6.17.2008:
Ten Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriages (And How Stupid They Are)
9:31 AMSo, California has joined Massachusetts in granting marriage licenses for same sex couples.
Surely, this is the end of the world as we straight folks know it. And thank God, because I’m really getting tired of the one we’ve been living in.
It makes NO SENSE to me - a heterosexual male married to a heterosexual female - why two people of any gender who decide they trust one another enough to share assets and benefits can’t form a legal union in order to do so. But wait, the bible says... And what about the kids... And, if we allow this, won’t men be marrying their dogs in five years...
Come on. This is nonsense.
Recently, I’ve been getting a TON of emails marked with the tell-tale “FW:” from right-wing acquaintances and family members that quote wholesale the Ten Arguments Against Gay Marriage website. I’ve been deluged by these zealots who, rather than discuss things intelligently, find it easier to just forward via email the concepts and ideas of people who think just like them... That is, not at all.
It is my intention to rip asunder these ridiculous arguments.
Note: this article doesn’t cover the arguments against homosexuality, because frankly, no one’s going to change someone’s mind regarding love and monogamy if they can’t already see that two people loving one another is two people loving one another, regardless of the number of penises involved. Zero, one, or two, it’s just love.
So here you go, my dissection of those ridiculous ten arguments:
* * *
Argument #1: The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound.Oh you are so right. Two men raising a child in a home where rules are obeyed and respect for all people is taught is SO MUCH WORSE for the structure of family-based society than a husband who cheats on his wife, or who beats the kids, or who simply doesn’t care about them.
Saying that the “family” is a cohesive unit solely on the merit that the union of a man and a woman resulted in offspring is somewhat akin to saying that a baseball team is solid based on the fact that there’s nine guys on the field.
It’s not the structure that counts... It’s the contents of the framework. If there were a woman batting .400 against fast-pitching males, don’t even pretend that the Yankees wouldn’t pay her 22 million over five years to wear the pinstripes - regardless of the all-male history and composition of Major League Baseball.
If two men or two women can provide a stable, loving home for a child, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU to forbid them from being able to do so? You’d rather the child languish in the hellhole that most orphanages and shelters have become? You’d rather they work their way through the hit-or-miss foster system in this country, only to become unstable, distrustful adults who are far more likely to commit crimes involving violence against another person?
Just ask yourself one question - if you knew a child was being battered by a mother and father, and you knew a same-sex couple who would be willing to take that child in and raise it and give it a loving home, would you rather it stay with the “family” based on the fact that it’s a union between a man and a woman?
If the answer is anything other than “hell no,” you honestly need to reevaluate your faith and why you proclaim to have it.
Argument #2: The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.
Boy, this sounds familiar... What do they call this? You know, in Philosophy 101 in college, they have this list of logical fallacies... This one is, like, a greased incline or---
No wait - slippery slope. That’s it.
I cannot think of a more ridiculous argument against allowing two people to share the benefits and title of marriage than this. If we amend the current state of thinking to include the union between to people to be simply that - a union between TWO PEOPLE - then the next thing you know, we’re gong to amend it to be between THREE people, and then FOUR, and then a goat might enter the picture...
Come on. Wake up. Just because a concept evolves to the societal standards does not mean that suddenly the standards will change to force the concept to adhere to the new standard. It doesn’t work that way - in fact, it works the OTHER way. The second you open the door for a group of people to finally enjoy the benefits they’re rightfully entitled to, they tend to become quite guarded and protective of those benefits. They actually become defenders of that which they have earned.
Argument #3: An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether.
Is that so... There’s an objective of the homosexual movement to earn a right to benefits and tax incentives by forming a union between consenting adults, and then they’re going to just about-face on the whole concept altogether and get rid of it?
Is that how that works?
I bet they don’t even love each other. All those videos and pictures of two women or two men standing hand-in-hand on the courtyard steps of the counties and states which now allow same-sex unions, crying their eyes out with joy that they now get to have a legally-recognized union... Those are actors. Gay actors. They’re just fucking with us.
Why would anyone do this? I mean, honestly... If you want to get right down to it, marriage as a legal (not religious, LEGAL) union is designed to incorporate tax breaks and asset protection to encourage procreation.
That’s right. God and the government want to save you money so you can have some babies.
From AmericanCatholic.org:
The very purpose of marriage is to develop union between husband and wife and to bear and raise children. In more technical language, we call those two purposes unitive and procreative.
God does not will that all married couples have children, as we know, and we don’t understand why. But our tradition of listening to God, revealed in Scripture, in the experience of the Church and all creation, tells us that married couples need to be open to bearing and raising children.
But somehow, childless couples are getting the same protection and rights as couples WITH children! THIS IS BLASPHEMY! HOLY FUCKING SHIT!
SO why the hell aren’t Christians everywhere going apeshit over childless man/woman marriages? Could it be... Like... Uh...
Seriously. I have no snarky comment for this one. No joke, no witticism. I just don’t get it.
Argument #4: With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
It IS the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, because morals enter into marriage about the same amount as they enter into making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
There is no moral reason for marriage in the eyes of the LAW. There is only a contractual business agreement between two consenting adults (who, currently, have to be male and female equally).
Same as speeding tickets, copyright law, and curfews. No morals. Just bounds and requirements. Like it or not, Christians, when a justice of the peace can perform a ceremony that results in the same contractual bounds as a priest, it’s no longer a religious ceremony. It’s just your preference that a man (or woman, for you more progressive types) of the cloth say the words.
And, rather than compel schools across the nation to teach morality, how about we just ask them to knock off the moral lessons altogether and stick to science, maths and humanities? Don’t morals start in the home?
If they don’t for you, you’re part of the reason most teachers hate their jobs.
Argument #5: From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption.
Good.
From my response to #1, repeated here for the lazy:
Just ask yourself one question - if you knew a child was being battered by a mother and father, and you knew a same-sex couple who would be willing to take that child in and raise it and give it a loving home, would you rather it stay with the “family” based on the fact that it’s a union between a man and a woman?
And again, If the answer is anything other than “hell no,” you honestly need to reevaluate your faith in this Jesus guy and why you proclaim to have it.
Argument #6: Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.
Right, just like they have to undergo “sensitivity training” to rid themselves of racial or gender bias, and have to affirm equality on both counts in children they take in.
You’ve obviously not run into many foster-care parents. It just so happens, however, that my wife and I have done all the groundwork to become foster-care parents (because we never intend to procreate - which makes us blasphemers per argument #3). We feel that procreation in light of the fact that there’s a ton of children at the pound waiting for someone to just take a damn interest in them is pretty fucking selfish.
There, my hat’s been thrown into that little ring.
Anyway, at no point during the application process were we required to undergo any sort of sensitivity training whatsoever. At no point were we required to prove that we don’t harbor any sort of gender or racial bias. At no point were my college credentials (or lack thereof) called into question. All they really cared about was criminal record and salary. Did we seem stable? Yup.
That’s all it took.
So, supposing my little ruse works, all I need now is for the state to give me a little black kid so I can burn him with cigarettes. Or, a little girl, so I can constantly scream at her and remind her how inferior she is to the superior male gender. I can now totally fuck up any kids under my care and unleash them onto society, because my wife and I are a male/female couple and SEEM stable.
Guess what folks? That shit happens EVERY SINGLE DAY. And I know it does, first hand. I won’t go into how or why, but what you need to take from this is that the foster care system in America is fundamentally broken - the very last thing we should give a shit about is the concept of same-gender unions and how they impact the psyche of a foster kid.
Argument #7: How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits?
Ah, there it is... The first “G” in the three tenets of Christianity - Gold (the other two are God and Glory).
“What’s going to happen to MY MONEY when them faggots is allowed to marry?” Well, you yokel, how about you take a good look at what’s happening to it RIGHT NOW?
This is precisely the kind of argument that cripples America, and as a consequence, our progress toward getting off this planet and out into the solar system so we can fly cool starships. It’s not the interest-free loans that the past four administrations (including Clinton’s, so don’t go thinking I’m picking on Republicans) have given themselves based on the Social Security reserves. It’s not the complete mismanagement of the actual fund itself, with payouts going to undeserving early pullers who are drawing more than they put in.
No. It’s the gays.
Gay people are going to be the death of Social Security when they’re allowed the same rights as us straights! Just you watch!
Actually, Social Security is doomed, regardless of who we allow to get married.
Argument #8: Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.
“The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage.”
You’re right, there’ll be a worldwide epidemic of governments opening the concept of marriage to include same-sex marriages. Gee... How horrible.
So what would fix this one? If America allowed same-sex marriage, but no other country on earth did? Would that fix it? Of course not... All this argument is doing is saying “one will lead to another!” And it’s entirely right - if America can open its’ collective mind to allow for two consenting adults who intend to remain monogamous, regardless of gender, then why shouldn’t Britain, or France, or any other nation? Why would this be a bad thing in and of itself?
Simply the number of marriages on record worldwide? Is 2 million gay marriages worse than one million? It’s not like the fact that homosexuals can now form a legal union is going to go turning otherwise straight people gay... It’s just going to allow individuals of the same sex who want to enter into that agreement to be able to do so. Nothing more.
Don’t worry, it’s not a gay virus. It’s just a new idea entering a closed mind. I know it feels the same to you, but give it a chance.
Argument #9: "Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning."
This is basically saying “My belief system doesn’t allow for homosexual marriage, and if homosexual marriage is allowed, then my belief system loses a foothold in societal control.”
If your belief system doesn’t allow for the possibility that a) two people of the same gender can’t have an unyielding love for one another and b) that they want to form a union based on that love such that one can provide for the other, share health benefits, and have their property and assets protected under the same laws that protect male/female unions... Well, your belief system isn’t really based on love and logic, now is it? And if it lacks those two cornerstones of the human condition, it’s not much of a belief system.
Additionally, I challenge you to find one - JUST ONE - verse in the bible (or any religious text) where Jesus Christ speaks out against the union or bond between people of the same gender.
Just one.
I’ll save you the trouble: you won’t find it. What you will find are overly general sentiments advocating and supporting the existing laws of God, which - previous to the New Testament - included human-interpreted (or human-invented-with-God’s-name-attached) laws which spoke against homosexuals.
Borrowing from ReligiousTolerance.org (which is a fantastic site, by the way):
In Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12, Jesus supports the concept that God made a man and a woman so that they could marry. He is quoted as saying in both Gospels: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Also, in Matthew 5:17-18, after the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
That’s pretty much it - Jesus supported and advocated the laws of God. But in this, Jesus would then be advocating that no man partake of swine (read: no bacon! OH THE HORROR) or other dirty animals; that we humans only eat fish on Friday; and that a man who steals from another man should have his hand cut off (yep, the Old Testament put God’s seal of approval on Hammurabi’s Code).
But wait, didn’t Jesus cleanse the animals? And didn’t Jesus advocate a code of morality into the code of laws (love thy neighbor and all that yakkity-yak)? In fact, didn’t Jesus Christ FUNDAMENTALLY alter the core of theological law as professed by scribes recording the word of God?
As good a question as that might be, the real question is: if your lord and savior, Jesus Christ - the son of God - were here on this Earth today, would he speak out against homosexual unions? Would he even have an opinion on the sanctity of court-approved business relationships between consenting adults for tax and insurance benefit?
Probably not.
Argument #10: "The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become 'as it was in the days of Noah' (Matthew 24:37, NIV)."
I don’t get this argument. Not just this one line, but the whole damn thing. I think it was put here just to round the list out to ten and serve the author’s selfish need to proclaim just how into God he and his wife are. Honestly, this whole notion of a "culture war" between Christians and non-Christians bothers me. Why is it that the majority of non-religious culture are content to just be themselves and let others be themselves, while the Christian side insist on "winning" this "culture war" by inflicting themselves upon those who are not them?
And moreso, why do they think they - regardless of denomination - are going to win any points with a non-Christian when they can't even settle some of the most basic arguments of Christianity amongst themselves? Methodists arguing with Baptists, Lutherans yelling at Presbyterians, Catholics yelling at... Well, everyone... Why would I want to actively join an internal war amongst Christians? Can't I just let you guys bicker about it amongst yourselves while I sit at home and watch some football on Sunday?
At the very least, if you're going to insist on interrupting me with your religious marketing, do so respectfully. Here's a helpful guide on how to actually do this.
* * *
Let’s just be honest here - people are against same-sex marriage for the same reasons they were against the right for women to vote, or for black men to own land, or for colonists to exercise their rights to bear arms and free themselves from unjust taxation... It upsets the status quo. It doesn’t jive with the way they know the world. It forces logic into a head full of belief.
Basically, it forces them to look directly into the bright light of social progress... And when your eyes have been shut for so long, it’s uncomfortable.
I have my own personal predilections that some would call closed-minded - and they are. I’m not perfect. None of us are. And that’s precisely why we’re not qualified to go passing judgement on and imposing our will upon the lives of others.
What’s it to you that two dudes or two chicks want to make sure their partners are covered under the healthcare benefits they work hard to keep? You get to put your wife or husband on your policies... Can’t they?
Or is your love for one another somehow more valid than theirs?
All I know is that I know several homosexual couples who have told me they plan to make the trek to California this summer to get hitched, and I've read quite a few articles on the subject. Not once have I heard statements like "she rooked me into getting hitched" or "I guess I'll marry her because I knocked her up and, like, it's just right, you know?" These people I see on TV lining up - LINING UP!!!! - to get married after five, ten, twenty years of being together... They're crying with joy. They're so damn happy that, finally, all the years of knowing what they know about one another - that they love one another - are finally going to be legally sanctioned.
Meanwhile, you've got men going out for one last hot night filled with strippers and booze before they "latch on the ol' ball and chain." You've got women acting like complete whores the night before a wedding, throwing themselves all over men at bars at bachelorette parties because "This is their last night of freedom." You've got married governors hiring sex workers on the taxpayer's dime to fufill dirty fantasies, or tapping their foot in restroom stalls for a little man-on-man play. I personally know fourteen married men - FOURTEEN - who go to strip clubs on Saturdays and then to church on Sunday to repent.
And that's the much-charished sanctitiy of marriage that gets bandied about in the halls of state congress?
The day every single Christian on this planet begins honoring and cherishing their mate, I might listen to ill-founded belief-based arguments against legal unions for same-sex couples.
Mind you, I said "might." I can't promise anything... It's not like I can just turn off logic.
Labels: Joe is a pompous ass, politics, religion
* * *
Archives
02.2003 03.2003 04.2003 05.2003 06.2003 10.2003 11.2003 12.2003 01.2004 04.2004 05.2004 06.2004 07.2004 08.2004 09.2004 10.2004 11.2004 12.2004 01.2005 02.2005 03.2005 04.2005 05.2005 06.2005 07.2005 08.2005 09.2005 10.2005 11.2005 12.2005 01.2006 02.2006 03.2006 04.2006 05.2006 06.2006 07.2006 08.2006 10.2006 11.2006 12.2006 02.2007 03.2007 04.2007 05.2007 06.2007 07.2007 08.2007 09.2007 10.2007 11.2007 12.2007 01.2008 02.2008 03.2008 04.2008 05.2008 06.2008
28 Comments:
I am against gay marriage, and here's why... The term marriage should be saved for a man and a woman coming together in a way in which the word initially intended. My wife and I married in a Catholic Church, and we view marriage as the union of two people by God in a religious ceremony. This ceremony happened in May of last year. According to our government, we have been married as of February of last year, in a 5 minute function by a justice of the peace so that my wife and her children could be covered under my insurance policy. At no time between that service and our actual wedding did we ever think that we were "married," just two parties joined in a civil union for our mutual benefit. I personally feel that all unions recognized by the government for this purpose should be classified as civil unions, and available to any two people willing to enter one; man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, whatever. I feel like the government using the term "marriage" clearly violates the separation of church and state, and should be dissolved immediately. So in reality, I'm not against gay marriage, I'm against government marriage.
I agree with xaviermuskie about the term marraige. However, what the fuck is with your constant focus on Christians? Here's the thing, mate: there happens to be more than one religion in the world that also values marriage in a similar way as Christianity, ones that are far more conservative as well. Islam and Judiasm for example, as well as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, just to name a few fairly large religions (considering most people may not know of other, smaller religions). I think your arguments would be more solid if you quit addressing Christians and more the world of Religion. One may argue, "Well, this Christianity is the dominant religion in America and they put up a big stink about this shit and blah blah blah they're a bunch of haters", but that's just a fucking stupid counter-argument, because gay rights are not just an "American issue", they are most definitely a "world issue", just like civil rights. Just because there are so many people in America, who voice they're overly zealous and hateful oppinions, claim to be Christians does not mean that they represent the ideologies of they're belief. I'm not trying to get into a religious battle now, I'm just trying to avoid more hate being added to the mixture. It's counter-productive to start hating on people who hate, that just leads to more hating.
shit...
*their
So, Xaviermuskie, you got a "government marriage" a full 3 months before your purported "real" one SOLELY for insurance benefits.
Insurance coverage was one major reason homosexuals wanted to get married. They also found they couldn't visit their partners in the hospital unless they were "family", whether the hospitalization was for AIDS or a car wreck.
How dare you say you are better than these other human beings!
They use the term 'marriage' because a lot of idiots think there is a difference between a "church marriage" or a "civil ceremony"! And do you know how many of these homosexuals haven't already had a church marriage or religious ceremony YEARS before to demonstrate their union to society, family and friends?
All these people want is legal protection and equality under the law. They are no threat to your marriage, religion, or tiny tiny world!
jinx-of-2ndlaw, nowhere, I mean NOWHERE does xaviermuskie state that he is "better than these other human beings"! Shit, it's people like you who are the real fucking cock-suckers and hypocrits of the world. Regardless of what side you take, people like YOU, who are so unjustly offended by the opposition, starting thowing shit at the other side after they do anything, as if that will make the whole situation better! "Here, my shit smells better to me, so you need it". Give me a fucking break. People like you (and by that I am certainly not directing this toward whatever your political/religious/ideology, but only your personality type) are the ones who should really and truly just shut the fuck up. I'm not trying to be mean, but you're attacking someone who has they're own opinion, yet confusing they're opinion with the opinion you think they have.
It would seem to me that xaviermuskie only wants to protect an idea that is sacred to him. The idea of "marriage", a religious union under God, is sacred to him. Who are you to tell him that he's wrong in wanting to protect that? Clearly from his comment, he's all for allowing people to come into a civil union that is recognized under the law. he doesn't agree that the religious term "marriage" should be used, even in the case of men and women (and don't give me any bullshit about it not being a religious idea, you would just be in denial). Any 7th grader who has learned to use context clues can see that, considering he spells it out for you. What he is completely against is the government labeling a union that recognize as a "marriage", which is defined as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law" according to Merriam-Webster.
This is my favorite part. You say, "they use the term 'marriage' because a lot of idiots think there is a difference between a 'church marriage' or a 'civil ceremony'"! Uh, what the fuck? Are you kidding me? You'd be an idiot if you thought there was no difference, fucking idiot. Clearly, a church ceremony is held by a church, a ceremony led by an ordained minister of some religion, and a civil ceremony is led by a Justice of the Peace, or some such government official.
Anyway, I'm done blasting you for blasting him. Like I said before, don't spread the hate, but, I am nonetheless a hypocrit.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html
That's an interesting article that basically says being gay is genetic.
The idea is that in gay men and straight women the brain looks the same and in gay women and straight men the brain looks the same.
As to the idea of reserving the word "marriage" to mean a union of a man and woman...this is preposterous. Words are fluid and the meanings are evolving, changing and getting new meanings constantly . What about that thing beside your computer...the mouse. If you go back 25 years ago, all mice were little creatures running around - not technical devices. And yet, today, no one thinks any different of calling that thing a mouse. Perhaps we should say the word "mouse" can only be used to refer to rodents.
Wow, that could be one of the most ridiculous analogies I've ever heard. Good job, epic fail. I wasn't aware that mice are no longer little creatures running around. Oh wait, they still are. A mouse of the rodent type is still called a mouse, jackass. The meaning has not changed. The term applies now to a device that , in the early days of computers, looked similar to a "mouse" (some might call it a play on words, just like 8 bits make a byte, and 4 bits make a nybble [but you may not know that]). You could also say, "Hey, you type with keys, but they don't unlock anything", but you'd be a jackass again.
You want to talk language now? Alright, let's do it. The thing is, words don't necessarily change meanings (clearly there are some exceptions; such as "gay"), they are only applied to a different subject/matter, but clearly show some type of resemblance to the original subject/matter (much like the German word for an apple, "Apfel", and the older German term for an orange, "Apfelsine", where the root, "Apfel", has been used to apply to another fruit, which much like an apple, grows on a plant and is round and has a "skin" and bears seeds and can be eaten). I could run circles around you with that and come up with all kinds of examples of words only applying to more and more mattesrs/subject, and not only in English or German. I agree that language evolves, absolutely. As Modest Mouse puts it , "Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in; great for solving problems, after it creates a problem".
So don't give me some shit about the meaning of "marriage", let alone "mouse", taking on a new meaning, jackass. Come up with a better comparison next time, and I might just shut the fuck up, but we'll have to see.
I think Jeremy needs a case of harden the fuck up ... or maybe just a time out, I'm not sure.
Firstly, a mouse used to mean a rodent, now it means a rodent OR a peripheral computer device. Marriage used to mean a religious union between a man and a woman consented to by someone, not necessarily the two parties involved, then it meant a contract submitted to the government between a man and a woman which may or may not have had religious blessing and is consented to by both of the parties involved, now it means a contract submitted to the government between two people which may or may not have had religious blessing and is consented to by both of the parties involved, at least in California and a few other places in the world that may or may not be blessed by a religious authority. Not that hard to follow I hope. This is not France, the language is not French, there is no English equivalent of Alliance Francaise dictating to us how the language flows. Language changes, deal with it or don't but accept if you don't that the world will move on without you.
Secondly, to quote the question, "what the fuck is with your constant focus on Christians?" The answer is pretty simple mate, who is jumping up and down the most against this, who is making the most noise? It's powerful Christian right lobby groups, it's Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage and their ilk that are making the racket, Fred Phelps is there and the Pope is making ovations too, Christianity is a pretty broad brush don't forget.
I do think it was a little unfair of Jynx to have a go at Xavier like that, although I understand how (s)he interpreted the comment the way (s)he did, it took a couple of readings of his comment to see what he was actually saying; ie that he was arguing the semantics of what constitutes marriage and that if there isn't God involved that it isn't a marriage. Which is all fine and good, but that isn't how the rest of the world sees it, regardless if it's a preacher or a Justice of the Peace it's a marriage in this day and age. That aside I completely agree with the rest of Jynx's sentiment, why should one element of society have the right to have a "five minute function" to get certain legal benefits and other's can't or calling it one thing for one group and another thing for another group.
As an aside, I know plenty of Christians who love and support their gay family members and gay friends and would love nothing more than to see them tie the knot and live happily ever after, but they are the quiet ones going about their lives. They are not going out to try to ruin the lives of people who's choices and decisions have absolutely bearing, that is WILL NOT AFFECT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, their lives, except maybe make them feel a bit uncomfortable, a bit squeamish. Why should gays and lesbians that want the legal rights straights have taken for granted have to accommodate other people's squeamishness? Fundies make me squeamish, but I suck it up, homophobic people can suck it up to.
Just to address my "constant focus on Christians:"
1) The vast majority of people who profess a faith in the United States claim Christianity as their faith.
2) No, not all Christians behave like all Christians. There are some Unitarian-leaning Christians (for example) who are quite open-minded to concepts outside of "THE BIBLE IS ALWAYS RIGHT". The problem I have is one of efficiency and clarity - it makes no sense to call out specific types of Christians for each argument, when the truth is that - in my experience and readings - the Christians for whom my point does not apply are not just minority, they are exceptions.
3) Yes, Islam and Judaism have hard-line believers to whom my points apply... But until either of those faiths (or any other faith besides Christianity) has major representation in the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Executive offices (President, VP, etc), and until Jewish and Islamic faiths start impacting my daily life... Well, let's just say there's a long way to go before the focus comes off of the well-meaning life intrusion I keep experiencing from the Christian side of things.
4) Jews don't witness or actively attempt to convert (in fact, it's quite the process to convert to Judaism).
5) Muslims don't witness or actively attempt to convert, either. Now, before you argue back all of the evils and issues involving the Muslim faith, understand that the Muslim faith in America is quite different than the Muslim faith abroad, especially from a "tactics" standpoint. I'm not going to get into all of that here... Let's just say that there's plenty I have issue with in the practices of the Muslim faith abroad, but insofar as they spread their faith, they're not absolutely convinced they're "saving" anyone. I have Muslim friends and I have Christian friends, and I get far more judgment passed on me from the cross-wearers than I do from the east-prayers.
I hope you understand, I'm not trying to "pick" on Christians, any more than Christians are trying to pick on me when they impact my life with their faith. I'm just trying to make points and open eyes.
I can't really apologize for the discomfort level it may cause you, I just hope you understand that my analysis of the Christian faith and your attempts to save the human race come from the same place - a place of love and hope for unity.
Oh, and specifically to your point about soldiers in Vietnam and broad sweeping statements:
It's one of those situations where the soldiers who stood by and did nothing to stop the atrocities committed by a handful of barbarians ended up having to deal with chants of "Baby Killer." Yes, some soldiers had nothing at all to do with the actions, and some stood by while they were committed, but they all march under the same banner.
This is the danger of group identity, my friend. One bad apple might not spoil the bunch, but insofar as most people are concerned, they're not going to take the risk of digging through that barrel for the good ones. They're just going to label the whole bunch as bad.
Now, if the apples somehow had the capability of identifying which of their ilk were rotten and throwing them out themselves...
The problem is, they don't in most cases. And those who stand by and allow behavior that they disagree with (especially when they are in a position to stop it, or at the very least, publicly denounce it) are at risk of being condemned themselves.
This is probably why the majority of the world hates Americans and not just President Bush for the crap we've allowed to happen worldwide. We haven't taken to the streets en masse and demanded culpability for his administration's nonsense (we just blog about it all day long). And it's our government, by the people, for the people... So really, we're responsible.
And lastly, nice to meet you, jeremy :) Naturally, you've got me curious as to who our mutual connection is.
Without saying whether or not I support gay marriage, it's a bit of a big call to say that Jesus doesn't mind same-sex relationships. I have to disagree.
I suggest you have a read of Romans chapter 1, particularly v26 and onwards. Of particular note is that this letter is written POST-Jesus. Interesting?
I've listened to your arguments, but I find it hard to agree with you when you claim that Jesus and the post-Jesus time Christianity doesn't mind same-sex relationships with the language that is used in Romans 1.
If you really want to understand what New Testament Biblical thinking is on same-sex relationships, then I suggest you read all of the first 7 chapters of Romans.
All four letters to the Romans (which are the books of Romans) were written by Paul, not Jesus.
Furthermore, I never advocated that post-Jesus Christianity (which is the only Christianity that can possibly exist, since pre-Jesus Christ, there were no "Christians") is okay with same-sex relationships / marriages. My only point was that Jesus, himself, never made any such judgments (at least that we have documented) and, due to that, the ONLY assumptions / laws / opinions on same-sex marriages within the Christian faith come from its followers and leaders.
Reading what I have on Jesus, I'm inclined to think that his first and only concern was love and unity within humanity, without bearing on sexuality of any sort. We never get to find out from the bible whether Jesus was heterosexual or homosexual, because all of the writings we have on Jesus (at least those that have been Canonized) either omit or blatantly side-step anything dealing with Jesus's sexuality. By all accounts - whether or not they're true - Jesus was asexual.
How, then, do you suppose you can tell me Jesus would have a problem with homosexual relationships? By what signs and triggers do you base this assumption on?
My assumption is based on the documented behaviors, teachings and words of Jesus. Yours, so far, are based on Paul. Paul was a homophobe. Big deal.
I've never seen a bracelet asking "What Would Paul Do?" have you?
goddamn blogger allowing people to post a random name. I just want to point out this "jeremy" is not me. I haven't read the comments so I may or may not agree with them, but Joe said I should probably post so there isn't any confusion.
I would say that I disagree with same sex marriages due to my religion. However, my largest and easiest point to argue without getting into semantics is why they should not be recognized by the government for tax breaks.
The reason these tax breaks existed are due to the fact that traditional marriages usually (more than 50% of the time) result in new children, who will become the next generation of taxpayer for the government to leech off of. Same sex marriages do not have this chance of childbearing, and so should be exempt from any of these tax breaks in my opinion.
Yeah, I was confused with the random jeremy's comments thinking that you'd suddenly gone rogue on us, Jeremy.
Kodoz - My husband and I, who have been married for 17 years, do not have children and do not want children. Do you think that we should be "punished" for this by taking away any tax breaks (not that I can think of anything that wonderful tax breakwise other than the fact that they've alleviated the "marriage penalty" for being married filing jointly)? People who have kids cost the system MORE money and they get additional tax breaks for having kids, so why should we be dinged for not stressing the system? I pay property taxes and don't benefit from the part that funds the school system. Instead we end up subsidizing other people who have many kids...if married gay people don't have/adopt kids, they're doing the same, so why penalize them further either?
I am going to apologize for my rather brash words last night, it was late and I was tired, and that sometimes effects my decisions. However, that isn't necessarily an excuse, but more of an explanation.
First, I am sorry that I'm not a registered user, for some reason I can't reset the password to my blogger account and make an actually legit post.
Joe, don't get me wrong, I understand why you address a Christian population, believe me, I do. But, in all fairness, and I would like to think an article that is trying to spread the idea of equality would try to promote that some Christians do truly feel this way and some don't. It's just like saying all Americans are dumb (according to the some parts the world), even though a few of them are dumb. But in that case, those parts of the world aren't trying to be fair, they're just passing judgement. Much like some Christians (you see what I did there :D?) pass judgement. But honestly, I had hoped that growing up the world would be less like 3rd grade where the entire class loses recess because of one kid, and more like everyone pays for their own actions. This becoming more and more apparently false.
However, Joe, I would like you to know that, although this is not the ass-kissing blog comment section, I do respect you as a writer and I enjoy the majority of your writings very much. Our mutual friend is ogopogo. It's more like you know each other than you are good friends, maybe. (So much for the anonymity of the web). Also, I wasn't aware that I made a comment about that on this comment page, perhaps the other one ;).
However, back to the other guys. Don't try tell me shit about this not being French or whatever. You're right, congratulations. However, other languages function in a similar manner to English in that they're used to communicate verbally (in case you didn't already know). English is not the only language in which words evolve to fit more modern meanings. And I already agreed about the mouse having to meanings, but giving an example about why it is called a mouse in the first place (don't tempt me, I'm a dual major in both Computer Engineering and German). But for God's sake (nothing funny or religious really meant by that), can we move past the mouse?
I certainly don't agree with Kodoz though.
Also, I am sorry to the registered user named jeremy that we had the unfortunate coincedence to both be called jeremy. I didn't mean to make you sound like a jackass (I am aware that I do sound like a jackass, hypocrit point already covered).
I feel bad, this started with my agreeing to someone's comment, and then some idiot bashing his comment, and then me bashing that idiot for bashing him, and then more intolerant pricks such as myself bashing other intolerant pricks. My apologies guys.
Lastly, I'm done with discussing the origins of words. Clearly, some people understand that words with multiple meanings can apply to several other things, with all of those things possessing a commonality to the root, while other people seem to not be able to quite understand that. So, I feel like it would be just silly to beat around that bush again.
(P.S. eventually I will figure out my registration situation, and then it won't seem so strange that there are two jeremies in the community)
jtp,
Paul only wrote one letter to the Romans.
And, if Paul is a homophobe, then I'd be inclined to think Jesus is too. If Paul is the guy who was in cohorts with the apostle Peter (the friend of Jesus- I suggest you read 1 and 2 Peter as well), and the guy who pretty much started the Christian church, based on the teachings of Jesus; then I'd be inclined to think Paul and Jesus think the same way.
Anyways, I know that Jesus is on about love, and tolerance, and acceptance. I just don't think it's possible to make a case from the bible (Old testament and new testament) that the bible is ok with homosexuality!
Anonymous: You are right, when I was commenting I was thinking of Romans, but remembering that there were 4 Grecian letters. Sometimes my brain skips a beat (absolutely reason #1 why no one should listen to me).
I've never claimed to be a biblical scholar, I just read the thing. I'm not an expert on it :)
Regardless, I would say that you're entirely right - I would never use the bible to prove "the bible" is ok with homosexuality... It most clearly was not, which is why so many Christians go forward with that argument. My problem is, if you're going to be hardline about stuff in the bible, why do you (not you specifically, or any Christian specifically, just the metaphorical "you") get to choose what you're hardline about and what you're not?
I could easily point out ten, twenty, or even thirty authoritarian rules set forth by canonical text in the bible that are not only not followed today, but are thought to be "just metaphors" or "overridden in the Old Testament by actions in the New Testament (the easiest one is the pork example in my article) - yet, other metaphors are interpreted as law.
That's the part that really torques me about people who lean on the bible to justify their own prejudice and intolerance - the selective nature by which they choose which scripture to follow.
I just think it's bullshit, is all. I think that, if you want to hate gays, just be honest and say you hate gays. Period. None of this "WELL GOD SAID IN THE BIBLE" nonsense. Just hate them and be honest about it.
I feel that the surest sign of the lack of a judgmental God (not lack of God, mind you... I'm not an atheist) is the fact that He has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he hates us, the little bipedal insects inhabiting "his" creation of Earth, putting words in his mouth.
I mean, shit, man... He's God, right? He's all powerful and all knowing... And according to the Old Testament, he hates blasphemy. Why then doesn't he reach down and squish you with his pinky when you fudge your taxes, or speed, or tell lies? After all, you are to render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and follow the laws of man, and bear no false witness, right?
What if... And I'm just, you know, guessing here... What if the Creator wasn't bound by the confines of human understanding and logic, and actually created everything around us exactly perfectly, such that his creation is doing exactly what it's allowed to do? Why would God - the all powerful and all knowing - factor in free will without directly desiring the result that free will gives us?
On another famous argument, aren't all God's creatures made in his image? And if so, wouldn't that suggest God actually wants some gay folk running around this blue and green ball of ours?
And don't think for a second I'll allow an argument regarding homosexuality as a choice... Sure, some people choose to experiment, but there's also a genetic component to homosexuality that actually makes people homosexual. They're born that way, choosing to be homosexual no more than they choose to be blonde or have blue eyes.
And just like those genetic factors, there are people who fake it by buying bleach for their hair or colored contacts... or choose to kiss a member of the same sex in social settings to shock, or to experiment, or just to see what it's like to try it.
Isn't this God's plan then?
And you mean to tell me that his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, who so loved the world that he hung on a cross for three days to atone for all human sin, would actually factor out certain folks? He'd posses within him an ounce of hate or homophobia or racial intolerance? He'd allow that he's dying only for a subsection of the species?
Pretty sure that's blasphemous in and of itself, my friend :)
I gotta agree with Joe on the last comment, I mean all powerful god could just eliminate homosexuality right? I mean in my spore creature creator file I had created a creature who seemed a little too attracted to other same sex creatures so BAM! I deleted him. Just how it is! I don't want me no queer creatures!
and by "I created a creature" as anyone who's used the application knows, I mean "created a anthropomorphic phallus"
Some interesting comments. . . but I notice that no one seems to have brought up a rather obvious pro to gay marriage -- the economy.
I know a gay couple who are planning an elaborate wedding -- that's money in someone's pocket. Also, married people do things like buy houses -- again, good for the economy.
The main reason I support gay marriage, though? Because it doesn't affect me in the slightest. Two dudes want to get hitched? Do I have to get off the couch?
No? Knock yourselves out.
Using a religion -- ANY religion -- that preaches love and tolerance as an excuse for telling two people who love each other that they CAN'T get married is pretty fucking silly.
Joe, you seem to be rather peeved aout how some Christians are messing with your lifestyle (correct me if I'm wrong). From what I can tell, you seem to regard the forcing of Christian ideals upon yourself an imposition and an annoyance. You would probably have no problem with Christians if they kept to themselves and didn't force their beliefs upon you, or naggingly attempt to "save" you, no?
Let's flip the tables now. To Christians, the Gay community is forcing itself upon America. By pushing for more and more legislation, the business of gays has now become their business. Society and the way that it views morality is being changed by the gays, and this directly affects and imposes upon many Christians, altering the world in which they can raise their children.
There are two camps here, and the existence of each directly imposes upon the existence of the other. Nobody is more "imposing" or "forceful" here. So, try to look at it that way, please.
No more so than black people forced themselves on white-controlled America for equal rights in '66.
No more than womeon forced themselves on male-dominated America for the right to vote in 1920.
Your argument is logically sound, in that you've done an effective job of displaying why Christians feel the way they do... And in that logic, you've exposed the core of why I, a heterosexual male with absolutely no way to benefit personally whatsoever from the right for homosexuals to marry, fight for their right to do so.
I'd just like to point out that Jesus didn't hang on the tree for 3 days, he was DEAD for 3 days. :P
Here's my 2c/:
Gay couples have been protected for a long time under civil unions. No one has stopped gay couples from having a ceremony to commemorate their civil union. Their only real problem with anti-gay marriage people is the terminology.
I personally have no problem with gay couples being united for legal purposes (or any other, actually), but I don't like that they are stealing the word "marriage." Marriage has been about a man and a woman for thousands of years. Why should that change just because of a bunch of people making noise? "Marriage" is just a word. There are plenty of creative people in the world; come up with a new word.
I have never heard so much bullshit in my life, Joe. You know what, "Christians" have been warning for decades that the breakdown of the family would be much more than children being sad that Daddy moved out.
It's time that you go back to school and learn a thing or two about the rise of western civilizations and some of the positive things we did in order to get there. Make no mistake, your fat ass is living in relative comfort because your ancestors pushed back and fought of liberty and natural law based on Judeo-Christian values which promoted strong families as the foundation.
Look at all the anecdotal evidence around you, dude. Breakdown of the family in the 60s and 70s and 80s has weakened government and corporate accountability to the point where most families can no longer support themselves on a single income. Unhappiness is at an all-time and we have a shithead president that has brought this country to it's knees.
Look, I'm all for 'live and let live' and to ensure fairness and justice, but to offer your retarded assessment of family structure and 'framework' is very arrogant and very elementary.
The outworking of Judeo-Christian traditions is not perfect (very far from it) but to boldly defy sacred traditions with cute, little , quasi-intellectual philosophy is not the territory of honest men.
I suggest you read Paul and consider that he was hand-picked by Christ.
P.s. 'Fat ass' was tongue-in-cheek, not thrown as an insult. Please accept my apologies. (And if you're in the habit of using 'fat ass' I highly recommend against letting it slip at your slip). ;)
... slip against your WIFE.
... not *your* wife, anyone's wife. I'm gonna stop now.
I'm too sensitive for these intertubes.
Post a Comment