. That’s what they have to gain. If gay marriage has its way, they move the populace from simply tolerating their ‘alternative’ lifestyle to outright acceptance of it by having it as another (legit) type of marriage. To me, that’s a huge gain on their part that we simply cannot sit idly by and allow to happen.

I don’t see any kind of civil rights issues arising from that - they can still have jobs, they are still free to live with whom and where ever they want to live, they can go to school anywhere that they are qualified to go, and they have the vote, same as everyone else.

Yes, these are all good points you bring up, and would inevitably be a part of any good argument against gay marriage.

The things they don’t have - the ability to produce children, the ability to bond in a Sacramental marriage - these things, they can never have, even if they call themselves “married,” simply because these things are physically impossible for them -

Well, that’s true, but here we start appealing to religion in a strong way, and specifically to Catholicism. I’m wondering how we might engage in a more…, I don’t know, civic religion way, if anything?

Every kind of culture on earth that has lasted any length of time at all without dying out has always forbidden homosexual activity. As soon as it gets in there, the society itself dies out - look at what happened to Greece, which got itself conquered by the Romans when they started allowing homosexuality - and then the Romans themselves were conquered by the barbarians (us) when they started allowing it.

OK, I think this is where the argument starts to get a little muddled. It’s one thing to oppose homosexuality in a culture (as the Greeks didn’t). It’s quite another to oppose a radical redefinition of the bedrock institution of all cultures everywhere: the family. The latter is what most concerns me. Honestly, I don’t care what any consenting adults do in the bedroom. But, to morally legitimize GLBT by offering this radical redifinition of marriage very much concerns me.

Out of curiosity, I’m not aware of any civilization in history that has ever advocated the family to include a strictly homosexual couple raising children. True, there have been many cultures accepting of homosexuality, but any that have advocated it as a legitimate alt family? Has there ever been such an attempt prior to the 20th century?

Anyone know?

 

[gardenswithkids]

…First, I’d like to know if any of you have been sold on the idea that gay marriage proponents have been suggesting: gay marriage is a civil rights issue just like civil rights for minorities in the 60’s or women’s rights in the 20th century. Do you accept that argument?

Second, do you really find it helpful at all to quote the Bible in response to arguments in favor of gay marriage?

Point one: I do **not **accept the argument that this is a civil rights issue. I don’t even accept the argument that homosexuals cannot marry–an old friend of mine (female) married a gay man. He made a vow to her, just like any man who marries a woman. She knew he was gay, he knew he was gay, but no one prevented them from marrying each other.

Point 2: I think it is generally** not** helpful to quote the Bible, except perhaps for a very few instances with uninformed Christians who take the Bible seriously but who don’t know what it says regarding homosexuality. Those are probably the exception. Sadly some Christians will ignore quotes from Romans and/or try to explain that the sin of Sodom was “inhospitality”; thumping the Bible will not get far with them. Prayer might.

 

[jmcrae]

Moral legitimacy. That’s what they have to gain. If gay marriage has its way, they move the populace from simply tolerating their ‘alternative’ lifestyle to outright acceptance of it by having it as another (legit) type of marriage. To me, that’s a huge gain on their part that we simply cannot sit idly by and allow to happen.

I am still confused about where the actual gain is. What do they get out of moral legitimacy for their lifestyle, that they don’t already have? As it stands right now, no one can discriminate against them with regard to jobs, housing, or school. They can already vote. They cannot be unjustly prosecuted on the basis of their sexual orientation, nor is anyone permitted (or even winked at) to commit any kind of crime against them on the basis of their sexual orientation (or on any other basis). Crimes against homosexuals are prosecuted to the same extent as those against any other citizen, and receive the same penalties.

Out of curiosity, I’m not aware of any civilization in history that has ever advocated the family to include a strictly homosexual couple raising children. True, there have been many cultures accepting of homosexuality, but any that have advocated it as a legitimate alt family? Has there ever been such an attempt prior to the 20th century?

No. Previous generations assumed that men and women acting out in homosexual ways were heterosexual persons who were experiencing either a lack of normal sexual outlet (as in the case of Spartan soldiers, or boys and girls cooped up for extended periods of time in crowded same-sex dormitories at school, or prisoners), or else that they were experiencing a mental illness. The idea that someone could be genetically wired to prefer members of the same sex over members of the opposite sex is a relatively new one. (One also wonders about the role of hormonal therapies in the mother during pregnancy, and the floods of hormones that are found in our beef, pork, and chicken.)