If we attacking sacred cow traditions, what the is up with fruit cake? If ever there was a tradition that needs to be stopped, that is it.

I don't understand where the anti-homosexual marriage camp is coming from. I'm agnostic, I have gay relatives, and I've lived with girlfriends. Different worlds.

For those of you who didn't see it (because you might have pulled an older copy of the post through RSS), I created a poll related to this topic that I thought you all might find interesting:

http://neopoleon.com/home/forums/23153/ShowThread.aspx

Check it out. Vote. I know it's flawed, but it's totally informal anyway.

You don't have to register - the poll is on neopoleon.com. Just head over, click, and then you can view the results...

I think my views are probably somewhat 'unrepresentative', and are therefore not likely to be extremely helpful in understanding the issue at hand. But I suppose I can communicate to you the thoughts I have in response anyway.

Basically, I think your premise is slightly askew. You seem to think that 'traditionalists' are okay with people 'living in sin' (i.e. not retaining virginity prior to marriage) but are not okay with homosexual marriage. I suspect, though, that this is not accurate. I suspect most 'traditionalists' also think the ideal is that people retain thier virginity prior to marriage.

If I'm correct about that, the adding/subtracting conundrum you're pondering doesn't really come into play.

Does that help?

BTW, I think it's safe to say that most 'reasonable', non-hate-mongering people that are against homosexual marriage base their conviction primarily on ethics/morality rather than tradition. I personally don't object to your use of the term 'traditionalist'; it just occurred to me that it could possibly be misleading.

I'm with you that it's silly.  I don't believe in this, but for those I've talked to about gay marriage, the conscenses seems to be that they don't want to have to explain the gay couple down the road with the adopted child to their kids.  Please don't get pissed off and start posting huge comments.  Their point of view seems to be that it's different from them and they don't want it around.  It's lame, I agree, but it seems to be pretty common (at least where I come from).

Also though, I will say that it depends on how you're talking about marriage.  Marriage from a religious standpoint, I agree that homosexual marriage should NOT be allowed.  If you want to get married in a church, you follow their rules, plain and simple.  Because of the separation of church and state though, from a state side, there is absolutely no reason why gay marriage should not be allowed.  It SHOULD happen!  People that don't agree with it, have no right to decide the rights of everyone else (even though they think they can...er, sadly, they can, but they shouldn't be able to).

There are some interesting things to think about why pre-marital sex seems to be "ok" these days (even if everyone says its not), but gay marriage isn't.  I'm a married Christian and a firm believer in people being treated equally, regardless of my beliefs.  And what about the divorce rate being so high?  Does it have anything to do with those original traditions not being around anymore?  I won't say yes or no, but something is definitely messed up in the world.

I sure don't mind putting out in the public, Rory, my name is Erik Porter, I'm married, a Christian, a real person and I voted FOR gay marriage on your poll.

Burn the infidels!

In order to prosper, religion needs a constant supply of souls in need of salvation.  The average ‘living-in-sin’ couple is allowed into the club because, at the end of the day, they’re going to squeeze out a couple of ‘believers’ before the inevitable divorce.

Gays/lesbians aren’t bringing anything to the table* in terms of replenishing the flock.  Traditions may come and go – or get modified along the way, but only if it makes sense for business.

I think Stuart is (sort of) right in saying that traditionalists still think that purity prior to marriage is the norm.  It’s more likely that they just don’t think about the alternative – a religious version of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.

Why not just shoot for a Civil Union law, get equal rights, and leave the pious to their Bowl of Righteousness™?

*+12 to the collective sense of fashion notwithstanding.

Erik -

I'm fond of your take on the issue.

"Marriage from a religious standpoint, I agree that homosexual marriage should NOT be allowed.  If you want to get married in a church, you follow their rules, plain and simple."

I feel like an idiot, but I had never thought of it this way (probably because I'm not religious and am not exposed to things like going to church, etc.).

I think this makes much more sense than most of the arguments I've heard. I assume as well, though, that you would apply this follow-the-rules idea to *all* the rules by which a practitioner of a particular religion lives.

If that's the case, then I consider this fair. While I personally find it unpleasant to think about homosexuals not being allowed to get married in a Christian church, I also understand that, by being a Christian, you're supposed to adhere to a few rules here and there (to understate wildly), and that's part of the choice.

Interesting.

Thanks for posting that.

Oh and either I'm not smart enough to figure out how to vote, or the voting option is currently disabled on your poll.  I would have voted Atheist/against Gay Marriage though, I hate to see a one-sided race and – while you are persuasive – I can’t imagine 100% of the people voting agree with you.

However, put a Civil Union option up there and I’d vote yes.

Stuart -

"Basically, I think your premise is slightly askew. You seem to think that 'traditionalists' are okay with people 'living in sin' (i.e. not retaining virginity prior to marriage) but are not okay with homosexual marriage. I suspect, though, that this is not accurate. I suspect most 'traditionalists' also think the ideal is that people retain thier virginity prior to marriage."

That's a good point.

However, what I'd still like to know is this: Why do people allow for some traditions to slip, or to be subtracted, while not allowing for others to be added? Where does this trend take us? And why, again, is it OK? If tradition is what's important, then why are some traditions treated with more deference than others?

Stuart -

"BTW, I think it's safe to say that most 'reasonable', non-hate-mongering people that are against homosexual marriage base their conviction primarily on ethics/morality rather than tradition. I personally don't object to your use of the term 'traditionalist'; it just occurred to me that it could possibly be misleading."

This, too, is a good point.

But, an argument similar to the argument about tradition can be constructed for morals.

Why is it some moral transgressions are often overlooked (like pre-marital sex) while others (like gay marriage) are not? Why is it that some morals, probably inspired by one's religion, aren't commonly adhered to (and without serious repurcussions) while something like gay marriage is still considered morally offensive? When these morals come from the same Book, how does one justify crossing one out while highlighting another?

My thoughts on gay marriage are if you're going to be a crusader for the sanctity of marriage.. if you really believe gay marriage will have some vast corrosive, viral impact on marriage as a whole, here's a brief list of other laws and policies far more dangerous to the institution. Go after these first, then pass your constitutional amendment.

Somewhere between 43 percent and 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. If you believe gay marriage is single-handedly eroding a sacred and ancient institution, you cannot possibly be pro-divorce. That means any legislation passed in recent decades making divorce more readily available—from no-fault statutes to the decline of adultery prosecutions—should also be subject to bans, popular referendum, and constitutional amendment.

If there is blood in your body and you are over 18, you can get married, so long as you're not in love with your cousin. (Although even that's OK in some states). You can be married to someone you met at the breakfast buffet. Knowing her last name is optional. And you can be married by someone who was McOrdained on the Internet. So before you lobby to ban gay marriage, you might want to work to enact laws limiting the sheer frivolousness of straight marriage. You should be lobbying for an increase in minimum-age requirements, for mandatory counseling pre-marriage, and for statutory waiting periods before marriages (and divorces) can be permitted.

The dissenters in the Massachusetts decision are of the opinion that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. They urge that a sound reason for discriminating against gay couples is that there is a legitimate state purpose in ensuring, promoting, and supporting an "optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children." If you're going to take the position that marriage exists solely to encourage begetting, you need to oppose childlessness by choice, birth control, living together, and marriage for the post-menopausal. In fact, if you're really looking for "optimal" social structures for childrearing, you need to legislate against single parents, poor parents, two-career parents, alcoholic or sick parents, and parents who are afraid of the Baby Einstein videos.

Here's what's really undermining the sacredness of modern marriage: soap operas, wedding planning, longer work days, cuter secretaries, fights over money, reality TV, low-rise pants, mothers-in-law, boredom, Victoria's Secret catalogs, going to bed mad, the billable hour, that stubborn 7 pounds, the Wiggles, Internet chat rooms, and selfishness. In fact we should start amending the Constitution to deal with the Wiggles immediately.

Human beings want and deserve a soul mate; someone to grow old with, someone who thinks our dopey entry in the New Yorker cartoon competition is hilarious, and someone to help carry the shopping bags. Gay couples have asked the state to explain why such privileges should be denied them and have yet to receive an answer that is credible.

The decision to make a marriage "sacred" does not belong to the state, if the state were in charge of mandating sacredness in matrimony, we'd have to pave over both Nevada and Jessica Simpson. We make marriage sacred by choosing to treat it that way, one couple at a time. We make marriage a joke by treating it like a two-week jungle safari. There is no evidence that gay couples are any more inclined toward that latter course than supermodels, rock stars, or that poor spineless bald man on Who Wants to Marry My Dad? There's good evidence that most of them will take the commitment very seriously, as do the rest of us. There will be more "sanctity" in marriage when we recognize that people of all orientations can make sacred choices.

Mike D -

"Why not just shoot for a Civil Union law, get equal rights, and leave the pious to their Bowl of Righteousness™?"

Because the word "marriage" is in the public domain. It belongs to everyone.

But, that isn't the issue here - the issue is why some traditions/morals are allowed to be transgressed, while others aren't.

You provided one opinion about why this may be, and it was interesting, but your answer raises more issues.

To clarify, I'll quote your response here:

"In order to prosper, religion needs a constant supply of souls in need of salvation.  The average ‘living-in-sin’ couple is allowed into the club because, at the end of the day, they’re going to squeeze out a couple of ‘believers’ before the inevitable divorce."

I'm going to make an assumption (and someone please tell me if I'm wrong) that this view is *not* one which is taught from the pulpit. And, if it were, it should raise some serious questions in the minds of the people to whom one is preaching.

To ignore a moral transgression to allow for the "production" of more adherents to a religion should be confusing to a believer - and especially a Biblical literalist (not just listeralists - but I think that group would have the most difficulty accepting this slip). If one rule is allowed to be broken, then...

...what other rules can be broken? Can we murder now? Steal? Commit adultery?

Breaking a single rule opens the floodgates to allow for the breaking of other rules.

That's a pretty messy position, so I expect that, whether your answer is true for some people or not, there must be a better explanation - one which doesn't result in moral confusion and chaos.

In the end, we all try to find a way to reconcile our indiscretions against our moral limitations (self-imposed, inherited from God(s), or both). Repentance can come in many forms.

relevant link to the discussion (nytimes): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/us/07jews.html?em&ex=1165726800&en=c452d4c3b31e5d54&ei=5087%0A

I think there's absolutely no reason to disallow civil unions. If you have a life partner, why can't you get the same tax implications as a hetero-married couple?

Why I agree that there's something foul with the idea of forcing someone to marry a couple if they don't want to (how could you "bless a union" you're morally against) -- but what if a religion said they wouldn't marry black/hispanic/interracial couples?

I'm posting hurriedly; will come back later...

Rory, I think you're being astute when you say, "if one rule is allowed to be broken, then...

...what other rules can be broken? Can we murder now? Steal? Commit adultery? "

That is an argument for why 'traditionalists' are not accepting of scenarios (e.g. homosexual marriage) that 'sanctify' homosexual sex.

To state it another way, if you accept the premise that homosexual sex is a sin, it continues to be a sin in the context of marriage -- marriage doesn't change the morality of homosexual sex. However, heterosexuals who are engaging in premarital sex are no longer commiting sin when they engage in sex post-marriage.

So in this sense, heterosexual marriage can be 'redemptive', while homosexual marriage cannot.

engtech -

"Why I agree that there's something foul with the idea of forcing someone to marry a couple if they don't want to (how could you "bless a union" you're morally against) -- but what if a religion said they wouldn't marry black/hispanic/interracial couples?"

That's another good point I hadn't thought of.

A bit like the pharmacists in this country who refuse to dispense birth control pills for religious reasons.

That said, just as one can eventually find a pharmacist willing to dispense birth control pills, one can also eventually find a priest willing to marry a same-sex couple.

I don't think there's a lot of forcing going on :)

Okay, I guess I'll ring in with my two cents too.

I'm a Christian, but pride myself in taking what I consider to be reasonable stances of subjects like these.

I'm not going to rant about what the Bible says regarding homosexuality, well, because I'm sure everybody here already knows. Furthermore, If I expect any non-Christian to understand my position, I wouldn't convince them with a book they don't find to be worth any value.

Here's my ex-scriptura reasoning behind rejecting Same-sex Marriage. What is marriage? What has it always been? It's been the unity between a man and a woman, simple as that. Now, what are proponents of same-sex marriage wanting to make marriage? The union between two persons who love eachother?

Alright, suppose same-sex marriages become legal and accepted, etc. What about the next group of minorities, who want to marry two or three people that they love. Polygamists will then be in the same camp as homosexuals are as of now. Are we going to turn them away? "No, no, no...that isn't what marriage is." We couldn't do that, having redefined marriage for the previous minority.

Suppose Polygamists get their way, and marriage is broadened to accept "Any three people who express a desire for life-long commitement to eachother." Then what about the man who wants to marry his cousin - thank's for that material, Rory ;) - are we going to turn our heads and let it happen? We could argue, "No, you cannot get married...you two might have disabled children." But then we have to stop allowing couples who are both genetic-carriers of harmful recessive conditions..after all, their children may end up handicapped aswell.

So suppose we let the family members marry, after all, we have already redefined marriage two times for other minorities. Then what about the sicko pervert who says he wants to marry his horse? Having approved same-sex marriage, polygamy, and inbreeding, can we really tell this man he cannot marry and animal? What if he loves it? Genuinely loves his animal..after all, most American's will become very close to an animal in there lifetime...what about those who get "too close" and want to make a life-long committement...sure, some of you snicker at that idea, but people snickered at the things we see everyday once in the past.

If you ask me, it's a slippery slope. You redefine a 2000 year old institution today, you're going to have to do it again tomorrow. And again the next day. Until it means absolutely nothing to be "Married".

My name is Jonathan Sampson, I'm a Christian, and I vote NO to same-sex marriage.

Just my two-cents.
Jonathan Sampson

Jonathan -

First off, thanks for writing at length. I do appreciate it. The more info people send, the more I can understand the issue (which is my selfish goal).

I'm familiar with this general argument:

"What about the next group of minorities, who want to marry two or three people that they love..."

It's the one I hear most often aside from matters of tradition, morality, etc.

I used to dismiss it outright, but I actually read through your post and realized that there *are* some issues.

In a way, what you're saying makes sense to me. To open up marriage so that the word "marriage" can also be applied to gay marriages, it seems we *would* have some kind of obligation to allow for other variations of marriage.

My instinct is to argue that it's somehow different to allow for homosexuals to get married. It's probably because I'm biased - I have a lot of gay friends, and I sympathize with them.

Then there's the issue of the human/horse marriage. I honestly have no problem with this. I think it's *weird*, and the horse doesn't have a say in the matter, but I still feel that, if someone reeeeeealy wants to marry a horse, then it ought to be allowed.

I'm not worried about the cousin argument. Cousins who share a genetic line (unlike your wife who is only a cousin by law) run the risk of having weird kids, but... so do heterosexuals. The risk isn't as high, but it still exists. So, I guess I think cousins ought to be able to marry, even though I think that, too, is weird.

But then you brought up polygamy. Now, I have no moral opposition to polygamy, but it seems like it could potentially create some legal headaches. I'm not sure the IRS would want to deal with having to provide the paperwork to accommodate such a thing. Very complicated.

Actually, now that I've thought it through a little (very little), I see no reason why all these minority groups shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I do see many difficulties in figuring out how to handle these issues, but that's not my problem.

So, in the end, it seems that what I'm really arguing for isn't just gay marriage, but marriage between anybody, and in any configuration.

That makes the argument one of either allowing only for heterosexual marriages and nothing else, or allowing for *any* marriage.

Interesting.

Even though we don't agree, you have, at least, helped me understand what I actually support. Five minutes ago, I thought it was gay marriage, but I've just learned that I support any kind of marriage between two or more beings.

This is something I'm going to have to think about a bit more. I was just thinking out loud here - it's beginning to the thought process, and most definitely not the end.

Fascinating (to me, anyway).

Again, thanks for writing. Very thought provoking.

Rory, I expecting you - or somebody else - to respond to the horse/man marriage with "The horse doesn't have a say in this". It's crazy that we would say something like that, all the while eating a nice juicy steak...or training horses to carry us on their backs. Not pointing the finger at you here - just thinking it's weird that people would respond with "the animal doesn't have a say".

Not the less, my general response to your words is this - what is marriage? If the word is redefined over and over again to fit anything, then it has no meaning whatsoever. Just like, if everything were a religion, nothing would be a religion. Words attain meaning through distinctness, and if any relationship can be considered a marriage, then no relationship is a marriage.

My uncle kissing my aunt good night could be considered a "marriage". My neighbors waving at one another could be considered a "marriage". A person engaging in self-pleasure could be considered a "marriage". If we continue to redefine words down through history to make others happy, we lose the very meaning of those words themselves.

I'm curious, why do you think homosexuals want to get married? Why do you think heterosexuals get married? Because they love eachother? But what does that have to do with marriage? Because they want to spend the rest of their lifes with eachother? What does that have to do with marriage? Is it a 'just because' thing? If so, why be so eager to blur history 'just because'?

If you can’t see the disconnect between the message of the church and the way life is lived, you’re living in a world unlike the one I live in.  Btw – I’m ok with the disconnect.  In fact, I occasionally go to mass – it’s interesting if nothing else.

As for literalists, I’m sure you’ve read Misquoting Jesus (or something similar) – literalists have more pressing questions of faith.

Now, I’ll have to admit, you’ve uncovered the misanthropic nature of my post.  I, also, doubt that particular message is being touted from the pulpit.  But that doesn’t really invalidate it as an explanation.  ‘Saying’ and ‘doing’ – similar, yet different.

Oh, and the ‘single rule-breaking leading to more rule breaking’ sounds suspiciously like the ‘marijuana as a gateway drug’ axiom.  Morality isn’t that simple, at least it doesn’t look that way through the smoke of my crack-pipe.

What makes sense to me:

The churches can do whatever they want based on their accepted doctrine.  *All* marriages should be recognized by the state as a civil union.  Civil unions would receive a revised list of "marriage benefits" [1].  The revisions to monetary benefits from the government should favor couples (heterosexual or homosexual) who are raising children.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

Jonathan -

"Not pointing the finger at you here - just thinking it's weird that people would respond with "the animal doesn't have a say"."

Honestly, that's what comes to my mind. Believe it or not, the thing that bothers me most about a human/horse marriage is that the horse doesn't understand what's going on and has no say in the matter.

"Not the less, my general response to your words is this - what is marriage? If the word is redefined over and over again to fit anything, then it has no meaning whatsoever."

Well... since you bring it up, consider the following facts:

1. The concept of marriage, for Christians alone, has changed and evolved for hundreds of years - although today's Christian marriage might resemble one from several hundred years ago insofar as heterosexuality is concerned, there are many other details which differ

2. Many different cultures all over the world have their own concepts of marriage, and, when those marriages are performed in English speaking countries, they are still referred to as marriages even though the details differ greatly

3. To work with the last idea a little more, there is *not* just one concept of marriage - even among heterosexuals, you'll find that there are many differing opinions as to what constitutes a marriage - for some, remaining in wedlock "'Til death do us part" is an absolute requirement, while, for others, it's more of a goal

The thing is, the word *has* been redefined over and over again. It will continue to be redefined. Perhaps not as either of us would like, but maybe in some other direction.

With the divorce rates around the world, it's entirely reasonable to think that, one day, several generations from now (or sooner - or later), the definition of marriage might state that marriage is just a temporary agreement between two people who want to raise a family, but who will be expected to split up as soon as the children have left the home.

I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it *is* possible. Considering how marriage has changed, even in just the past fifty years, and even just among certain cultural groups, it's not only possible, but likely that it's going to happen again.

"My uncle kissing my aunt good night could be considered a "marriage". My neighbors waving at one another could be considered a "marriage"."

Keep in mind that every single word in any living language is at risk for redefinition at any time. Take the words "sensitive" and "sensible" - they're reversed in French (actually, to be historically correct, they're reversed in English).

The French language in Paris has undergone major changes over the past few decades. Some words have lost their meanings, while others have been modified, and others still have taken on entirely new meanings.

Languages *are* living, and they are often molded in response to cultural shifts (but alto through mistakes, dialects, and a million other causes).

"I'm curious, why do you think homosexuals want to get married?"

Some of the homosexuals I know who want to get married (noting that not all want to get married) want to do it because they want the same legal recognition of their relationships, the same tax breaks, the same benefits, and they want to be part of the tradition of the sanctification of a deep relationship. Many homosexuals identify just as strongly with cultural traditions as their heterosexual peers, and they want to be a part of the "regular" world. They don't want to be sectioned off into the "civil union" space, nor do they want to be denied their right to married.

That's a bit of why some of the homosexuals I know want to get married. I'm sure there are other reasons, and that many homosexuals wouldn't share these desires (just as many heterosexuals have no desire to get married).

"But what does that have to do with marriage?"

mar·riage [márrij]
(plural mar·riages)
noun
1.  legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners

Microsoft® Encarta® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Rory Said - "...they want to be part of the tradition of the sanctification of a deep relationship."

And they wish to achieve that by destroying the tradition?

Mike D -

"If you can’t see the disconnect between the message of the church and the way life is lived, you’re living in a world unlike the one I live in."

I honestly don't know what you mean by this. If you could elaborate a little...

"As for literalists, I’m sure you’ve read Misquoting Jesus (or something similar) – literalists have more pressing questions of faith."

I haven't read it, but I'd like to. It's been on my ToDo list for a while.

"Now, I’ll have to admit, you’ve uncovered the misanthropic nature of my post.  I, also, doubt that particular message is being touted from the pulpit.  But that doesn’t really invalidate it as an explanation.  ‘Saying’ and ‘doing’ – similar, yet different."

I agree that it doesn't invalidate the explanation as a possible reason as to why certain transgressions are allowed while others aren't. My point, really, was that, if *that* transgression is allowed, then how many other transgressions do the faithful allow themselves, and which ones do they choose, and why? And why not others?

Why is it OK to indulge in a self-serving moral transgression while also telling other people which morals they're allowed to ignore and which ones they aren't?

That's a position with which I have some issues.

I can totally understand a "modern" Christian understanding that the world has changed and that Christianity ought to change along with it (such as on the issue of pre-marital sex), but it doesn't seem (to me) that there is any organization to the way people are bringing Christianity into the 21st century.

So, who's keeping an eye on the morals? Who's getting to be the one to figuratively scratch out a few lines of the Bible which are clearly no longer useful to society? And why do they allow for such large changes, but not for marriage? It's as though marriage has become another rope in the left vs. right tug-o-war - that people believe that, if marriage is guarded the right will win, and that, if marriage is changed to allow for homosexuality, the left will win.

It's all rather messy, if you ask me...

Jonathan -

"And they wish to achieve that by destroying the tradition?"

One of the points I've been making is that there isn't *one* single tradition. There are many cultures and many different concepts of marriage.

Even marriage within one particular cultural group will undergo changes as society changes around it.

Traditions are impermanent. Everything is impermanent. Some things last longer than others, but nothing will last forever.

And that includes traditions.

I also wouldn't think of allowing for homosexual marriage as being the "destruction" of the tradition. I'd see it as adding something to the tradition, where other elements of the tradition have come and gone over the years, for many reasons, and in many cultures, over many different concepts of marriage.

About the - the general argument:

"What about the next group of minorities, who want to marry two or three people that they love..."

It's quite simple really, there's really no valid reason for someone to marry two or three people, most people who marry to two-three people don't do it for love.

Homosexuals want to get married, not to two-three homosexuals; but to one homosexual...why? Because they are in love.

I agree with Erik, on the issue of marrying in a Church, you're under their roof = you follow their rules.

My general viewpoint is...hey if it's not hurting me personally.. why should I care?

LaBomba -

I agree. I think Erik's point of view is one of the best I've heard from anyone in the debate - whether a believer or an atheist.

Thanks, LaBomba.  Thanks, Rory.  I'm sure you're not just saying that because you have to sit across from me.  ;)

I've everybody's comments on the subject here really interesting.  Really good discussion, Rory!  :)

Erik -

"Thanks, Rory.  I'm sure you're not just saying that because you have to sit across from me."

I'm most definitely not saying it for that reason.

One thing about issues like this one is that they sometimes need to end in compromise, and your solution is just that - a compromise. And one which I think is very reasonable.

It reminds me of Christmas dinner over at my aunt's. They say grace before eating, and I never participate. Not just because I don't share the same beliefs, but because, for me to participate, I feel I would somehow be "cheapening" it for the rest of them. I just don't belong in a circle of people praying. I wouldn't be thinking pleasant thoughts about the prayer, either, so I find it best to just remove myself to the living room until it's over. My sister does the same.

In the same respect, if a particular religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin, then it *does* seem wrong to hold a gay marriage ceremony in a church of that religion.

But, as I've stated a few times already, there are many religions, many cultures, and many different ways that people see marriage, and I think it's right that each group be allowed to define marriage in an appropriate way for its own uses, but not to the exclusion of other groups.

In other words, there are a lot of different social groups on this planet, and each one should be allowed to express itself without preventing anyone else from doing the same.

At least that's the world I'd like to live in...

Romania is over 90% an christian orthodox country. If you knew a bit about orthodox beliefs... Lets say that true followers are more than traditionalists. That priest was from a village, and rural population is far more religious than the urban population. It's nothing very unusual if he gave the money to the poor or for church strict use and not keep it for himself.
About gay marriage... Sex is considered to be only the mean of reproduction and not something you do for pleasure. There are many days (like the four fasting periods) when it is considered a great sin to have sex. What I want to say is that the religious people tolerate sex as being a biological act. On the other part they view homosexuality as completely unnatural and a symbol of man's fall into sin. For christians gay marriage is as offensive as Mohamed's drawings for the Muslim community. Homosexuality may be legal in my country but is not accepted by the people. Probably some people understand if it happens in jail or something, but for two men to "love"  each other and to get married and adopt children...there will be a looot of public protests before that happens.
Am I for gay marriage ? No. They definitely should be tolerated but allowing gay marriage it's like encouraging it. Why do they even care if they are or aren't married. Two homosexuals are less natural then a dog screwing a duck.

Cool.  :)  I'm all about compromise.  There are so many different types of people in the world, we're all gauranteed to butt heads and the only answer that works in the end is compromise.  That's pretty much how I run my life.  I'm always looking out for number one, but life's all about balance.  There will be ups and there will be downs, but it all balances out in some way in the end.  The trick is to never let things get too out of control in one direction.  You know, like Neo and Mr. Smith.  The equation always balances out, then chaos is added and it all starts over again in a circle.  Good times.  :)

That's a world I'd like to live in too.  For the time being, I'll settle for the world of Viva Pinata.  It's actually pretty close to what you would describe.  :P

bart --

"Two homosexuals are less natural then a dog screwing a duck."

If you are trying to show how ignorant and brain-washed you are by religious fairytales, you're doing a bang up job.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea2.html

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1279583.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Rory, you said you wanted to read the passages from the Bible about this issue, so I thought I would give you the most relevant ones :

---------------------------------------
   Old Testament
---------------------------------------
Leviticus 18:
 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
 
Leviticus 20:
 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

---------------------------------------
   New Testament
---------------------------------------

Romans 1:
 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hope that helps, let me know if you have any specific questions about these....

P.S. Those are from the regular ol' King James version of the Bible, not one of the newer translations.

Yeah, the bible says a lot of stuff...

2 Kings 2:23-24
===========
Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

Deuteronomy 23:1
=============
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

Genesis 38:8-10
============

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.

Ezekiel 23:19-20
============

Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals – as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12
=================
If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.


Source: http://www.churchhopping.com/ten-verses-never-preached-on/

"You don't have to register - the poll is on neopoleon.com. Just head over, click, and then you can view the results..."

Ehm.. when not logged in, there are no tickboxes - just the results.

Els -

Thanks for pointing that out. I was wondering why nobody was voting.

It's fixed now...

Gay Marriages just got legalized in South Africa and the following "rules" have been doing the rounds...thought it was funny.

1) On the day of a gay wedding, it's bad luck for the two grooms to
see each other at the gym.

2) Superstition suggests that, for good luck, the couple should have:
Something bold, something flirty, something trashy, something dirty.

3) It's customary, at gay and lesbian nuptials, for the parents to
have an open bar during the entire ceremony.

4) Gay wedding tradition dictates that both grooms refrain from eating
any of the wedding cake because it's all carbs and sugar.

5) It's considered bad luck for either of the grooms to have dated the
priest.

6) During the first dance, it's considered unlucky to use glow sticks,
flags, whistles or hand held lasers.

7) For good luck at the union of a drag queen, the bouquet is always
thrown in the face of a hated rival.

8) The reception hall must have a disco ball and at least one go-go
dancer.

9) The wedding singer is not allowed to play/sing Let's Hear It For
the
Boy, It's Raining Men, or I Will Survive.

10) The father of the Bottom has to pay for everything!

On a more serious note I think it’s great that 2 people despite their gender/race/creed can commit them selves to a "till death do us part" relationship. If God = Love, then I don’t see how Love could = Sin.

I know you are all crab people !!! You don't fool me >:)

Guy --

Presumably you are aware that the Bible was not originally written in English. When the Bible is translated from Hebrew and Greek into receptor languages (English in this case), the translators must render the original idioms into modern equivalents. On top of the difficulty inherent in that, they have to walk the line so as to not offend the 'churchy people' who are their primary audience. The net result is that, at times, words and phrases are used that are fairly cringe-worthy.

So while you're able to quote some verses out of context that seem 'embarrassing' or 'silly', please don't imagine that those scriptures are ones that christians have never come upon, nor are they ones we squirrel away and try to ignore. They are meaningful in context and written down for a purpose.

I'm tempted to demonstrate my point by explaining a few, but unfortunately I don't have time today, and besides, something tells me you're not really all that interested.

Rory:

I'm surprised that you're launching this kind of debate - seems so incredibly borderline classical flamefest material ("my god is better than your god", the mixture of quotes from the Bible and from Nietzsche, and blah blah blah). But I must say that people seem to be quite reasonable and articulate so far :-)

For now, I'll resist the temptation to get sucked into this thing...

punky -

"I'm surprised that you're launching this kind of debate - seems so incredibly borderline classical flamefest material"

I know, and that's unfortunate. For some reason - a reason I'd like to understand - religion, at least in the States, is something considered untouchable. You don't mention it. You don't discuss it.

As an atheist, people can say whatever they like about me - I'm not protected. But, say one thing about someone's religion - question just *one* aspect of it - and you get flamed by those who belong.

I think that's messed up, and I've refrained from posting in the past on these subjects because of that.

This time, though, I suddenly thought, "This really *is* a strange issue. People *are* willing to look the other way when it comes to some sins, but not to others. ***WHY***?"

I genuinely wanted to know. I didn't want anybody starting any pissing contests, and that's why I left all the notes in the post, suggesting that people try to be civil with one another. I'm seriously just after the reasoning that drives somone's decision not to care about premarital sex, but to go nuts when the sin of a homosexual marriage is a possibility.

From the outside, honestly, it looks like it's hate motivated. It seems very bigoted. And that isn't to say that I'm right - that's just to say that that is the way I see it. Hence the curiosity which sparked this post.

I'll never know first-hand what it's like to want to prevent a group of people from having a right that the other 90% of humanity takes for granted. Why, in the year 2006, we have policies about marriage that are practically no different from making minorites sit at the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains.

I wanted to learn, as best I could, through the words of people who actually feel this thing I'll never feel. It's so inexplicable in my head that I cannot, through reason, bring myself to understand. I needed help. And, for better or worse, I got some help.

A few things were explained. I don't support much of the supporting arguments, having found some to be downright ridiculous, but at least I kind of get it now.

Just a little, though.

No amount of explanation could possibly lead me to a full comprehension of this strange bigotry which is played up as being part of tradition.

> No amount of explanation could possibly lead me to a full comprehension of this strange bigotry which is played up as being part of tradition.

But tradition has very little to do with it. Remember? :)

It seems pretty clear to me that the homosexual marriage issue is the tip of the iceberg, if you will. It's essentially impossible to understand what the other side is saying about this issue without first understanding all the underlying issues, upon which decisions regarding homosexual marriage are based, e.g. what is marriage? what is the point of marriage? what is the role of government? And so on.

Anyway, fwiw I think calling the anti-homosexual-marriage (AHM) position 'bigotry' is a bit unfair. A bigot is "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." I understand you see the Christian AHM crowd as being strongly partial to its own religion and intolerant of those who differ (and therefore meriting the title 'bigot'), but I'm pretty certain that the pro-homosexual-marriage position is equally partial to its own politics and intolerant of those who differ. In other words, this happens to be an issue where one group believes marriage means something specific that necessarily includes homosexuals, but this exclusivity is no more 'bigoted' and exclusive than the pro position (i.e. the stances are mutually exclusive).

I don't feel like I expressed that very well, but I know what I mean, anyhow. :P

Coming from a country that just recently passed a gay marriage law, these issues are fresh in my mind. The real issue, in my mind, is that it is not a religous question. What strikes me is that despite the fact the majority of South Africans are against gay marriage, the courts ordered the government to pass the law, as the current law was unconstitutional (at least in South Africa). Best put by Justice Sachs:

The exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage, accordingly, is not a small and tangential inconvenience resulting from a few surviving relics of societal prejudice destined to evaporate like the morning dew. It represents a harsh if oblique statement by the law that same-sex couples are outsiders, and that their need for affirmation and protection of their intimate relations as human beings is somehow less than that of heterosexual couples. It reinforces the wounding notion that they are to be treated as biological oddities, as failed or lapsed human beings who do not fit into normal society, and, as such, do not qualify for the full moral concern and respect that our Constitution seeks to secure for everyone. It signifies that their capacity for love, commitment and accepting responsibility is by definition less worthy of regard than that of heterosexual couples.


How can one belive in a constitution that proclaims equality, yet provides for exclusive legal and soceital institutions?

Stuart -

"It seems pretty clear to me that the homosexual marriage issue is the tip of the iceberg, if you will. It's essentially impossible to understand what the other side is saying about this issue without first understanding all the underlying issues, upon which decisions regarding homosexual marriage are based, e.g. what is marriage? what is the point of marriage? what is the role of government? And so on."

If "What is marriage?" is one of the questions, then it seems the definition is up for grabs.

There is no reason why it cannot mean more than just what it means in the Christian world. As a matter fact, it *does* mean more than just what it means in the Christian world.

"Anyway, fwiw I think calling the anti-homosexual-marriage (AHM) position 'bigotry' is a bit unfair."

Not at all. It's entirely fair. I've read up on the subject. I've talked it over with people. I've listened to what they have to say.

There is just no justification for it whatsoever. I'll explain further in a moment.

"A bigot is "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." I understand you see the Christian AHM crowd as being strongly partial to its own religion and intolerant of those who differ (and therefore meriting the title 'bigot')"

I agree with you this far.

"but I'm pretty certain that the pro-homosexual-marriage position is equally partial to its own politics and intolerant of those who differ."

That simply isn't the case.

Here's the difference...

Christian AHM: In our world, marriage is between a man and a woman. Not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Marriage is strictly heterosexual. End of story.

Homosexual for marriage: In our world, marriage can be either homo or heterosexual.

Do you see the difference? In the first case, the Christian AHM wants to limit the rights of the homosexual.

In the second case, the homosexual perfectly respects the rights of the Christian AHM to marry whomever he/she pleases.

The Christian AHM position, then, is exclusive.

The homosexual position is inclusive.

The Christian AHM says: We want this thing and nothing else.

The homosexual says: We want this thing and to leave others to be free to choose what they want.

By supporting homosexual marriage, one is not bigoted against Christians because one is not intolerant of a Christan's views or rights. One merely has his own opinion which is not limiting of that Christian's rights.

By denying homosexual marriage, a Christian is bigoted because he intolerant of the homosexual's right to marry.

It's very simple (at least to me). One group, the Christan AHM, wants to limit the freedoms of another group, while the other group, the homosexuals, doesn't want to limit anybody's freedom - rather, the homosexuals simply want the same rights to be made available to them as well.

To follow the Christian AHM philosophy, is to explicitly deny homosexuals the right to marry.

To follow the homosexual philosophy, nothing is denied to the Christian.

The position is *not* equally split between the two parties.

I stand by my wording - the Christian AHM view is bigoted. Now, you might not like that, and that's OK, but it doesn't change anything.

"In other words, this happens to be an issue where one group believes marriage means something specific that necessarily includes homosexuals, but this exclusivity is no more 'bigoted' and exclusive than the pro position (i.e. the stances are mutually exclusive)."

Wrong.

The Christian position, as I explained above, is exclusive. It prohibits the rights of the homosexual.

The homosexual position, on the other hand, does *not* limit the rights of the Christian.

Furthermore, marriage is a *legal* construct. It should be a matter untouched by religion. In fact, it *must* be, at least in its legal aspect, independent of religion. How else could Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., manage to get married in this country? Each group might have its own wedding ceremonies and traditions, but each group, if the couple of the group decides to become married in the legal sense, is subjected to the exact same and equal rules of all the other groups.

That is to say that marriage is a legal construct shared by many different groups, while the wedding ceremony itself (as Erik Porter pointed out in very different words earlier) is a very different thing, and can come in many forms.

If you want to continue with this line of thinking, then you must exclude other groups from marriage.

Take Muslims, for example. Christians and Muslims *do not agree* on some rather key issues. For example, Muslims do not recognize Jesus as the last prophet. That's an issue for Christians.

Given that one of your earlier arguments against homosexuality was that, in wedlock, they would still be living in sin, I'm surprised that you haven't branched out to indicate that Muslims, who believe in a modified version of te Christian god, do not share your faith, and are then, according to scripture, not deserving of your respect, laws, or fair treatment. Yet, I'd be very surprised if you came out against Muslim marriages in the United States.

In the end, the argument that a homosexual who desires marriage is somehow bigoted toward Christians is ridiculous. The Christian point of view is an *active* one. The Christian stance is to take *action* against homosexual marriage.

Let me ask you something...

How many homosexuals have you seen protesting heterosexual Christian marriage?

I think the reason people will allow a certain sin to slide, and will stand and rail against a different sin is actually fairly simple.

They'd be tempted to do it themselves - they can see the appeal. In fact they may even have been properly tempted, and gone through the process of rationalising the sin to themselves. Whether or not they've gone and done it, they've probably worked out a defence for living in sin when they were tempted to.

Their "evil conscience" has already made half the argument, and so it's only perceived as being half as bad.

Whereas some sins they don't understand at all, and are a bit freaked out by. Which makes it much easier to take a hard stance on them.

As an example, consider a father whose daughter is living with her boyfriend, he's a nice guy and seems really sincere. Dad wishes he'd been allowed to live with his wife before they were married, so he can see his Daughter's point of view and understands that. He's against it, but he'll let it slide.

His Son on the other hand is gay, Dad's totally freaked by the whole idea of having sex with men. It's completely abhorrent to him. He's not going to get all judgemental though, it's the noughties after all, and homosexuality is as old as time.

Now Daughter and Son both are commiting sin, but Daughter's sin is understandable by Dad, so he's ok with it. Son's sin is really weird so he's having a hard time dealing with it.

Now imagine Daughter and Son both want to marry their boyfriends. It's pretty easy to see how that'll work out. (Especially as Dad is probably hoping Son will "grow out of it" despite the fact he's 28 and been having gay relationships for the last 11 years.)

You really have to sometimes sit back and smell the shit your shoveling sometimes, when I say you I mean all of us since I’m just as guilty as the next guy at times.  What I mean is you (this time referring to Rory) say you want a discussion not a fight, you want a reasonable thought out argument for not allowing gay people to marry, and you preface this with “I’m just looking for answers”…

That’s bullshit, what you are doing is trying to stir up controversy and hoping some close minded hypocritical knuckle dragger will fall into your trap and try to defend an argument that anyone of slight intelligence can rip apart with a few keystrokes.  Not that I blame you for doing so, and not that you shouldn’t if that’s what you want to discuss, but come on with this ‘I’m just looking for answers’ crap, lets be honest about what it is.

The bottom line is, (as I know you must already know), there is no reason for it.  You can’t defend bigotry, racism, hate of sexuality, (which I don’t believe is the same as homophobia), or any other prejudice that a person may harbor.  They aren’t rational thoughts, they’re feelings ingrained in people from an early age with absolutely no basis.

You could argue it’s a primal reaction to fear of the unknown. The cave people who survived where the ones who put up one’s defenses to anything unlike themselves; but with that sort of argument, you’d have to defend clubbing women over the heads so we could have our way with them … hmmm ... (just kidding).  No I don’t think survival or the species is a good argument, nor maiming a hottie for that matter.

I have a theory, which I don’t have the time to get into right now, of why some people think the way they do, but the bottom line is it shouldn’t matter, it’s hypocritical for someone to have freedom in the bedroom but deprive someone else of that same freedom, (as long as it’s consensual).  Wedding traditions have nothing to do with it, and isn’t even a good parallel to draw, since every culture has it’s own traditions, some brides wear red, some cultures share one wife between all the brothers.

So many people are afraid to challenge what they were taught for fear of shaking their core values and the possibility of eternal damnation.  Acceptance is also an idea that far too many people and institutions have a problem with.  There are all sorts of reasons for prejudices but non of them have anything to do with education or understanding.  

I find this whole thing confusing.  In the Catholic church, being gay is considered an abomination, but yet, the same people who are supposed to uphold these morals are molesting boys.  And if they confess their sins but don't admit they're gay/pedophiles, it's forgivable in the eyes of god?
I am all for keeping cultural traditions alive, but I'm also for not imposing them upon others.  Whether it be birth control, "democracy", gay marriage, or the Great American Dream.  Who's to say one is more righteous than the next?

dnardoza -

"You really have to sometimes sit back and smell the shit your shoveling sometimes, when I say you I mean all of us since I’m just as guilty as the next guy at times.  What I mean is you (this time referring to Rory) say you want a discussion not a fight, you want a reasonable thought out argument for not allowing gay people to marry, and you preface this with “I’m just looking for answers”…

That’s bullshit, what you are doing is trying to stir up controversy and hoping some close minded hypocritical knuckle dragger will fall into your trap and try to defend an argument that anyone of slight intelligence can rip apart with a few keystrokes.  Not that I blame you for doing so, and not that you shouldn’t if that’s what you want to discuss, but come on with this ‘I’m just looking for answers’ crap, lets be honest about what it is."

Actually, you're just wrong.

I wrote this post because I wanted to understand why people thought the way they did.

You say that there's no reason for it - I say there *is*. Whether I find that reason adequate to justify a behavior has nothing to do with whether that reason exists or not.

The whole thing seems so unreasonable to me that I wanted to know - without an argument - why people thought what they thought. That's all.

There were a couple places things got heated. That's natural. But, for the most part, this has been a very calm and respectful conversation. Read the first 3/4 of comments, and you might see what I mean.

I've brought up religion in the past here, and I've watched as people went nuts and tore each other apart. It's awful. It feels bad to know you're the guy who started this rather bad thing.

So, I made it clear in the post that I wanted things to stay calm. And, like I said, they pretty much did.

Also go back and read most of my responses. With the exception of two, I was very calm and reasonable, eventually siding with Erik Porter on what I thought was a fair compromise.

The only place I've gotten at all steamed was over bigotry. That's it.

This wasn't about tearing people apart, and I'd be quite happy if you refrained from dictating my own intentions to me. I know much better than you do why I put this post up.

I *know* it's easy to pick the religious arguments apart with reason. But, given that I didn't know *why* so many people were opposed to gay marriage, I decided to ask. I *want* to know.

And nobody was forced to respond. People were nice enough to chime in with their reasons and then follow up with more comments later if necessary.

I'd go so far as to say that the only comment I've seen so far that was overtly confrontational and aggressive was *yours*.

xtine -

"I find this whole thing confusing.  In the Catholic church, being gay is considered an abomination, but yet, the same people who are supposed to uphold these morals are molesting boys.  And if they confess their sins but don't admit they're gay/pedophiles, it's forgivable in the eyes of god?"

Yeah. I was thinking about this, too, but didn't want to stir up any trouble.

It came to mind when I was thinking about Stuart's argument that a homosexual couple is still sinning after they get married (as opposed to a couple which engages in premarital sex and can then be absolved of sin).

But I won't go into it too much because my argument there makes a *lot* of assumptions - both about the homosexual couple and the married couple.

 

Stuart --

>> Presumably you are aware that the Bible was not originally
>> written in English. When the Bible is translated from Hebrew and
>> Greek into receptor languages (English in this case), the
>> translators must render the original idioms into modern
>> equivalents. On top of the difficulty inherent in that, they have to
>> walk the line so as to not offend the 'churchy people' who are
>> their primary audience. The net result is that, at times, words
>> and phrases are used that are fairly cringe-worthy.

So what makes you think that we've translated any passages with the correct  meaning left intact?

Presumably you're aware of the "telephone game"?


>> I'm tempted to demonstrate my point by explaining a few, but
>> unfortunately I don't have time today, and besides, something
>> tells me you're not really all that interested."

By all means go for it.  Start a new forum topic on it.  Your interpretations are probably just as valid as any of the other translators.

xtine said-

>> "I find this whole thing confusing.  In the Catholic church, being
>> gay is considered an abomination, but yet, the same people who
>> are supposed to uphold these morals are molesting boys.  

First off, not all priests are pedophiles.  Nor does the Catholic church wave a flag of support for pedophila.  That's just ridiculous.   I am not pleased with how in some cases, members of the church have attempted to cover up abuse cases or in the failure to report the crimes to the proper authorities.   It's shocking and horrible and disgusting, but it's not like it's happening at every Catholic church and that pedophilia is one of the 10 commandments.  

>> And if
>> they confess their sins but don't admit they're gay/pedophiles,
>> it's forgivable in the eyes of god?"

In my limited understanding, that's pretty much how it works.  Although, you have to mean it and you can't just be pretending in order to get out of your deserved shift in hell.  


That said... it must be a hell of an internal conflict to be homosexual and to be a priest.  God bless their tortured souls...

>> So what makes you think that we've translated any passages with the correct  meaning left intact? <<

The research I've personally done, in addition to my confidence in the thousands of years of scholarship that have gone into it.

What makes you think that we've translated the Bible in such a way as to obscure the correct (i.e. originally intended) meaning?

I'm the first to admit that some translations are better than others. In fact, all translations have shortcomings of one variety or another. My response to this fact has not, however, been to throw my hands up in defeat and dismiss the whole affair out of hand. Instead, I reckon that it's worth the trouble to be informed about the differences, to familiarize myself with the higher criticisms, to begin to develop a level of proficiency with the Hebrew and Greek, etc.

>> Presumably you're aware of the "telephone game"? <<

This is essentially the type of thing I was talking about earlier w.r.t. the 'tip of the iceberg'. See, before we can have an informed conversation about homosexual marriage and why Christians take a stand against it, we first must reach understanding about a multitude of other issues. Frankly, it's probably not worth it -- not in this forum. If you want to meet for a beer or something, that's another matter...

But anyway, to be frank the 'telephone game' analogy is a tired, old, red-herring-of-a-thing that always gets brought up; anyone who has spoken to five atheists/agnostics has heard it three times. A simple google search on 'bible telephone game' yields a result called "Textual Criticism and the False ‘Telephone’ Analogy" which does a pretty decent job of explaining, so if you're interested feel free to have a look.

The fact of the matter is that 'Christianity' today is complicated. While it used to be somewhat monolithic, it's quite the opposite in these times.

The thing that perhaps makes me a bit unusual is that I've spent the past few years (it's ongoing, obviously) passionately studying this stuff, i.e. orthodox Christianity, heterodoxy, neo-orthodoxy, Church history, systematic theology, Christian and secular philosophy, higher criticism, etc. It makes me somewhat unusual because if you ask me a question about "why do Christians believe this?" or "why do some Christians do that?" or "have you heard of the telephone game?" then I'm hopefully going to be able to give you an answer that's somewhat more deliberate than just my opinion or what happens to pop into my head at the moment. The point is that I've spent a whole lot of time thinking about this stuff, which is unfortunately not necessarily all that common in Christianity today, which makes it incredibly difficult for you, Guy, to make sense of all this stuff. It's hard work.

>> "I find this whole thing confusing.  In the Catholic church, being
>> gay is considered an abomination,

No, engaging in homosexual sex (or any kind of sex outside of a Christian marriage, for that matter), is considered an abomination.

>> but yet, the same people who
>> are supposed to uphold these morals are molesting boys.  

That is correct. This is because those people are not perfect. In fact, they are very clearly not at all perfect.

Have you somehow gotten the impression that the christian Church is okay with child molestation?

(btw, pedophilia is not mentioned in the 10 commandments I know, though there are absolutely explicit prohibitions against it in the Old Testament)

>> And if
>> they confess their sins but don't admit they're gay/pedophiles,
>> it's forgivable in the eyes of god?"

I don't see how it's possible to confess that sin w/out admitting that they're gay/pedophiles.

Also, you should be aware that christians believe God can forgive every sin, including acts of homosexual sin and pedophilia. Christians are people, though, so naturally some believe that God forgives all sins except the ones they don't do. They are mistaken about that.

Rory, I'm sorry you were angered by my comments w.r.t. bigotry. I believe I'm correct of course. :) But still, I did not mean to offend, and for that I apologize.

I'd like to respond to your post, but it's probably not worth it (i.e. we're likely to disagree just as much in the end). As I said to Guy, though, I reckon this is the kind of thing that ought to be discussed among friends over sushi and miso soup, and not in the starkness of a blog's comments section.

I'm glad you are doing well these days. (I am, too.)  :)

Long-time homey,

--Stuart

Stuart -

"Rory, I'm sorry you were angered by my comments w.r.t. bigotry. I believe I'm correct of course. :) But still, I did not mean to offend, and for that I apologize."

You didn't anger me.

I'm not going to say I didn't find things you said to be very offensive - I did. I have a lot of gay friends, and the idea that anybody out there should consider them "abominations" is disgusting. It portrays them as being somehow sub-human.

So, when it comes to someone suggesting that homosexuals who want marriage rights are just as bigoted as Christians who *don't* want them to have those rights, I'm going to put in a little extra effort to argue the point.

I'm disappointed, though, that you believe you're correct about the bigotry.

First, you basically admitted to being a bigot:

"I understand you see the Christian AHM crowd as being strongly partial to its own religion and intolerant of those who differ (and therefore meriting the title 'bigot')"

And then you went on to say that a person who wants the same rights as you - not *special* rights, or to *restrict* your rights - is just as bigoted.

Honestly, Stuart - you're smarter than that.

You can be a bigot. That's fine and dandy. It's your right.

But that doesn't make a group you oppose bigoted, and certainly not by the argument you provided.

"I'd like to respond to your post, but it's probably not worth it (i.e. we're likely to disagree just as much in the end). As I said to Guy, though, I reckon this is the kind of thing that ought to be discussed among friends over sushi and miso soup, and not in the starkness of a blog's comments section."

Well, if you don't think it ought to be discussed here, then I'm not sure why you commented in the first place.

Anyway, there's one small and very strange pleasure I get out of all of this.

With Islam being the fastest growing religion on the planet, there might be a time when you don't *get* to choose when you want to talk about this. A fundamentalist Muslim is not someone who is going to care much for the rationalizations you've built up to support your views, or the bigotry you openly practice. To them, *you* are the abomination, and, as the world has seen, they don't treat the enemy with much kindness.

In all honesty, I'm a bit ashamed. This view of homosexuality by some Christians - the vast majority of the world against a stark minority - is a pathetic and cowardly thing. It's a hatred and intolerance justified by supernatural notions that are entirely outdated and unnecessary.

If being a "moral" person by your Christian guidelines means thinking of certain others as "abominations", then I'll quite happily live the rest of my utterily immoral life thinking of these people as humans.

I hope that, one day, you'll find yourself in a position where *you* are told what you can and cannot do by another human who is doing the work of *his* god, and that you see what it's like to be on the receiving end of a completely unjustifiable loathing hatred.

"Long-time homey"

I consider myself to be very open minded, but... I can't consider someone so proudly bigoted against other groups to be a "homey."

Like any decent person, as long as you aren't hurting anyone, I'll gladly stand back and let you mind your own business, praying to your small-minded, petty, bigoted god.

But I don't have to like you for it.

I'ma go ahead and agree with Stuart's first post.

We christians usually do not think "living in sin" is ok.  We view sex to be something to be saved for marriage.  The reason that we let people "living in sin" get married is because doing so, by definition of that sin, resolves the situation.  The "sin" part of "living in sin" is having sex without being married.  If the couple gets married, then they can't have sex without being married, so they're no longer "living in sin."  Tada!  Sin over!

This does not imply that we tell our teenagers and twenty-somethings, "Yeah, go ahead, screw until you're sore.  Just so long as you get married in the end, everything'll be grand."  Quite to the contrary, "don't have sex until you're married" is something that is drilled into us on a regular basis. "Living in sin" is a serious issue to most christians, and it's not something they want to be caught doing.

So when a couple that has been "living in sin" decides to get married, in addition to resolving the situation, it is often seen as a form of repentance, as if the couple is saying, "We admit that we've been 'living in sin,' and now we want to make it right."

The same sort of thing can't be said of homosexual behavior.  Like it or not, most christians consider homosexual behavior to be sinful.  Two homosexuals getting married doesn't resolve the sinful situation as a heterosexual couple "living in sin" getting married does, and it certainly can't be seen as repenting of the sinful behavior.  Rather, it is seen as a defiant embrace of the sinful behavior.  This is why a christian pastor will likely have no problem marrying a couple who has been "living in sin," but will refuse to marry a gay couple.

That said, even though I think of homosexual behavior as sinful, I think they should have every right that I have.  As long as christian pastors aren't forced to marry homosexual couples, I see no reason to disallow the legal concept of marriage between gay people.

I'd also like to note that even though I think of homosexual behavior as sinful, I don't hate or even dislike gay people.  I've worked with a couple, and *surprise!* they're just people like you and me.  Just because I believe that something someone does is wrong doesn't mean I hate that person.  I came to realize quite a while ago that lots of people disagree with me, and if I hated all of them, I'd be a very lonely person.

Rory --

>> You didn't anger me. <<

Oh. Well, that's good. When you said, "The only place I've gotten at all steamed was over bigotry," I got the impression that I had angered you.

>> I'm not going to say I didn't find things you said to be very offensive - I did. I have a lot of gay friends, and the idea that anybody out there should consider them "abominations" is disgusting. It portrays them as being somehow sub-human. <<

I'm not sure what so offended you about what I said. I honestly think that if you were to go back and carefully reread what I wrote, you might find that you're making more than what's warranted out of what I said.

For example, here is what I said when I used the word 'abomination':  "No, engaging in homosexual sex (or any kind of sex outside of a Christian marriage, for that matter), is considered an abomination." That was in response to someone saying, "[the christian Church says] being gay is considered an abomination." So as you can see, I was 1) correcting a mistaken belief with a fact, i.e. it is not the person but the sin who is considered by the christian Church an abomination, and 2) stating a fact, i.e. the christian Church considers homosexual sex to be an abominable act. You may take #1 lightly and think it's a trite platitude (a la 'love the sinner, hate the sin'), but I do not as I am convinced that *all* sin is an abomination to God, including the sin of which I am guilty.

>> I'm disappointed, though, that you believe you're correct about the bigotry. <<

Well, I'm disappointed that you believe *you're* correct about the bigotry. :shrugs:

>> First, you basically admitted to being a bigot: <<

The point that I was trying to make is that the orthodox Christian Church's anti-homosexual-marriage position is 'bigotry' in a technical sense only, and that if one is applying the 'bigot' label to every position to which it *technically* belongs, it is applicable to the pro-homosexual-marriage position also. Rather than getting all steamed at that idea, here again I wish you would consider it a while and extend a little benefit of doubt to what I'm trying to express. Just pretend for a moment that I'm not an evil, hate-mongering, idiot.

My over-arching point, though, is that the word 'bigot' in this situation is simply not useful. 'Bigot' is an inflammatory word that connotes hatred and hearkens back to the black civil rights movement. It's an appeal to emotion and doesn't contribute to the conversation at hand. I believe it's a word that does not belong in a conversation that is framed as "I want to understand... It is not my intent to piss anybody off or to push my own beliefs."

I'm going to do some extensive paraphrasing here. Please understand I am not trying to put words in your mouth; I am trying to create a gross simplification of the exchange thus far in an attempt to help you see where I'm coming from.

You started this topic essentially saying, "Everyone who is against homosexual marriage appears to be a hate-mongering bigot. WTF?" I understand the confusion, so I commented a few times, each time attempting to clarify the CAHM position, pointing out that your presumption of bigotry, while understandable, is not accurate. Then after all was said and done, you basically said to punky, "At first I thought everyone who is against homosexual marriage was a hate-mongering bigot, so I asked WTF. Now that I've had it explained to me, I understand it better, and it turns out that they're just a bunch of hate-mongering bigots."

See, you had a belief going in, many ideas were communicated, and you came out with what appears to be the exact same belief, and yet are acting as if now your opinion is bona fide, because after all, something like three people wrote a few sentences trying to explain it to you.

I have been trying to communicate all along that the christian AHM is not based upon hatred or self-righteousness; it's simply a logical extension of the christian world view. Frankly, you don't even begin to understand the christian world view, and until you do understand it, you won't really understand the CAHM position.

I understand the Christian AHM position beacause I understand the christian world view. I came to understand the christian world view through being close friends with and talking to many christians. I now understand the christian world view more fully because I am in fact a Christian. I am not, however, adamant about homosexual marriage rights. I am convinced that christian homosexual marriage is an oxymoron because I am convinced that God, who is the author of christian marriage, is displeased with sin and will not bless it. If you want to hate me for that, that's your prerogative. However, I am not averse to the establishment of a similar institution -- call it 'civil union' or even 'marriage' if you like -- in order that committed homosexual couples may participate in the legal rights such an institution confers.

I wanted to interject that because heretofore I have been speaking as a matter of fact and not much weighing in with my own opinion.

So anyway... I'm not sure what else to say. This whole thing has taken a pretty ugly turn, and I feel bad about that.

You said, "Well, if you don't think it ought to be discussed here, then I'm not sure why you commented in the first place." Now I'm not so sure, either. I was trying to be helpful by providing some insight, but you have really misunderstood me. I don't put the blame fully on you; I clearly should have done a better job communicating.

You say you're not angry, but you certainly sound angry. "I hope that, one day, you'll find yourself in a position where *you* are told what you can and cannot do by another human who is doing the work of *his* god, and that you see what it's like to be on the receiving end of a completely unjustifiable loathing hatred." In fact, you sound downright hateful and not at all open minded.

>> I consider myself to be very open minded, but... I can't consider someone so proudly bigoted against other groups to be a "homey." <<

I thought we were cool. Friends, even. I mean, last time I checked we were. When was the last time we talked? PDC05? It's been a while, I know, but then I've been around for a while. Maybe you've forgotten..? Operating under the assumption that we were friends, I thought it possible for us to disagree, respect each others' differences, and remain friends. It appears I was wrong about much or all of that. Live and learn, I guess.

Until next time(?),

--Stuart

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In all honesty, I'm a bit ashamed. This view of homosexuality by some Christians - the vast majority of the world against a stark minority - is a pathetic and cowardly thing. It's a hatred and intolerance justified by supernatural notions that are entirely outdated and unnecessary."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, *you* consider these things to be "supernatural notions that are entirely outdated and unnecessary." Sorry, Rory, but simply because you believe this does not mean it is somehow 'right' or that you have the higher moral ground. And equating homosexuality with race makes for nice rhetoric with those that already agree with you, but to those that don't, it is a feeble attempt to make us feel that we are somehow no different than racists. I don't hate homosexuals (have had many homosexual friend myself) but believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is a particularly grievous sin. I have had friends that have stolen from employers - it doesn't mean I condone stealing. I have had drug addicts for friends - it doesn't mean I condone drug use, even though these friends felt thier affinity for drugs was an innate part of them. Until you prove, without a doubt, that God does not exist (good luck) and can then somehow convince the hundreds of millions that believe in God (be they Christian, Jew, or Muslim - they all believe in the Bible that teaches against homosexuality) that they are wrong, you really can't walk around feeling so high and mighty about this.

You say in your most recent post, regarding your book club, the following with regards to the problem of reading things that support your established beliefs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I might be ignoring arguments from the other side. My education becomes insular, and my ideas totally one-sided. Even though I consider myself open minded, I'm not exactly rushing out to read books that counter [something you already believe].

"An open mind is wasted unless it's exposed to new ideas. You have to break yourself away from your usual habits and pick up something completely different from what you would normally read. In doing so, you will learn about something with which you were not previously familiar, and you will also learn something which will provide you with a better framework for understanding the books you would usually read.

"Without reading material that is contradictory to y