New Topic
I have a legitimate question for conservatives that has always bothered me. Help me out.
How exactly does gay marriage undermine the "institution of marriage" more than "I Want to Marry a Millionaire," "The Bachelor," Newt Gingich's three divorces, (not to single him out, just an example), quicky wedding chapels in Vegas and elsewhere, or Jack Ryan tricking his wife into going into S&M Clubs against her will, (again - just an example)?
Really. I honestly don't understand.
How exactly does gay marriage undermine the "institution of marriage" more than "I Want to Marry a Millionaire," "The Bachelor," Newt Gingich's three divorces, (not to single him out, just an example), quicky wedding chapels in Vegas and elsewhere, or Jack Ryan tricking his wife into going into S&M Clubs against her will, (again - just an example)?
Really. I honestly don't understand.
posted by lifeintheG at 9:36 AM
21 Comments:
The editor seconds this question, and would also like to ask anyone of a more religious bent how legislation banning gay marriage could possibly be good for the church, given that, when these kinds of concessions to policital power happened in the past, the church has suffered, not prospered?
(1414-1418, Council of Constance, which was ratified and declared legitimate by Pope Martin V, who was himself declared legitimate by Emperor Gregory XI. Martin quickly turned around and declared Gregory legitimate. The dance wasn't lost on citizens, who were recognizing that the church was giving up authority to secular rulers. This is one of the moments that marks the decline of the Catholic Church up until the Reformation, where, though too late, the Church realized it had given up most of its right to govern morally.)
In my humble opinion, legislation is a very, very bad idea, because it is tantamount to the church admitting the following things:
1) We've lost the moral battle for the American Public, and therefore must turn to legislation to enforce morality, and;
2) Marriage is not an institution of God, but of the government.
The second is more important. If marriage is the sacred union of a man and a woman, made complete by the church's approval, then the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. Bringing government in is essentially giving marriage away, by an admission that "what the government says marriage is" is the proper definition.
No. The government defines who to think of as one entity for tax purposes, no more. The church has, in history, always (and I will defend this later) defined marriage.
If the church wants to win, it shouldn't give up its birthright.
Michael--Suppose I swallow your reductio and admit that those other things (particularly divorce) are also severely detrimental. Then, to stay consistent, I advocate legal restrictions on those activities as well (a first step being the elimination of "no-fault" divorces). Then I'm still a bastard, right? But at least I'm consistent.
Wazoo--you think the church should define marriage, not the state. I think you have two obstacles to overcome: 1) social values are always going to bear relations to the realities of political structures. Like you said, the gov't has to define who is one entity for tax purposes. But, not just that, many other things also. Adoption laws, say; cohabitation laws; public decency; drinking age. How do you propose to deal with that?--law is inherently infused with social values. The birthright seems to already have been taken away. 2) Darn...forgot what (2) was. Oh, well.
PS--please add me to the list of contributors. datalcotATindiana.edu
Couldn't we reductio the other way just as easily and say that sadomasochism and incest are just as detrimental to marriage as a divorce for adultery? It seems that the flippant statement made by Ms. (Mr.?) Grant suggests that (1) all things that devalue marriage are the same, (2) Christians somehow advocate other marriage-devaluing programs like divorce and reality television, and (3) he's funny.
Wazoo, you seem to suggest that we HAVEN'T legislated morality prior to 1973, and that our sudden interest in marriage is tantamount to "losing" the battle. In reality, it's about preserving something that's worked pretty well for, oh, 6000 years. American Christians did it before when polygamy threatened the West, and they succeeded.
Your assertion that "marriage is not an institution of God, but of the government" is as logically absurd as me saying "a prohibition on murder is not a command of God, but of the government."
Briefly, in defense of government definition of marriage. When men and women get together, babies tend to get born. Government has tried to figure out the best way of making sure that those men and women who have babies take care of the babies. Marriage looks pretty good and tying a couple together and requiring them to raise that baby they've made. That, or they keep it to themselves and don't make babies. Government did it, and it's worked awfully darn well.
Derek
Oh yeah - all that legislation that fathers must take care of their kids has worked brilliantly.
(Mr.)
Oh yeah - all that legislation that citizens must not murder other citizens has worked brilliantly.
We can play this game of verbal drive-by all day long. I'd recommend a substantive argument.
Derek
Fair enough. What makes two men or two women incapable of raising a child? What gives the government the right to tell them not to? Whatever happened to the concept of personal individual freedom? How about the concept of "all men are created equal?" Or for that matter the former conservative mantra of small government and states' rights?
Furthermore, sadomasochism is legal if both parties consent. And incest is illegal because it causes harm to someone and therefore infringes on the harmed person’s rights. I’ve not known of any instances where two people being gay and minding their own business infringed on anybody else’s individual rights.
Also, with conservatives, the problem with gays used to be that they are all sleeping around, doing drugs, just in general being irresponsible. Now, the problem is that they want to grow up, settle down and have boring suburbia marriages like everybody else. Is it better if they aren’t allowed to marry and go back to the clubbing and the sex and the drugs?
And finally – the point isn’t that Christians are advocating to have more reality shows about sham marriages (speaking of which, where does the church stand in relation to Tom Cruise? Oh – well, with the crazy moon-religion he’s into, I suppose they’re not too into it), the point is that they’re trying to make gay marriage illegal, but not reality shows, even though I would argue that reality shows that end with a wedding demean the institution of marriage more than gays wanting to join the married community and live monogamously does.
NOW we're entering the REAL discussion of logical assumptions you probably didn't even know you were making....
I don't have much time right now to address the way you've laid out your argument of what government should or shouldn't regulate; I shall state, however, that you need to define what the role of government is. I don't simply mean the cursory assertion that "government should prevent harm." Libertarians often do so, and then define harm in all sorts of funny ways - e.g., that temptation, corruption, indirect harms, and distributed harms are not "harms."
Drugs, private consensual sodomy, prostitution, etc. are good things to prohibit because they cause harm, as I define harm (note the linger question of how I define harm... dum dum DUUUUMMMMMM). I'm taken aback at your assertion that consensual incest causes harm (e.g., CUDDLE). I would first assert, though, that Christians and libertarians define harm differently, and that the Christian definition of harm is far superior, so there.
No, really, I'll argue that it's superior, and actually define it, when I have time. I'd like your take on your own view of harm, though.
Derek
the Christian definition of harm is far superior, so there.
Not everybody is this country is Christian, and we were founded to be just that - melting pot and whatnot. Therefore we cannot legislate Christian morality. No more than you would like it if by some freak occurrance in 1000 years, Scientology became the dominant American religion and Christians were in the minority, that you would like it if the Scientologist president legislated creepy moon morality.
And in any case, you haven't laid out why you think being gay causes anyone any harm, even in the Christian sense. Like I said, it seems to me that having them settle down and be responsible taxpaying homeowners would be a benefit to all.
But yes, my concept of "harm" is more like the libertarians, although I shudder to compare myself to them. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I have the wisdom to be able to tell other people what to do. A conversation for another day - I do believe in legalizing prostitution, all drugs, etc. See, the problem with legislating because something might be harmful to oneself or immoral is that the idea of what is harmful changes, and what is immoral changes over time. It used to be immoral to discuss the earth going around the sun, for example. A captial offense, in fact. I'm 100% certain that (and maybe it'll be another 500 years) the day will come when people are embarrassed for being against gay marriage, just as the Catholics should be embarrassed about the whole earth/sun thing. (not embarrassed for being wrong scientifically; embarrassed for making it a crime to suggest an alternative)
I apologize for being unable to explain my definition of harm better, but I'd like to point out a few clear fallacies that you've asserted.
First, you've invoked the great Galileo myth. I tend to vomit on its invocation, so my prose may be a bit garbled as I type on a sticky keyboard. Apart from the historic selectivity you've made, ultimately, it's outlandish to assert that because a governing body was incorrect in its singular application of the law that we should abandon any comparable system of application.
It could be said something like this.
-Hey, Democrats used to SUPPORT slavery!
-You're right! No one who calls himself a Democrat should ever get to make a law!
...and so on.
Second, I'd find it extremely difficult for later post-modernists to interpret passages where Paul describes men who "go to bed with other men" as something we can 100% wrong about it.
Third, it is absurd to say, "Well, every atheistic, amoral, or secularist world view can be legislated, but the CHRISTIAN worldview? Please." Why have you automatically dismissed religion and morality as valid sources of informing one's political positions?
I've promised to define harm better, but you still haven't defined it, except to call yourself a libertarian who doesn't like being called a libertarian.
Finally, you can't simply cop out with "I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I have the wisdom to be able to tell other people what to do." Otherwise, you're an anarchist. You DO think you have the wisdom to tell other people what to do - e.g., that they shouldn't murder, that they shouldn't legislate drug use.
Please be more careful in making such statements so that I don't have to deconstruct them in a vomit-filled keyboard.
Derek
Derek -
Be nice. Make your point, and leave the enforcing and "please answer his question" bits to me.
Well, since nobody seems to be actually answering the question, I'll do it. Hopefully it will cause someone to actually respond honestly. I think it's clear why most people who are against gay marriage are against it. They don't like gay people. They think gay people are evil, or sinful, or godless, or out to corrupt them and their children, and what have you. Anything that makes gay people seem "normal" and just like everyone else is horrifying to them, and so they try whatever they can to marginalize them. It's the same reason we had anti-miscegenation laws into the 1960's. Because of people's prejudices. Their fear is that homosexuality will cease to be shameful and marginalized, and will become somewhat mainstreamed into society. So, they resist any rights for gay people, they equate homosexuality to bestiality and incest, and do anything else in their power to demonize and marginalize gays. You can talk around the issue all you want (as everyone has done here so far) but that's pretty much the gist of it.
Well, you STILL haven't answered the question, and you just equated homosexuality with incest and murder. Who's the bigot, exactly? And I'm not sure what you think was an ad hominem attack. That MOST people who oppose gay marriage dislike gays? I think that's pretty bloody obvious. I mean, there are double-digit comments on this item and nobody has yet given a legitimate reason why gay marriage is harmful and dangerous (or any more harmful and dangerous than reality shows, divorce, quickie Vegas weddings).
I'll say it one more time: be nice.
Emery - some people believe that homosexuality is bad. You don't. Don't be too surprised, and don't be surprised either when those others can make a compelling argument for their belief based on things that you don't accept as true.
Derek - I realize that you can argue Biblical definition around me all day long. But I'm not interested in the Biblical definition, nor is government legislation (if it were, I think we'd have to make it a lot more specific than "man and woman").
And both of you - my main point was this: arguing about whether or not gay marriages are harmful or helpful is irrelevant, since, historically, the phrase "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. I really don't see a point to changing an institution just so that homosexual partners can have a piece of paper that says they're married. If they really want it, they can easily find a church that will do it for them. But no one's preventing them from living together and behaving as a couple (maybe in some areas, yes, this is being prevented, but that's a different argument).
Derek - What I meant was this: legislation defining the historical definition of marriage ignores the reason marriage has been defined the way it has (children). In short, legislation is being proposed not to preserve a sacred truth that's been passed down, but to keep homosexuality from becoming mainstream, just as Emery said. I just happen to think it's a bad idea because of the unforseen consequences for the church.
Emeryroolz: Come, now, I don't think you're being fair. I can still think people are relatively nice people even if they're gay and I hate the fact that they're gay and I wish they weren't gay and I want to make it illegal for gays to marry. Can't I? I mean, presumably I know lots of divorcees that I think are relatively nice. But what they've done is wrong and I want to make what they've done, in most cases, illegal.
Michael's original question, which I agree hasn't been properly answered, is why gay marriage is worse than divorces, quickie marriages, and S&M clubs. I said "well, regardless, I can stay consistent by making all of them illegal, right?" And I think he was so dumbfounded at that point he didn't know what to say. In any case, here's a proper answer. First, again, all of those things are wrong, and I'm willing to outlaw them (except divorce in cases of infidelity--though I would still encourage individuals to stay together through that if there's genuine repentance). Second, there are different degrees of perversions of things. S&M perverts the beauty of the marriage bed by making something loving into something adversarial. Divorce perverts the beauty of faithful, lifelong, unconditional love. Homosexuality perverts marriage by trying to adjust the very nature of the sexes, a larger distortion. Hence, all are perversions, but homosexuality is of a higher order due to the attempted change of the nature of the two sexes.
How is that?
If you want to make gay marriage and divorce and S&M illegal you have to answer the question - what gives you the right to decide what other people do if they're not harming anyone else? What even gives the majority of Americans to decide what's right for the minority? As Emeryroolz pointed out, a majority of people used to think that interracial marriage was wrong too. But as is now commonly accepted, of course it isn't. It's their right.
So how far do you want to go in controlling other people's behavior? Shall we legislate that you must honor your mother and father? If I, as a full-grown adult living on my own, tell my mother that she's being stupid, should I go to jail? How about graven images? I have a little Buddha carving that I think looks nice. How many years in County should I get? How about lying? I told my friend that her baby was beautiful when in fact, it was a hideous wrinkled troll. Yikes! Is that a capital offense?
Obviously I'm sure you don't feel that way, but you see the flaw in legislating based on certain people's moral views. Maybe you don't feel that way, but what if the lawmakers did? And let's take it another step - let's look at a current example of a place where they legislate morality, Saudi Arabia. Where women aren't allowed to walk the streets alone, or vote, or work, and have to wear the most unattractive clothes. If a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, she is executed. The man who impregnated her walks free of course, because men have more rights than women. You might argue that they just have a backward-ass religion. But they don't. They just have horrible leaders who are misinterpreting their texts for their own personal gain - including all the death to America stuff. You can't legislate morality because in a free society people must be free to make their own moral judgments.
And whether you hate gays or just hate gay sex, homosexuals are still American citizens like anyone else. They should be afforded the same rights as everybody else - not relegated to second class.
I disagree with your assertion that people are making moral judgments when they write laws. Laws are written based on the concept of individual civil and human rights. Theft isn't illegal because it's immoral to steal. It's illegal because taking something from someone else infringes on the latter's right to own property. Same with murder.
Morality is the purview of churches. Human and civil rights are the purview of government, which is precisely why anti-gay marriage laws are wrong - the government should be protecting their civil rights.
David - thank you for answering the question honestly. However (you knew that was coming, didn't you?) I really hope you're able to get beyond your notions that homosexuality is some sort of perversion. I know where this comes from, and I certainly understand it. I was taught the same thing, as I'm sure most people brought up in most major religions are. But that doesn't mean that I have to accept the belief that homosexuality is perversion. In my life, I've known a few gay people. I even went to a gay wedding last year (and my wife and I are still married, so obviously gay marriage didn't destroy our marriage. Yet, anyway - and yes, I know, that could be construed as a glib cheap shot. Sue me.). And time and again I've heard gay people say that they've always known they were gay. I've also know a person or two who sort of went back and forth, before realizing that ultimately they we only truly attracted physically and emotionally to their own sex. And there have been several studies that have shown that the causes of homosexual attraction could be genetic/physiological. So, basically, it's very possible that "god made them that way." If that's the case, is it fair to discriminate against homosexuals and deny them the same rights as the rest of the human race? If two consenting adults want to engage in some behavior that harms no one and makes them both happy, why legislate against that? I know you wouldn't advocate legislating against a black person and a white person getting married. If homosexuality is as biologically determined as race, isn't it just as wrong to discriminate against sexual orientation as it is against race? Hopefully, if you view the issue in those terms, rather than in Biblical terms (I am doing my best to resist the urge to go on and on about the folly basing standards of modern behavior on the teachings of a 2000-year-old, translated, mis-translated, re-translated, work of historical fiction like the Bible, a work that thinks mental illness is caused by demonic possession, for instance), you'll begin to see that what religion tells you is a "perversion" is really a trait that can occur as naturally (though obviously not as often) as blonde hair or brown eyes. Just think about it for a little while, and let me know what you think.
To touch on some of your other points:
Divorce: How you prove you were "genuinely repentant" for marital infidelity? I don't think that's possible. Also, and this is all pure conjecture on my part, I think that we could go a long way toward curbing the number of divorces in this country if we did the following: 1) stop "pushing" marriage so hard (anyone who has dated the same person for, oh, more than 6 months knows how everyone starts saying "So, when are you two getting married?") 2) stop frowning on pre-marital sex (I know at least one couple who got married very young because it was the only way they could, you know, "do it" without going to hell. Yeah, they're divorced now) 3) stop frowning on pre-marital cohabitation (gives you a chance to learn what an insufferable pig your significant other is before you vow to spend the rest of your life with him or her, like a marriage test drive). But that's just my opinion.
S&M: Hey, some people prefer that the "beauty of the marriage bed" get a little freaky-deaky. They ENJOY the adversarial nature of it. Again, why is it any of our business, and why would anyone want to try to LEGISLATE against that? And then where do you draw the line as to what’s acceptable and unacceptable? Some people consider oral sex a perversion (although I suspect those who have actually tried it consider it totally awesome). One man’s perversion is another man’s uh, normal life I guess. Shouldn’t we just leave the legal distinction at a more broad level? Isn’t it enough to say, “as long as both parties are legally consenting adults, and nobody is harmed, do whatever you want with your wee-wee or your hoo-ha?”
On that note, I think I’ll stop while I’m ahead.
Well done, "d." You totally busted me. Whatever can I say to your argument that no one has a right to life or the right to own property? Kudos and kudos again, d.
D - Sheesh, I don't even know where to begin. So, taking your ridiculous lumping together of alcoholism, cystic fibrosis, manic-depression, and homosexuality as genetic defects at face value, do you then advocate outlawing alcoholism, cystic fibrosis, and bipolar disorder, along with homosexuality? Or do you only advocate forbidden alcoholics, those afflicted with c.f. and manic depressives from marrying? And if you consider homosexuality a genetic defect, do you also consider being born black or asian a genetic defect? Come on, I know you're smarter than that.
And I disagree with you about men being born with a "predisposition toward sin." I think we're born with a predisposition toward humanity, and that means we're predisposed to do things that human beings do, and that means things that make us happy. If those things don't harm us or anyone else, why should we not engage in them? Because some uptight, unenlightened religious guys 1500 years or so ago decided tto call them "sinful" so they could control everyone's behavior? To ask someone to deny something so fundamentally human as their romantic/sexual desire is to ask someone to stop being human (unless their desires are toward pedophilia or rape, which harm other non-consenting people). What you're asking is for all gay people to live a life of celebacy or to live a life of lies as a heterosexual. That's better than just living life as god made you? I don't think so.
We don't believe in harming animals either. I don't know where you get these ideas. Nor do we equate gays with animals. Gays are people, and as such, they should have the right that every other person has. An animal doesn't have the ability to choose whether or not he'd like to get married to a human. If, however, we found some animal-like cousin to humanity in the rainforest somewhere, that was self-aware and had the ability to make decisions about marriage for himself, I'd happily readdress the topic. In the meantime, no one is advocating bestiality.
It's so funny how conservatives have gone from the small-government, "stay off ma propatee!" to "let's legislate every little tiny thing that everyone does in accordance with our narrow religious world-view." You can't cite passages about Cain and Abel when the bible is NOT the basis for rule of law in this country. In Saudi Arabia maybe, but not here. Allow me to quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The "Creator." Not Christian God as defined in your version of the bible. A vague "Creator" who could literally be anything. Furthermore, the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Not with the consent of your Christian God. And perhaps most importantly, ALL men are created equal. Not just heterosexuals.
This is really exhausting.
Most states don't outlaw homosexuality. You, however, ask to legalize homosexual MARRIAGE, which is NOT a genetic predisposition.
I believe I also said: "Or do you only advocate forbidden (nice proof-reading) alcoholics, those afflicted with c.f. and manic depressives from marrying?" It's nice to see that you only advocate legislating against the RIGHTS of other human beings, not against them specifically.
It's not as though I'm asking to bar alcoholism, but as if I'm asking to bar bars (excuse the pun) that are exclusively reserved for alcoholics. It's not the nature of the genetic disposition that conseratives seek to bar (which can be handled through public government programs), but it's the institutions and government sanctions that we seeks to bar.
Gays are not asking for an institution that caters specifically to them like your bar analogy. They're just asking for the same rights as the rest of the human beings in this country. As far as what "conservatives seek to bar," I think that's pretty obvious. It's the same thing they've always tried to block. The progress and acceptance of anyone who isn't a White, Heterosexual, Christian Male. So we get discrimination against blacks, hispanics, Jews, women, and gays. That's a legacy to be proud of.
As for race, I don't have any scriptural basis to determine that being born with a race is inherently evil. Mormons find it, slaveholders find it, I don't. In fact, not many people today do, apart from a few KKK members. This line of attack, however, is more ad hominem than factual - "well, if you think homosexuality can be overcome as a genetic defect, you must hate blacks." Excellent and astute "logic."
I never said you must hate black people, I simply posed the question of whether you considered being born black a genetic defect, given that you apparently consider being born gay a defect to be "overcome." You can't "overcome" being born black (Michael Jackson not withstanding), so why should someone be expected to have to "overcome" being gay?
Your disagreement about a tenet of the Christian faith is a different subject. And we believe that "sin" was something that happened 6000 years ago, when Cain was expected to know that killing his brother was a sin.
Really? I thought sin originate in the garden of Eden when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Hmmmm. So the Christian concept of evil and sin has it's origin in the pursuit of knowledge, which god strictly forbade. Better not touch that one. It explains a lot though.
As I've discussed earlier, pro-gay union folks are defining "harm" in all sorts of unusual ways - e.g., that temptation, corruption, indirect harms, and distributed harms are not "harms." Your moral vision is a world of individual liberty - which ought to include plural marriage, homosexual marriage, and bestial marriage.
So, what exactly are the "harms" that you see soming from allowing gay people to marry? Something specific, you know, not just vague pronouncements like "tempatation" and "corruption." And what is it with Christians and bestiality? You guys are always throwing bestiality around, and equating it with homosexuality (which is stupid,, ignorant, bigoted, and disgusting, by the way). What part of "a union between two consenting adults" do you not understand, exactly? If you know of some way that an animal can legally give its consent to marry someone, please, let me know, Dr. Doolittle.
In theory, of course, your world permits the torture of puppy dogs, since it doesn't harm anyone; as Robert Bork insists, there's got to be something wrong with that.
Um, "torture of puppy dogs" hurts PUPPY DOGS, so yeah, I don't think it's accurate to say that my world would permit that. Excellent and astute "logic."
Post a Comment
<< Home