Voters in California passed Proposition 8 a few days ago, which causes the court to not recognize homosexual marriage. Since then, there have been daily protests in Los Angeles, which have been peaceful for the most part, though seven arrests were made last Wednesday for disturbing the peace. Yesterday there were protests in San Francisco, Palm Springs and Long Beach. They sat down in the street and blocked traffic and even harassed an elderly woman. It is clear that passions from gay marriage supporters are very strong. They feel that they are being treated unequally, and that opponents to gay marriage are forcing their beliefs upon them. In reality, they are treated as equally as heterosexuals, and supporters of gay marriage are instead forcing their beliefs on the rest of the world.
Supporters of gay marriage have often argued that the issue doesn't concern heterosexual couples, and therefore heterosexuals should just butt out. They feel that anyone who isn't gay who opposes gay marriage is putting his nose where it doesn't belong and is dealing with an issue that doesn't concern him because of his own religious or traditional beliefs.
Suppose I proposed the following legislation: California recognizes that there is a God. Would that be right or wrong? Undoubtedly, there would be protests in every major city from atheists who would insist that their right to not believe in a God is being infringed. They would say that religious people are forcing a theist viewpoint upon the world. They would say that they have every right to live their lives without recognizing the existence of a God. If a theist said, “Hey, look, you're not a religious person and this doesn't concern you, so butt out,” the atheist would be incensed. “But it does concern me,” he would say, “because I shouldn't be forced to recognize a God.”
And yet this is exactly what is happening concerning gay marriage. Those who hold a traditional view of marriage should not be forced to recognize gay marriage. To champion gay marriage “rights” as a cause is to bully those who do not believe the way you do into recognizing gay marriage, just like legislating divine recognition is to bully atheists into recognizing a God.
I've never opposed civil unions. If civil unions were made to give homosexual couples a way to enjoy the same financial benefits as married couples, I would not be against it. But every homosexual friend I've talked to about it has insisted that civil unions are not enough. If so, then the issue is not about being treated just like heterosexual couples in the eye of the law. Instead, it is about forcing the world to change their view of marriage.
As it is, both heterosexuals and homosexuals are treated equally. Heterosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, and homosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no inequality here. The problem, then, is not about the freedom to marry, but rather the freedom to marry the person you love, and homosexuals believe they should have that freedom. But no one has that freedom. If I love a woman who does not love me, I do not have the right to marry her. If I love a woman who loves me, but is already married, I do not have the right to marry her—she would first have to stop being married for me to marry her. If I had a sister and loved her, I would not be free to marry her, and if I had a very attractive land tortoise that I loved, I would not be free to marry it. None of us are free to marry whomever or whatever we love.
The issue would be to change what marriage is and always has been—a union between a man and a woman. It would involve forcing the majority of the world to recognize something they don't believe in. It isn't about whether homosexuality is right and wrong. I, a Christian, am not trying to outlaw pornography, just because I think it is morally wrong. Neither am I trying to make homosexuality itself illegal, even though I think it is morally wrong. If you want to view porn, then view porn—I don't have to. If you want to be gay, be gay—I won't. But if someone wants to force me to recognize a union in a way I think is wrong, then I will resist it, just like he would resist me if I tried to force him to recognize God.
America disagrees on many things, and this is one of them. I am not going to call gay rights supporters bigots just because they disagree with me. I am not going to pick up a sign and start dancing on a street corner and shouting into a megaphone like a two-year-old throwing a tantrum, just because I didn't get my way. We have the option in this world to be mature and treat each other civilly and with respect, or we have the option to be immature and pour hate upon the person who disagrees with us. Proponents of traditional marriage are just as passionate as supporters of gay marriage. We hate bigotry, we hate inequality, and we hate bullies.
Treat each other with decency and respect, even if you disagree on something as controversial as this.
Posts
56 comments:
I know we've had this discussion before, but I figured I could piggyback your post and get my opinion out there :D
So let's deal with your argument, as I pinned it down, in two parts: 1.In reality, they are treated as equally as heterosexuals, and 2. and supporters of gay marriage are instead forcing their beliefs on the rest of the world.
1
So to deal with the first point. You make the argument that homosexuals are treated equally as heterosexuals as they have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. You then attempt to disprove their stance that they should have the right to marry anyone they want by saying that no one can marry anyone they want.
The issue with that is that the second point doesn't prove the first point. All it proves is that marriage requires consent, which has nothing to do with the issue.
2
You attack the legalization of gay marriage by equating it to legislating faith.
To a person who views legal marriage as carrying religious implications, this argument makes a lot of sense. To a person that views legal marriage as two consenting adults entering into a contract together, the analogy is completely lost.
In the case of a state recognizing God, there's no two ways about it. The government would be interfering with people's personal belief systems. In the case of legal marriage, belief systems don't have to be involved at all. It is, as stated above, "consenting adults entering into a contract together"
Conclusion
Neither of your conclusions necessarily follow from the premises, particularly the first one (Which I believe is the crux of your argument).
-Jeff Gorndt
P.S. "I am not going to pick up a sign and start dancing on a street corner and shouting into a megaphone like a two-year-old throwing a tantrum, just because I didn't get my way."
"Treat each other with decency and respect, even if you disagree on something as controversial as this."
Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I have no right to attack you for anything that you said. While I agree and disagree on certain points, you make a logical arguement.
I personally believe that if the US constitution says that the youngest age for consentual sex is 14, and that there is supposedly a fine line between church and state, then maybe we should give the homosexuals a chance.
In all honesty, I don't believe they did anything to deserve this, although they aren't acting in a mature manner in response to it.
So, in retrospect, I respect your opinion, kind sir. I hope to read more.
Jeff: Well yes, marriage does require consent, but it also requires more than consent. For instance, I used a hypothetical example of me being in love with a woman who is already married. Even if she loved me back—thus giving me consent—it would still be against the law for me to marry her. She would first have to cease to be married before I could marry her. Therefore this example works well in regard to homosexual marriages. Homosexuals are not free to marry each other because they are of the same gender, just as I am not free to marry a woman who is already married. This example, by the way, was not designed to prove the first point (which needs no example; its just a matter of fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals are free to marry members of the opposite sex). It was designed to demonstrate why none of us are free to marry the person we love. That is, love is not a prerequisite for marriage.
As for my analogy of legislation on God, I don't believe you have to be a believer for the example to make sense. Not once in my article did I refer to marriage as a union defined by God (even though I believe it is). I argued solely on legal and logical grounds. Yes, I agree—if the State of California recognized God, that “would be interfering with people's personal belief systems”. This is why I used it as an example. If the State of California recognizes homosexual marriages, they would also “be interfering with people's personal belief systems”.
Yes, marriage is a legal contract, but the concept of marriage brings with it different beliefs. If California made homosexual marriages legal, then I would not be able to say, “I don't believe it is real marriage” because one could simply respond, “Yes it is, the State says so,” and then show me a certificate. Similarly, if California legally recognized God, I would not be able to say “There is no God,” because one could simply respond, “Yes there is, the State says so,” and then point to the law. In both cases, a person's personal belief system has been legally made “wrong” by the State. And that is wrong.
I also tried to demonstrate that marriage is more than, as you put it, “consenting adults entering into a contract together”. If this were the case, then civil unions would be enough. Civil unions can grant the same legal benefits, obligations and responsibilities as marriage, but homosexual couples reject them because they are not “the same” as marriage. This means, therefore, that marriage is more than just a legal contract. It carries with it different beliefs, and for homosexual couples to force a state-wide change is to try to bully the rest of the State to see marriage the same way they do. And that is wrong.
And nice quotes, but I don't see the connection. After all, you can still love and respect a two-year-old who is throwing a tantrum because he didn't get his way, and simultaneously disapprove of his behavior ;)
Lee: I'm not sure I understand the connection you made between the age of consensual sex being 14 (is it really? Good grief), the separation of church ans state and homosexual marriage. Could you elaborate?
Thanks for the responses guys :)
About the consentual thing, I will look more into it. But, the whole thing that started the banning of gay marriage in the first place had to do with the fact that in the bible it states that marriage is between a man and a woman. As far as what I've learned, there was a clear cut line between church and state, meaning that the teachings of the church had no say in political matters, and vice versa.
If I'm wrong, then I concede my notions, but as far as I know, politics is crossing said line with this law.
Point 1
So the way I'm understanding your first argument is this:
Proposition 1: Equal marriage rights is having the ability to do the same thing in regards to marriage.
Proposition 2: Both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the ability to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Conclusion: Hetero- and homosexuals have equal marriage rights.
If this is the argument you're making, then it's logically sound, but are the propositions realistic explanations of the situation? Probably not. It seems to me like heterosexuals have expanded marriage rights simply by roll of the dice (That they happen to be heterosexual) Therefore, a more realistic summary would include
Proposition 3: Heterosexual people have the right to marry someone they are attracted to.
And render the conclusion invalid.
Point 2
The state definition of marriage doesn't make any appeal to personal beliefs. Any mention of God would definitely involve personal beliefs.
The idea that marriages are different than civil unions may be true, but it doesn't follow, by any means, "that marriage is more than just a legal contract. It carries with it different beliefs" The fact that homosexuals make the argument that they should have marriages and not civil unions is probably more a product of wanting equal status, similar to the problem with two water fountains where one is labeled "Whites Only."
Finally, you don't respect a grown adult by calling them "a two-year-old throwing a tantrum" when they get vocal over something they take very personally.
-Jeff Gorndt
Question: If the legal system did away with "marriage" entirely as being legally recognized, in favor of everyone having to go to a government appointed office and obtain a civil union to be legally recognized as having the right and responsibilities of a couple (freeing people to have whatever ceremonies in their church that they choose, but leaving the government out of it totally), what would you think of that?
how disappointing to read your ridiculous statements. at one point, it was illegal in the States for different races to marry, and similar statements were made in support of that sort of discrimination. i just lost a ton of respect for you. it's going to be hard viewing your work now knowing you have that sort of thought process.
Lee: Actually, there never was a time when gay marriages started getting “banned”. There just never was a time where there were gay marriages, until recently. Homosexuals started applying for marriage licenses and were rejected, not because of some right-wing conspiracy, or because all the churches in the world banned together to protest them, or because some legislation was passed, but simply because they did not meet the qualifications for marriage—a male and female. I'll also point out that this notion of “male joining with female to become a marriage partnership” is not held exclusively by Christians or even monotheists, but has always been the cornerstone of the human family, regardless of faith or lack of faith. In atheist, Soviet Russia, the same Soviet Russia that sent Jews and Christians to the GULAG for being “counter-revolutionaries”, homosexual marriages were not practiced. People of faitha re not the only ones who object to homosexual marriage.
Jeff: Yes, that is the argument I'm making, but your “proposition 3: heterosexual people have the right to marry someone they are attached to” is just another way of phrasing my earlier discussion on “marrying the person you love”, which, as I have argued, no one has the right to do. Your more realistic conclusion (which flies in the face of logic, as you admitted) still does not address the point that neither heterosexual people nor homosexual people have the right to marry someone “they are attached to”. My conclusion must, logically, still stand.
Marriage itself involves personal beliefs. Homosexuals want marriages as opposed to civil unions because they recognize—albeit unwittingly—that marriages are more than just a legal contract, but are a product of society, defined by society, and carry with them presumptions, emotions, and traditions that are not attached to civil unions. By rejecting civil unions in favor for marriage, homosexual couples are saying that having the same legal status as heterosexual couples is not enough for them, but they also want society to change—tradition, presumptions and emotions to be converted—to agree with their own ideas of marriage.
Well, when a grown adult acts like a two-year old, I don't think it's disrespectful to call them out on their behavior :P But I guess we just disagree on this. I feel like I can still love, tolerate and respect a person, even if I object to his behavior and say so.
Anon: I guess it wouldn't bother me, because in the end, in my opinion, true marriage is ordained by God and not man, so if the nation decided to simply stop calling heterosexual unions “marriages”, it wouldn't change the fact that, indeed, they are.
Jaisne: Thanks for posting. Its a shame you can't tolerate my opinions and enjoy my movies at the same time. Oh well.
Again, men and women of different races are still men and women—able to marry. A man's race never challenged what marriage was, so to allow interracial couples to marry is just—it is true equality. Marriage is not the union of a man and a man. That is a different thing from marriage, just like coffee is different from tea. They are both liquids. You drink them the same way, they satisfy similar needs, and they are chosen based on the drinker's preference. But tea cant wake up someday and say, “I want to be coffee. If you don't call me coffee I'll say you area bigot. Fight discrimination!” The two are innately different, and always will be, no matter what we call them.
So you wouldn't feel compelled (or simply desire) to change the law if only Civil Unions were available for everyone across the board who wanted those legally recognized responsibilities?
Another Question: Do you think folks with Klinefelter's syndrome or Mixed gonadal dysgenesis (for example) should be able to be "married"?
Wait, Brandon, there's a really big distinction between having the right to marry anyone you love, and having the right to marry someone you love who can confirm wanting to marry you back. The only case that would remain an exception would be polygamy - and at least with polygamy it's a bit clearer how someone could specifically use it to take advantage of the system.
And your attempt to say that gay marriage is an appeal against tradition, but interracial marriage never changed its definition, is entirely your perspective. Those vying against interracial marriage [even today] must have a list of arguments against it. What do you think of all the Protestant churches that allow and encourage gay unions? My friend's pastor is a lesbian, and of course in her church gay marriage would be considered acknowledged by God. From what I know you're a Protestant, so I'm not sure your definition of tradition would hold up against a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox. Gay marriage might be just as righteous a transition in the eyes of God as Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the church door.
And, I hate to be the guy that takes out a dictionary, but respect is defined as:
3. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
4. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
Neither of those apply to how you treat a two-year-old having a tantrum - arguably number 1 to a two-year-old, but not one specifically throwing a tantrum. I think those opposed to gay marriage would be characterized more by entitled frustration, which I suppose does apply to two-year-old tantrums. So, what was the point of you calling them two-year-olds if you're also claiming respect for them? What was the rhetoric?
Anon 1: No, I don't think it would matter much to me. And in answer to your second question, yes, I think they should.
Anon2: Yes, there is a distinction between having the right to marry someone you love, and who also loves you back. My point was to demonstrate that no one has the right to marry whomever he loves—love or “being attached” is not a prerequisite to marriage. And yes, the polygamy argument is the best one, for it is no different from homosexual marriage. Even though there is another minority of people out there who want the right to marry multiple partners, it is outlawed in America, and no one is championing their “rights”.
The difference between interracial marriages and homosexual marriages as far as tradition goes is that within interracial marriages you still meet the qualification for marriage—uniting a man and a woman—and in homosexual marriages you don't. Even though certain people in certain times throughout history have banned interracial marriages, while at other times in other places they have been permitted, those marriages have always been between a man and a woman. That is the unique defining aspect of what we term marriage. Anything other must be called something else.
Protestant churches who allow gay marriages and accept homosexual behavior are clearly in violation of the Bible they claim to follow. Of course, since we have separation of church and state, which I think all nations must have, nothing in the Bible can be appealed to in order to argue for something on legal grounds. But since we are talking about Christian churches, the document we appeal to, like America's Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, is our Bible. It cannot be argued that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. This condemnation is found in both the Old and New Testament. When a church or a Christian accepts homosexual behavior, they have every right to do so as an American, but as a Christian they are violating God's word and rebelling against him. Homosexual marriage is poorly compared to Martin Luther's 95 Theses, because Martin Luther posted his Theses in response to practices perpetuated by the Catholic Church at the time that violated the Bible. Therefore, if Catholicism accepted homosexual behavior in Martin Luther's time, there would have been 96 theses on that door.
When a two-year-old throws a tantrum, his mother loves him AND respects him. She respects him by rebuking him and disciplining him—holding him in such high regard that she admonishes him for the moment in order that his behavior might change in the future. Any child who is raised without discipline is not respected by their parents. If you allow a child to do whatever he wants, he becomes spoiled, and will live his adult life expecting the unreasonable and considering himself and his own desires the most important things.
I'm just saying that if an adult acts like that—throws a fit in the manner of a two-year old because he didn't get his own way—it is incumbent upon us, if we love and respect that adult, to rebuke immature behavior. This demonstrates that we care enough for the person that we wish to see their dignity salvaged. Stumbling around in an angry drunken state is immature behavior. Sitting in the middle of the road and stopping traffic in all directions is immature behavior, as is harassing an elderly woman who holds a different opinion than you do. I could probably change the way I presented my rebuke by comparing them to two-year-olds, even though their behavior reminds me of them. In the future I'll point out behavior I think is undignified, immature and disrespectful without comparing them to children.
I do think it is funny, though, that my respect for them is questioned when I disapprove of their behavior, which embodies disrespect. How much more disrespectful can you be to the voters of California than to stage mass protests, interfere with traffic and harass people? I guess I could say that I'll respect them the day that they respect me. But I won't.
And for the record, you can be frustrated without showing disrespect.
You state that marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman. That is not correct. The earliest references to same-sex marriage dates back to ancient Rome. California has acknowledged that marriage is a basic human right (I'm afraid I've forgotten the exact reference, but it is on the official books.) Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment to deny what they have already established to be a basic human right.
I've posted on the topic here:
http://insomnimusing.blogspot.com/2008/11/as-promised-my-rant-against-gay.html
Yeah, Nero "married" a man--but then again, this is the same guy that committed incest with his mother and then had her executed. He's prooobably not the best guy to be the poster-child of same-sex marriages :P
Additionally, this is the exception that proves the rule. We must also not confuse homosexual marriage with the popular Greek practice of pederasty, an ancient practice of older men having a sexual "union" with young boys, which was seen in those days as a special relationship that was--while wholly different from marriage--akin to marriage in certain ways. This issue crosses over with pedophilia so closely, however, that it also might not be the best example used as in support of same-sex marriages.
Marriage is indeed a basic human right. All men and all women are free to marry--homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. But, as I have already argued, same-sex unions are not marriage, thus, while it is obvious that homosexuals are free to marry, they are only free to marry someone of a different sex.
Oxhorn, it is really, really easy to think and speak the way you do when you are white and male and heterosexual and Christian - i.e. have never had to fight for any kind of basic legal equality in your life. There is no possible way you can relate to any of these people on any level, and anyone arguing against him should realize this. I truly hope that, after you've lived a little longer and have seen a little more of the world, you'll look back on how you think today as extreme naivete.
"Marriage is indeed a basic human right. All men and all women are free to marry--homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. But, as I have already argued, same-sex unions are not marriage..."
By what definition, Brandon? Merriam-Webster provides several meanings for the word marriage, including 1) a union between people of the opposite sex, 2) a union between people of the same sex, and 3) a union in general (as in the sublime marriage of peanut butter and jelly in this marvelous sandwich).
The legal definition of "marriage" as being between one man and one woman is what's being debated here, obviously. Gay marriage was legally recognized in California for a few months, until Prop 8 passed. That alone should demonstrate that legal definitions change -- the suggestion that "gay marriage isn't real marriage" is apparently only true sometimes, given the current volatility of the word. You would have been 100% wrong in your assertion less than a month ago, and I suspect you'll be wrong again sometime in the near future.
Laws are defined by social acceptability, not religious beliefs. While your own belief that gay marriage should not be recognized may be concrete, I promise you that public opinion is less stable.
"...thus, while it is obvious that homosexuals are free to marry, they are only free to marry someone of a different sex."
This rings somewhat hollow, and I think you're aware of that. It smacks of smugness, of gloating. What if I told you you were free to eat whatever you wanted, as long as it was chosen from a list approved by Calista Flockhart? What if I told you you were free to drink the same water as me, as long as it came from a separate water fountain located no less than 30 feet from anything I might be forced to touch?
-Ben "Macheath" Covi
Before I start posing arguements, allow me to present my understanding of the problem:
Marriage is an institution, one of great importance to a lot of people. A goodly portion of those people see marriage as a compact between a man and a woman, and are averse to gay marriage because they feel it cheapens the value of the institution they hold dear.
The homosexual community is not satisfied with civil union alone. Marriage- as I believe we all know- has an emotional component which civil union does not. People derive a mental joy from marriage that civil union does not provide.
Mind you, I'm completely ignoring the part where the gay populace feels they are being deprived of an important right. This is a part of the debate that I would prefer to leave out.
What I would like to know, is why we cannot solve things by creating a seperate definition for marriage between two people of the same gender, using a different phrasing (like "gay marriage" or "ooga booga" or whatever people can agree on).
ooga booga can be like marriage every step of the way, save for not being limited by prequisites of gender.
What this effects is permitting homosexual people to marry- as per their request- while at the same time preserving the purity of the institution that is marriage.
Opinions, anyone?
-Illigetimi Incognita
Though not expressly stated, the First Amendment implies the separation of church and state. This notion is reinforced by a letter written in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson. Since then, it has been the de facto understanding that church and state are two separate entities. Additionally, Article Six establishes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
This is important to understand because to justify the legality of gay marriage, one must first define marriage as a state function and not a religious one. It can be argued that marriage is a state function because it has the power to modify other state functions such as social security and tax filing status.
Because marriage affects state functions then, constitutionally, it too must be a state function for it to legally do so. If not, the government is violating Article Six and is actively discriminating against unmarried citizens.
If marriage is a state function, then it is protected under various civil rights laws. Those laws say that a person cannot discriminate against another based on sex, race, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.
If marriage is a state function, then it begs the question; does the church have to recognize the legality of gay marriage. Not surprisingly, the answer to this question is no due to the same reasons that the state has to. The First Amendment establishes a two-way road for church and state;
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
It is clear that no church, when in regards to religious ceremony or conduct, must recognize legal gay marriage.
Greetings, allow me to speak, or type if you will. One thing I have noticed, if by only skimming the back and forth between Brandon and Jeff is that we fail to recognize the most simple of things. The terminology of "civil union" has always seemed condecending to me, a civil union in California equates to the same finacial obligations as marriage, or should yes? So therefore why not call it a marriage? Would it defile the most holy word of marriage to be called the same thing? It would be the same as saying you didn't attend college or university you attended "Education for Occupational and General Studies",sounds a little funky no? I have nothing against gay people, I don't know any personally but I am never one to discrimate. To continue into an arguement which has plague my mind for quite some time.
I believe it is Leviticus chapter 13 or so that states the ever known favorite of the gay bashers, "Thou shalt not lay with a man as with a woman". This is one of God's older laws, which he gave to the Jewish people; another of which is though shalt eat only Kosher foods, and when was the last time any modern Christian did that? God also said to stone adulterers which as we can see nobody but the Muslims do today. So basically, modern Christians PICK and CHOOSE laws they WANT to follow and agrees with their ideology from the OLD book. The Lord Jesus Christ told us to love one another as we would have others love us, yes instead we turn back on that and CHOOSE to follow and OLD law. Jesus accepted everyone, shouldn't you as Christians do the same?
Baron Timothy Isaac Mueller
Michigan, Prussian Decent
This is the first post on your blog I read, mostly because you linked to it from your movie page, which in turn was linked from the info box on youtube.
Having read the post and the (lengthy) comments that follow it, I'd say there are two separate things at stake. The first is the legal definition of marriage, the second is how this relates to the church and whether we should consider that aspect at all.
Considering the first aspect, I like your use of analogy: what if the state legislated that there is a God. However, I'd say that Proposition 8 is closer to the state legislating that there is no God, that you are not allowed to believe in God. I think this fits slightly better, since Prop 8 in effect says that we are not allowed to believe in gay marriage. But we don't have a law saying that you must believe in God, nor one that says you can't believe in God. Rather, we have a law that says you must be allowed to believe or disbelieve in God. It is expansive, to include as many beliefs as possible. I can believe in many gods, in no gods, in animals as gods, in people as gods. The state doesn't care, so long as it doesn't harm those around me or damage the state. Different religions care, of course. Try telling a pastor that you think there is no god or that a bunny rabbit is god, and he'll probably tell you your wrong (not in quite that way, though). I think that laws on marriage should be the same way. You believe in heterosexual marriage, someone else believes in homosexual marriage, someone else believes that marriage should be avoided because the end is near (which was also suggested by Paul at one point). The state shouldn't care, as long as it doesn't harm other people or the state. Religions can be a different story, and can have their own take on it, but the state should be broad and allow what it can. By the way, the fact that you said that no one is working for the rights of polygamists shows that you don't live in Utah. There are people who are working for just those rights, and while I'm not sure if they have them or not, it wouldn't surprise me if they did.
Now, I really can't comment as well as I'd like on Prop 8 and such, since I don't live in California. I don't even live in the States. However, I do feel that it is important to address how religion approaches homosexual marriage, and I feel it is important because, like it or not, much of the anti-homosexual sentiment in various countries is religiously fueled, and in the States this is predominately Christian.
As a Christ follower from a conservative protestant background, I've heard most of the arguments against homosexual marriage preached from the pulpit. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. In one of your comments you said that no Christian can support homosexuality, or something to that effect. I disagree. Christ talked with the Samaritan woman at the well, who was an adulteress. He ate with tax collectors. He touched lepers. He recognized that all humanity has fallen, but that those who have fallen most obviously need support the most. He himself was an outsider, marginalized. Here we have people, homosexuals, who are being marginalized by the church and by society. These are exactly the type of people Christ hung out with. How can people who claim to follow Christ do any different?
The above may make it sound as if I believe homosexuality is a sin, but we should treat it as any other sin, and love and support the sinner and help them despite this. And honestly, if that much could be accomplished, that would be wonderful. (I don't understand why people who consider gambling, drinking and homosexuality all sins are willing to allow casinos and bars to exist but get all worked up about homosexuality.) I used to believe that, but I've gone farther - I no longer believe homosexuality is a sin, as long as it doesn't lead people away from God. Paul says that some believers can eat meat that's been offered to idols (a sin, by the old testament) giving thanks to God and not sin. But other believers, because they view meat that has been offered to idols in a certain way, would sin by eating that meat. The meat is the same, it's the way it is viewed that is different. He goes on to say that the believer who can eat the meat should abstain in the presence of the one who can't, as doing so would lead the one who can't to sin by pulling them away from God. Given how many people I know who have been driven away from church and from God because of the anti-homosexual bias, I would say that it is the church that needs to change. A church that pushes people away from God is in sin.
I should mention that those who are driven away are not just homosexuals, but also those like me who feel that Christ followers should stand with the oppressed and marginalized, and who feel that the church as a whole has failed to do so.
Much of what i have to say is simple on this matter.
Civil unions aren't exactly the same as a legal marriage. Take for point a gay couple who adopted a child. In most cases when one of the parents dies, if they are gay, the other parent looses custody of the child because guess what they're gay. That's not a problem you have with straight couples. And yes that is a Proven case that has happen among gay couples who have adopted children.
Also Something that a lot of people need to remember, This country was found upon the basis of Christianity. Yet there is a "freedom of religion" clause in the constitution, why shouldn't there be "freedom to marry whom one wishes" in the constitution as well? Just because the rest of the country or rest of the world doesn't believe in it? I don't believe in Christianity or Catholicism But i don't say it's not real just because I don't view it as such. And if i remember right, the Anti Gay marriage activists have acted the exact same way as the gay marriage activists have over the issues since The whole issue began...
i do enjoy the part were i get to see oxhorn defeat all of you in debate by himself, it is very refreshing. Personally, I am very happy, and proud to see someone standing up for what truthfully is right. Oxhorn, you have won my respect in many ways. Keep up the good work.
On another note, (and i dont remember who posted this), attacking someone, saying that they are naive and no nothing about a situation because they are white, and male, and Christian is in an of itself naive. Assuming that someone with those traits' opinion does not matter is completely foolish. Has white man never had to fight for what he believes is right? not according to the origine of our own counrty, white men fighting for freedom from a terrible oppressor.has a Christian never had to fight for his rights? not according to the history of the old roman empire, were Christians were burned, thrown into the coloseum to be killed, as well as tortured in many different ways. Not only hase White man had to fight for what he believes in, but so has Christians. So please, if you have any more naive comments, keep them to yourself. Keep up the good work oxhorn.
Okay.. first thing is first. The government does recognize God. i.e. Pledge of Allegiance etc. and second... why would you compare Gay marriage to incest and beastiality? that seems so wrong on so many levels brother.
"jb", the point the other person was trying to make, which you were obviously too stupid to get, was that Oxhorn himself has never had to suffer legal oppression. Who cares if other people in the white christian history of the world have in the past. Guess what that was the past. Stick to the relevance of todays modern world please. Or maybe thats the whole problem is that christians who voted for prop 8 are still living in the past.
So someone who hasnt suffered from legal "oppression"'s opinion doesnt matter? or are you saying it doesnt carry as much weight because he hasnt been "opressed". secondly, showing that you dont care of past issues further shows your naivety (is that a word lol, if so i cant spell it right). Many things learned from the past are still relevent today, thats why we take history classes. Basically what your saying is if your not the "opressed" person, then you dont know what your talking about, which is just pure foolishness. and the fact that you say " which you were obviously too stupid to get" only serves to further prove the fact of all the gay marriage people acting like two year olds. say what you need to say, not what you want to say.
from, JB of bearanimations
Anon 1: If you think that being a white Christian male makes it impossible for me to express an intelligent or informed opinion on the fairness of certain laws, then that is an opinion of yours I'll never be able to change with an argument. That said, your belief that “having fought for some basic legal equality” is what entitles one to express ones opinion on an issue such as this, then you need to explain to me why 70% of the black vote and 53% of the Latino vote supported Proposition 8. Or is there some other reason why their opinion, like mine, doesn't matter?
And while I will never argue that anything I have experienced comes close to racial prejudice, I will note that holding firm to an unpopular belief does take some sort of familiarity with being hated for what you are. The very responses to this blog should demonstrate that being a white, male Christian who thinks that homosexuals have no right to “marry” in the same way polygamists have no right to “marry” is not very popular on the Internet.
Ben: I am not talking about the legal or dictionary definition of marriage, but rather how marriage has been understood and practiced since the time of man. And that said, even though polygamy—which I morally disapprove of and the State legally does not recognize—has been a common and even traditional form of marriage since the time of man, it is still illegal in all states, and no one is lobbying for their “rights”. Why the disparity?
Again, I am not—and haven't at all in this post—argued from a religious standpoint. Even though I do believe that homosexuality is wrong and that, therefore, homosexual marriages are wrong, I have never appealed to this belief or the Bible as justification for my argument.
Countering an argument by saying that it sounds “smug” is no argument—it is an observation. I do not mean to be smug, and I honestly take no pleasure or delight in this blog post or the sadness Proposition 8 has caused homosexuals and same-sex-marriage supporters. But what I say will sound smug to someone who approaches everything I say with the stereotype that I am a cold, heartless, Bible-thumping, ideology-pushing, illogical and arrogant Christian. And there is nothing I can do about that kind of bias. All I can say is that arguing against an position by saying that it sounds “smug” is no argument at all, and that my reasoning—that there is no marriage inequality in existence in America because all people, regardless of sexual orientation—are free to marry someone of the opposite sex—still holds firm.
As a side note, it was delightful conversing with you at Blizzcon. You brought up many issues that I am itching to address, and I hope to do so on this blog in the near future :)
Illigetimi: I like this proposal. The problem is that this is essentially the role civil unions tried to fill, and homosexual-marriage proponents have rejected it. Until they can change how marriage is understood by the world and force the world to recognize their view of marriage, the world thereby being forced to surrender their own view, gay-marriage supporters will be unhappy. Civil-unions, gay-marriage and “ooga booga” are just not enough. They want to force their philosophy upon the whole world.
Baron Timothy: “Civil-union” sounds condescending to you, for the very reasons I have explained above. If we come up with something else—say, “same-sex-union”--it will immediately become as condescending to you as “civil-union” because it is not the same as marriage. Even though marriage has never involved people of the same sex (Nero the incestuous matricidal maniac aside), gay-marriage supporters want it to be called marriage because of the emotional and societal implications the word carries. As I have said above, they want to change the nature of this particular institution and define it the way they see fit, at the expense of its current definition and how the majority of the world sees it and has seen it since the beginning of man. That is bullying.
If you want to argue about the Christian understanding of homosexuality, I will now put this discussion of homosexual-marriage aside, and not argue using law or logic as my appeal but rather the Bible, since this is a specifically Christin discussion. I'll emphasize again that I am not using my faith to argue against gay marriage, but am rather explaining why Christians believe homosexuality—like adultery—is morally wrong.
Jesus did not accept everyone. Jesus loved everyone, but he rejected the behavior of many. When the harlot was about to be stoned, he came over, loved her, and kept the men from stoning her. But then he turned to her and said, “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). He did not say, “Prostitution is not a sin”. He did not say, “Even though I do not like your lifestyle, I will accept it.” Instead he gave her an order: “Sin no more.” That is the Jesus of the Bible, and that is the Jesus we follow.
Many Christians and non-Christians alike hold the opinion that everything in the Old Testament can be completely ignored. They don't know why, they just say “But that is in the Old Testament”. This notion is inaccurate. Firstly, when Jesus died on the cross, he gave us mercy and grace, which beforehand we did not have. This means that the laws were fulfilled though him—that is, Jesus' life and death fulfilled the purposes of all the laws, meaning that we do not have to follow them. This is why Christians today can eat “unclean” foots and work on the Sabbath, if they so choose.
There are many things found in the Bible. Some of them are laws. Some of them are observations about the nature of the world. When the Bible says, “You will not sleep with a man like you sleep with a woman, for this is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22) it is making an observation that the nature of homosexuality is an abomination—it is morally wrong. Thus, though the law has been fulfilled and we no longer to put to death homosexuals—or witches, adulterers, and children who do not respect their parents—the nature of the world, that homosexuality is morally wrong, has not changed.
Lastly, the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is not limited to the Old Testament, but is also found in the New Testament. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). I would like to also point out here that just as the Old Testament calls many other immoral practices “abominations”, Paul here lists a number of other sins—including drunkenness, thievery and just being greedy—right alongside homosexuality. It is therefore equally immoral to be a homosexual as it is to be a drunk. To God, the problem is sin. He wants us to “Go, and sin no more” as Jesus said. We, of course, are imperfect and will sin many times, but because of God's grace, he will forgive us, and we won't be stoned to death. We must simply approach God with a genuine spirit of humility and repentance when we mess up.
This was, as I have already said, simply the Christian explanation of homosexuality as sin. There is clearly no scriptural validity in the notion that homosexuality is not a sin. Aside from Christianity, homosexuals are, of course, free to be gay in this nation—as they should be. They are free to be gay, to be gay openly, to live their lives without suffering discrimination and be attracted to anyone—or anything—they want to, because America is NOT a Christian nation. My argument against homosexual marriage is not based on faith, but on by belief that, in America, no one has the right to legally impose his system of belief upon anyone else--including homosexuals. I have the right, as an American, to not be forced to recognize a homosexual union as identical to heterosexual marriage. As I have said previously, Tea has always been Tea and always will be Tea. Even though it may really want to be called Coffee, Tea has no right to force the whole world to call it Coffee. It can think it is Coffee all it wants to. But it has no right to force me to call it Coffee.
Legion: I think your revision of my opening analogy is in error, for no one is telling homosexuals that they can't consider themselves “married”. If the State proposed legislation to force me to not believe in God, then that would be the same as the State forcing homosexual couples to not believe they are “married”. That is not the issue at all.
Yes, Paul recommended that we avoid marriage (and all sexuality, additionally) not because the end was near but because being married leaves you with many distractions that take away your attention from God. But he also allowed marriage and encouraged marriage for many. Jesus himself said that marriage was for most people, but to a select few, chastity was their calling. That was Paul's calling, and he recommends it. But it is not everyone's calling, and Paul knew that.
Really? I didn't realize that people were fighting for polygamy rights. Do you think that the State should legally acknowledge polygamy as marriage?
As for your discussion on Jesus and his “acceptance” of sin, I refer you to my response above. Jesus never accepted sin, but commanded us to live apart from sin.
Yes, we, as Christians, should love and support the sinner—but we should never say that their sin isn't sin. We are just as sinful as any homosexual. The man who cheats on his taxes will repent and go to his Christian peers and receive sympathy and support, but none of them will tell him that his theft wasn't a sin. Likewise, a homosexual will be loved and supported by his church, but he should never be told that homosexuality is not a sin.
Erica: If you want, as you have proposed, a “freedom to marry whom[ever] one wishes” clause in the constitution, then you must also extend this freedom to a man who wishes to marry his brother, the man who wanted to marry his 2-dimensional cartoon heroine, the people who want to marry their pets, and all the other minorities in this nation who really feel strongly that they are being prejudiced against and marginalized because they don't have the right to marry the person or thing that they love. To remain consistent, you must allow all if you intend to allow some.
Also, you don't see Proposition 8 supporters--the majority of the State of California—-protesting in the streets, blocking traffic or harassing old ladies. If I am wrong, please link to me a news article.
JB: You, alone on all the Internet, respect my opinion :P This place is so much fun. Also, one thing I am insistent upon is that we all maintain dignity and respect for each other during such discussions. I know Anon 1 started calling those who do not agree with him naive. But we don't have to follow suit.
DannyRant: I have primarily compared homosexuality to polygamy. I think the comparison works quite well. If I compare homosexuality to incest or bestiality, it is only to demonstrate that no one has the right to marry whomever or whatever they love. I, of course, do not think that homosexuality, bestiality or incest are the same, have the same effect on people or are as equally harmful or harmless. I was only comparing their similarities, which is an emotional love for someone/thing one is unable to marry.
Well, personally, I think God doesn't give us a challenge that we can't handle, so maybe this is a test. It happened for a reason, and I believe that as humans we will get through it.
so...lolomgwtgDAIRYQUEEN, lolomgbbTHEq...and so on
Brandon,
I was incorrect, I based my argument off of mainly my misinformed idea that Christians pick and chose. I did not want to say that the Old book was invalid as a Christian myself I revere both books. To conclude this post I must reitterate I concede my point, and state I was not attacking our faith but mearly making an incorrect observation, forgive my ignorance.
Baron Timothy Mueller
No sweat Baron :) It's wonderful to be able to concede a point so gracefully. It rarely happens on the Internet :P
I will actually agree with you that many Christians do pick and choose the parts of the Bible they will believe. For example, many Christians will agree that adultery is wrong, but then find no-fault divorce perfectly acceptable, despite the Bible saying that God hates divorce. I think Christianity is very clear on many issues, such as homosexuality, but Christians vary in their knowledge and understanding of the Bible, and their commitment to Christ. In such an environment, you are bound to find people who call themselves Christians and yet practice very non-Christian lifestyles.
Ok, I'm not a very religious person but I do feel that they should all be treated equally. Often thought Christians feel they're the high a mighty one, the one that is right while every other one is wrong. Marriage is defined as being between a man and woman by Christians, but is it by all religions? Many older religions allowed the marriage of homosexuals, if any one still were to practice them then isn't proposition 8 imposing on their rights?
Also, many years ago people of different religions and races weren't allowed to marry those of who weren't the same, did that make it right? Times change, people change, and our laws must change with it. Unions are not the same as marriages, there are still things that aren't given to those in unions that are given to those in marriage. It's time we let all people be equal and as long as they are old enough to make the choice and who they want t be with and, as long a they aren't too young, just lets them feel the wonder of being married! Why must people be selfish and not let other people be happy when it doesn't hurt you at all. If two females or two males get married will you really be that really hurt you?
Well allow me to weigh in an opinion a moment folks.
First and foremost I want to say that Brandon's Blog on this is very well written, as articulate and accurate as anything I would expect from him. He is head and shoulders above many in the community that has grown around Machinima, Art using Video Games, and the Games themselves in standing up for his own beliefs and not being afraid to state them.
Now that said let me make a few points.
1) Homosexuals are currently offered a "seperate but equal" marriage opportunity in civil union. This is by and large not fair nor is it strictly speaking legal based on anti-discrimination precedents set on other topics.
2) Marriage is not a legal term, it is a religious belief that was given legal weight due to a religious group pushing for it to be legally supported. In this manner it is no more fair or legal for a man and woman to marry than it is for a person and a person or a person and an object or animal to marry based purely on our seperation of church and state that we defend but is not strictly speaking written either in the constitution or the bill of rights. Supporters of the current Marriage laws are forcing their beliefs on others.
3) Neither side has been willing to admit that the other side has a point that the current laws are unfair, religiously biased, or that the term Marriage is sacred beyond it's weight in law. Both sides are as unwilling to compromise as the other and are willing to point out bigotry, hatred and immaturity among the other side.
4) The obvious truth is different to each person. My own personal view is that the current marriage laws should be stricken from the books, and a legally binding civil union created that can include a union along many lines but does not carry the term marriage or imply any religious weight. This would allow those who believe in Marriage as a religious union to "protect it's sanctity" while allowing the "legal" ramifications of marriage to apply to those the religious restrictions may prohibit.
To cry bigotry or hatred or lack of understanding on what Brandon posted is just as incorrect as it is of him not to recognize the need for a fair law that applies to everyone equally. Brandon, while I see several of your points I feel obligated to point out that while you define marriage along it's religious and legal definitions you as well fail to recognize the unfair aspects of this being a specialized term that gets preferential treatment. Hand-Fasting does not have a legal state such as Marriage but it does carry the same union nature as well as religious overtones but those choosing to be hand-fasted much choose either to partake in a "civil union" or to partake in a "marriage" by law which is counter to their personal beliefs.
Just my two cents.
Brandon and Hat, sitting in a tree. Doing things they shouldn't be!!!
I think the problem here is that civil unions would be an alright alternative to a marriage that homosexuals would accept if it had the same benefits. Homosexuals who love each other that are being denied marriage are being denied benefits that other couples get. This is discrimination, which is why it strikes such a deep nerve.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with gay marriage. Why not consider it a different kind of marriage? Saying that allowing them to marry would be accepting their beliefs just seems like nonsense to me. Homosexuality exists. I think people should accept that their beliefs exist. People don't have to agree, but homosexuals should be given the same benefits as I said above, otherwise it is discrimination, and therefore not equal treatment.
Also, it seems to me that marriage is not always sacred anymore. I'm sure it started that way, but times change. Not every heterosexual couple who gets married is religious or even has a religious wedding.
Anon 1: Yes, you feel all people should be treated equally, but you haven't addressed my argument that, as far as marriage is concerned, every American is already treated equally.
Yes, you've often thought that Christians are arrogant. That is the bias you are bringing with you into this discussion.
Yes, Christians define marriage as being between a man and a woman, but so do many (I would argue most) other religions. And yes, some people in those other religions accept homosexual marriage, but so do some Christians.
And Anon 1, I'll say again that I have never formed my argument by appealing to religion. By focusing on Christians you are actually not addressing the argument.
David: Thanks a bunch! Let me respond to your bullets:
1) Why is it not fair and why is it not legal? Explain your argument.
2) Marriage is indeed a religious term, but it is just as much a non-religious term—-after all, non-religious people have been getting married for just as long as religious people. Thus, you do not have to be a religious person or to use religion to justify opposing homosexual marriages recognized by the State. As I have already argued, to force religious and non-religious people alike to legally recognize homosexual marriages as exactly the same thing as heterosexual marriages bullies the majority to see the world as the minority sees it, and to change the way marriage has been understood and practiced by the majority of the world (Nero aside) since the beginning of man.
3) Both sides are indeed biased, as you say, because both sides have human supporters—-all humans are biased.
4) While the “obvious” truth is different to each person, the real truth—-that is, the reality that exists whether or not there are men on this earth to believe in it—-remains constant and unchanged. All people simply try their best to understand this unchanging truth, which results in many different opinions. Truth is not relative. People's understanding of truth is relative.
To address your conclusion, I have already argued that I believe, legally and NOT religiously speaking, that there is a fair law (for no one, including heterosexuals, has the right to marry whomever he or she loves), and that there is marriage equality. Instead of telling me that I am not recognizing marriage fairness or equality, tell me why my argument that there IS no inequality is illogical or wrong. And as I have already stated, my argument about marriage has never been from a religious standpoint, but only, ever, the legal and social standpoint (the later which you have ignored).
Maizcul: lol. Wouldn't that be bestiality? :P
Anon 2: No, even if civil unions had all the same legal benefits as marriage, homosexuals would not accept it because, as I have previously argued, it is not “the same as” marriage. They do not only want legal benefits for themselves, but they want to force the world to see homosexual unions as identical to heterosexual marriage—-they want the world's approval and recognition.
What nosy, spoiled children we are in this country.
Whiny bigot busybodies like Oxhorn use our government to deny equality to those whose private sexual practices they don't like instead of simply minding their own damn business.
This crap will go on and on until we straight people stand up and tell the nosy bigots to STFU and leave gays alone.
Hey Don. Wrote my closing paragraph for you buddy ;)
Feel the love son, feel the love.
Ah, yes, exactly Oxhorn (this in regards to your post, not to any follow-up comments which I have not read and don't intend to read). Well done.
Brandon, to be honest with you
Your "argurment" from start has been consist of:
1 It's wrong because it has been wrong since long time ago
"I am not talking about the legal or dictionary definition of marriage, but rather how marriage has been understood and practiced since the time of man."
2.It's wrong because there are more people against it than people supporting it.
"As I have said above, they want to change the nature of this particular institution and define it the way they see fit, at the expense of its current definition and how the majority of the world sees it and has seen it since the beginning of man"
and
3.We already have equlity to do what I, as hetersexual, like to do
"Heterosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, and homosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no inequality here. "
You haven't had one valid argurment yet and you're insincere in this debate. You try to paint your view as "how the majority of the world sees it and has seen it since the beginning of man" and yourself the spokesman for social justice. But that is not your motive, is it? You debate to defend and advocate your religous view. You get "marriage is and always has been—a union between a man and a woman." neither from "majority of the world" or "Brandon, to be honest with you
Your "argurment" from start has been consist of:
1 It's wrong because it has been wrong since long time ago
"I am not talking about the legal or dictionary definition of marriage, but rather how marriage has been understood and practiced since the time of man."
2.It's wrong because there are more people against it than people supporting it.
"As I have said above, they want to change the nature of this particular institution and define it the way they see fit, at the expense of its current definition and how the majority of the world sees it and has seen it since the beginning of man"
and
3.We already have equlity to do what I, as hetersexual, like to do
"Heterosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, and homosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no inequality here. "
You haven't had one valid argurment yet and you're insincere in this debate. You try to paint your view as "how the majority of the world sees it and has seen it since the beginning of man" and yourself the spokesman for social justice. But that is not your motive, is it? You debate to defend and advocate your religous view. You get "marriage is and always has been—a union between a man and a woman." neither from "majority of the world" or "Brandon, to be honest with you
Your "argurment" from start has been consist of:
1 It's wrong because it has been wrong since long time ago
"I am not talking about the legal or dictionary definition of marriage, but rather how marriage has been understood and practiced since the time of man."
2.It's wrong because there are more people against it than people supporting it.
"As I have said above, they want to change the nature of this particular institution and define it the way they see fit, at the expense of its current definition and how the majority of the world sees it and has seen it since the beginning of man"
and
3.We already have equlity to do what I, as hetersexual, like to do
"Heterosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, and homosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no inequality here. "
You haven't had one valid argurment yet and you're insincere in this debate. You try to paint your view as "how the majority of the world sees it and has seen it since the beginning of man" and yourself the spokesman for social justice. But that is not your motive, is it? You debate to defend and advocate your religous view. You get "marriage is and always has been—a union between a man and a woman." neither from "majority of the world" nor "legal and logical grounds". you get it from bible.
So why the pretensions? I'd have more admiration for you if you can truly stand by your beliefs and simply say "I am against Gay marriage because God condamns it".
I like your ealier posts when you're that Oxhorn who hate elfs and only stand for himself. Now you have "majority of the world", moral and rightousness behind your every sentence I don't know if I can handle disagreeing with you anymore.
so, "Brandon M. Dennis believes marrige is a union between a man and a woman. It cannot be altered by what rest of world thinks of marrige and how the term marrige is used as in legislation except
when he vote legislatively under the provision of US constitution.",
wouldn't that be better?
Or must everybody hate elfs?
The common argument against gay marriage is such:
a) civil unions are equal to marriages
b) we cannot force people to change their definition of marriage.
You also argued that if we declared there was a god atheists would be angry, I believe implying denying the existence of a god is wrong.
I am going to assume civil unions are equal to gay marriages. (I think it is harder to lie about that than to lie and say they are unequal- but I haven't done my research.)
First off, is religion tied into state and country? My answer: yes. The purpose of laws is to define what is right and wrong. If it is wrong make it illegal. It is essentially that simple. Religion defines what is right and wrong, so it is inevitable tied in. One religion should not be tied in however, because inevitably religions will disagree on certain topics. Killing: wrong. Gay marriage: disagreement. I personally don't have any problems with government using the word god here and there, I think saying we are religious isn't specific: how so? what religion? (About endorsing god: don't go either way. We can't pressure opinions. That would not force opinion - it would pressure it).
Thus it comes to this question: is homosexuality wrong? I say no. Do you think that kind gay couple you are friends with are sinning because they truly love each other? I think not.
But does that mean we have to give them the same marriage? After all, civil unions are equal. Well, let's look back about 20-40 years. Inter-racial marriage was illegal. I think we can both agree that was wrong. If we made inter-racial unions, would that be right? We are giving inter-racial unions the same things as one-race marriages, right? I think we can go back and say that is not true, we were giving them a different definition, and saying white-black or whatbeit marriages deserve to be seen differently, and have a different and separate definition, even if the definitions are the same. Stop me if you can truthfully say having one-race marriages and inter-racial unions would be morally right.
Moving on in time, when we changed inter-racial marriage to be included in marriage's definition, people were upset for the same reason you are: their life-long definition of marriage has been changed. Wait, wasn't it morally right to make inter-racial marriage legal? Why should they have been upset? It makes perfect sense to have inter-racial marriages today.
We are in the same situation today, replacing a few key words. I can truthfully say that 20-40 years from now our children will look back and say: "Having civil unions separate from gay marriage? That makes no sense." Maybe they will even be considering changing marriage for the better during that time.
History repeats itself. It really does. Don't you think we should learn from our mistakes.
Now I am a religious man: albeit I am not tied to one religion. I can confidently say that how we are defining marriage is wrong. Can you?
And maybe you can't say its exactly wrong: it just shouldn't be that way. Then why are we making it illegal as if it was wrong? I don't think making everything we stubbornly disagree with illegal should be the way to go.
Read over this a few times. Think about it.
PS- I find it a bit distasteful how you used the angry gay man, or the angry atheist to prove your point. If gay marriage passed, would it be right to use the angry black man stereotype to prove our point that gay marriage is right? I hope not; I wouldn't.
Ahadi: You are generalizing my argument. I have never said that it is “wrong” because it has always been wrong. I have only ever said that homosexuality—and by extension, homosexual marriages--is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong. My argument about marriage is about what marriage is. It always has been a union between a man and a woman. It never has involved homosexuality. Therefore, a homosexual union is something other than marriage—just like coffee is something other than tea.
Ahadi, you do an injustice to this conversation by seeing my argument only in light of my faith. Of course, this is really the only thing you can do. I've made an argument that not once appeals to religion. The only way to dismiss my argument is to paint it a religious one. This is expected, but it is also dodging the issue.
I have said on many occasions, within and without this thread, that I think homosexuality is wrong solely because the Bible says it is wrong. I've been quite upfront about that. The point of this post is to demonstrate that you do not have to be a religious person to have an exception to homosexual marriage. There actually is a legitimate and non-religious argument that many people make against legalized homosexual marriage, that is completely divorced from Christianity or any other faith. Yes, I am a Christian, and I have not been shy about that. But as I have repeatedly said, my argument on homosexual marriages appeals to the law and reason, not faith. And this is the very thing you cant stand. You would like to be able to say that those who oppose homosexual marriage are just a bunch of religious prudes who hold a narrow view of sexuality and are trying to force it on the world. This pattern of thinking is the offspring of religious prejudice. The reality, as I have demonstrated in this thread, is that the minority is trying to force it's views of marriage on the majority by legally changing what marriage is and always has been. This is bullying.
It would be no more right for me to legislate the recognition of a Divine God than for homosexual-marriage supporters to legislate the recognition of same-sex marriages.
I'm that Oxhorn who has fun making movies and singing songs about kodos and pecan pies and hating elves. I am also the Brandon who has beliefs, fingers and a keyboard. Movies come out of this keyboard and appear online. So do blog posts about homosexual marriage. You don't have to like both, or even any of them. I've never apologized for my movies, which offend some, and I've never apologized for my blog posts, which offend many. I'm perfectly fine with you reading my opinions and then hating me and boycotting my movies, which is the extent some people who email me have threatened to go to. I will point out, however, that, coming from the “tolerant” Left, it seems a tad out of character.
Or maybe it is simply the fruit of that character.
Daggerwater: You think homosexuality isn't wrong. That's fine. This thread has never been about whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. As a Christian, I must say that homosexuality is wrong, because our Bible says it is wrong, but I understand that many other faiths and non-faiths have a different opinion on this issue, and that is cool. I do not think the State should declare that homosexuality wrong or that it is a “sin”, because we are not a Christian nation—we are a secular nation.
As I have already argued, inter-racial marriages cannot compare to same-sex marriages because the two are fundamentally different. A black man and a white woman are still a man and a woman. Men and women get married. Men and men do not get married, and have never gotten married. If they have a union, they have something that is other than marriage, which is defined by its combining of “maleness” and “femaleness”.
Marriage has never been defined as “white and white or black and black”. Ever. Long before American racism, blacks and whites have married. Long before there were specifically racially-selected slaves, there were slaves due to birth, social status, wealth, crime, theft and war—of all different races. And all of these people intermarried. Inter-racial marriages were taboo in America during a specific period of time. But throughout human history, men and women of all different ethnic backgrounds have historically gotten married, because regardless of race, they still unified a “maleness” with a “femaleness”--the unique hallmark of marriage. Anything other than this is not marriage—it is something else.
If you are upset at my analogies, then perhaps you should look into yourself, for my analogies are only reversals of those already used against Christians and whites. Can you tell me that you have never heard of the angry, white Christian bigot who throws a tantrum before? Additionally, my examples of angry same-sex marriage protesters were just reference to news articles. Articles which reported on angry same-sex marriage protesters.
I remember a similar argument involving interracial marriage. Didn't turn out well. As a straight person who supports gay marriage, I feel that it doesn't infringe on any feelings about which marriages are real and which aren't. If you aren't happy because two gay guys in SF get married, then yes, you do need to let them live their lives while you live yours. It's fine to choose not to recognize their union, but the gov't at least should.
TTB: I actually don't remember any argument against interracial marriage that is at all similar to mine. In fact, I've made it clear throughout this thread how uniquely different the two arguments are. Instead of trying to turn gay marriage into a civil rights issue by making it akin to racial prejudice--which 75% of black Californians reject--show me an example of how my argument is similar to a racial one.
Oxhorn:
You mentioned injustice and I treating your argument not by its face values. That's only true. It is neither in my nature to be perfectly just nor perfectly reasonable.
I don't want to convince you of any defination of marriage. To me, it's just irrelevant. Law isn't only there to do justice, law is also there to protect the weak and the minority, because it is a human law, and we (at least try to) live in a humane world.
If someone tell you that homosexual marriage is marriage same as yours while holding the book of law, that, to me, is very sad. but what to say if someone holding the same book goes to a wedding of two lovers of the same sex and tell to their faces "this is not a marriage." ?
Between your intellectual freedom and someone's basic human right, a good law should choose to protect the latter.
There is an illusion that when discussing public affaires, only those attitudes of rationality and logic preveils, but when an argument been reduced to only resorting to those, it had been drained of its purpose.
I believe that man can have love, compassion and humility without their lord's command. When a state is said to be unreligous, it doesn't mean that state is also heartless, that it only exists poltics and rationality among its citizens. It serves the decency of a socity to protect its few at cost of its many. It's not bullying, but justice presented in a humane light.
I am not sure if we can ever see this in the same light. You misunderstood my last comment but that was my fault. For the record, I never wished for you to apologize for anything or taking anything back, just to take more angles than one, perhaps.
Ahadi: Thanks again for the responses.
You're couching your argument in "feel good" reasoning, which has no foundation but what the speaker "feels" is right. You ignore a logical argument, and you ignore intellectual reasoning, preferring to cater to the emotions and feelings of those involved.
The first problem with this is that there are more emotions and feelings involved in this debate than just those who want to have a homosexual marriage. There are those of the straight gay-marriage supporters, and those of the straight gay-marriage opponents. Catering to one necessitates that the other is hurt and disappointed. You reject "cold, hard reasoning" because it is so insensitive, and yet in so doing you become insensitive to the many other people that are just as emotional about their opposition to homosexual marriage. I see a disparity.
Second, and most importantly, it is never a strong argument, or wise practice, to formulate an opinion based on emotion. Yes, we should love. But love is hard, and love is painful. Love is not, "Oh, let's do whatever makes you happy!" When a parent adopts that attitude towards a child, he spoils that child, and that is not love. It actually ruins the child's character, makes him form a habit of considering himself the center of attention, and makes life harder for him when he becomes an adult and realizes that the world does not revolve around him, his emotions or his pet movement. Love would be to instill discipline and selflessness, not spoil him for the sake of his feelings.
Additionally, emotions and feelings are subject to so many variables--including weather, cultural upbringing, personal bias and indigestion--that they are completely unsuitable as a foundation for an opinion because they cannot divine truth. Only a somewhat detached rational can get closer to divining truth. And if you are saying that, while my argument against homosexual marriage is most rational, it should be rejected because it makes some people sad, then I'll say that some people being "sad" is no excuse to abandon any argument, because every opinion makes some other person sad. Should we just stop teaching evolution in the classrooms because millions of parents who cannot afford to send their children to private school are saddened when their children come home talking about half-frog-half-Guinea-pigs evolving from a wad of belly-button lint into a yak? Of course not.
If we value truth, then we must place truth above other people's feelings. Truth ALWAYS hurts and disappoints others. It NEVER brings people together.
You're more than welcome.
To anwser your first argument. I didn't say anything like "their feeling are hurt, let's bend law to suit them." I made a comparasion between two losses and drew the conclusion that law should take action against the worse.
We both applied logic and logic have to be used with premises. When you use the "definition of marriage" to justify a law, you are making the premise that law should be catering to a dictionary. I, thus, made the statement that law are there to protect people, not definitions.
I do not use logic as my appeal, but they are in my argument. Permitting a minor evil in prevention of a major one is logical, assuming we are trying to do goods. Measuring a society's worth by looking at its minorities is also logical, assuming tolerance and compassion are virtues.
Logically, broadening the extent of a concept would not alter the status of its original extent. So admitting the union of two adults of the same sex into extent of marriage does nothing to marriage's extent on union of two adults of the opposite sex. As to the essence of the word, it had never involved requirements of number, sex or even whether human, like demostrated earlier in this debate. Your fallancy is defining a word by democracy then turn around to legislate a law to reflect "truth". You employed double standards reducing "truth" to "what majority thinks".
Legal terms had never been loyal representations of our daily language. What you have suggested would only open a method to madness. What if the most of americans consider "senior" to be "people at or over 75", so do they take away social welfare of those between 65 and 75? What if the majority thinks "press" is "news paper", then internet blogs should be heavily censored since it would not be applied "freedom of the press".
On your sencond point, You're trying to make a absolute distinction between feelings and facts or rationality and emotionality. Such thing never existed. Feeling are not senseless nor logic feelingless. Emotions gives good pointer to reality and vice versa. "Treat people as you would wish to be treated youself". That's a wisdom involving both good sense and good sensiblity. To Include how people feels into your consideration is never unwise, quite the opposite. The law takes feelings into consideration. That is why lebel is a crime under the law.
I imagined an experiment to show you what a small limiation to you is a big freedom to others. Unfortunately, the only way for you to understand this is to put yourself at their place. It's futile trying to get absolute conviction over internet since everyone had slightly different values. logic is no more reliable since the basic facts would still have to be taken and understood by man. It is because this very reason our society has conflicts and debates and it has to be guided with tolerace. Thus, my ground to support admitting new meaning into word marriage is the promotion of tolerance with the key word being admit. All your arguments would suit best if someone is trying to change legal marriage into "an union of two adults of the same sex". If that happens, I would take the exact same stand as yours.
You will never see this, but I will write it nonetheless.
Civil unions are not the same as marriage. They do not carry the same legal weight. They do not bestow the same privileges. As soon as a civil union is equivalent in all ways but name to a marriage, I will accept it.
How are civil unions different? They do not, for example, entitle the members to file their federal taxes together. They do not allow the surviving member of a pair to collect the deceased's SSI, pension, or other types of benefits. Those are just the coarse monetary differences. There are also the practical ones, too. Civil unions do not carry the full faith and credit clause that marriages do. A civil union in Minnesota may or may not be recognized in Florida. Can you imagine the status of your relationship changing by merely setting foot in another state?
In Virginia, it is illegal to make a contract between two same-sex people that counterfeits any aspect of marriage. That means if I have a Power of Attorney agreement with my same-sex spouse, it is not honored in VA. If my same-sex spouse is in a hospital and a decision needs to be made regarding her life support or care, I would not be able to do it. I could argue left and right, bring in the signed attorney's agreement, and beg. It wouldn't matter.
I leave you with this image, therefore: imagine a woman, dying, desperate, afraid and alone because the hospital won't let her beloved in to be with her.
A woman who has a power of attorney agreement, A LEGAL DOCUMENT, is denied the right to see her dying partner for 8 hours. She's only allowed in when the priest gives the woman last rites.
How very Christian.
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/story/892447.html
Yep, I saw that, and I don't agree with the decision.
I agree with you 150% Brandon, marriage is defined and has always been defined as a contract recognized by God between two consenting unmarried adults of different races.
But I don't understand your reservation to uphold the whole definition of marriage. Your argument as it is now works just fine; people of differing races have the same rights as everyone else: anyone can marry someone of different gender and of the same race. While it is obvious that people of different races are free to marry, they are only free to marry someone of a different race (and sex).
Why do you hesitate to embrace the full argument?
Sincerely,
Mark Smith
I guess I don't understand what your saying. I believe that any race can marry any race--race has nothing to do with marriage.
"While it is obvious that people of different races are free to marry, they are only free to marry someone of THE SAME race (and differing sex)."
^ a typographical error in my previous post.
I don't understand why you hold that position, race is just as important to marriage as sex is, for the same reasons, justified by the same logic.
From a previous post:
Proposition 1: Equal marriage rights is having the ability to do the same thing in regards to marriage.
Proposition 2: all people have the ability to marry someone of the opposite gender AND same race.
No rights are being denied to the "blacks". Why do we continue to grant legitimacy to cross-race marriages?
Mark Smith
I actually don't see how race is just as important to marriage as sex is.
No one in America is not free to marry someone of another race. Men and women of varying races have married each other since time began. Take Esther, for example.
I think you misunderstand my argument. All men and all women in America are free to marry someone of the opposite gender AND are free to marry someone of ANY race. To call same-sex unions "marriage" is to fundamentally change what marriage is and has always been--it is to create something new--in the same way that to deny differing races the freedom to marry is to change what marriage is and always has been.
Banning racial marriages is actually more akin to calling homosexual unions "marriage".
Brandon
It's interesting, Mr. Smith here seems to be the most effective example of why your "they have equal rights" argument is flawed.
Your disagreement with Mr. Smith is nothing more than an appeal to tradition "I think the past has used this 'definition' of marriage and not mine, and I don't think the 'definition' should change", but unfortunately "it's tradition" or "that's how it's always been" is NOT a valid argument.
borrofburi
That's actually not the entirety of my argument. While tradition is one way to argue the case, I have striven not to lean on it. My argument instead embraces the logic of the issue, and I will relay it again for you:
1) Law states that A may marry B.
2) One A really wants to marry another A. But that is not what the law states, therefore, A may only marry B.
It doesn't matter whether A is gay or not gay. The non-gay A is just as restricted from marrying another A as the gay A. This demonstrates that there is no inequality. Legally speaking, no man or woman in America has any marriage right that another man or woman doesn't have.
As I have stressed previously, many times, this then becomes, not an argument of prejudice, inequality or bigotry, but rather one of a new social invention. Marriage has never been A + A or B + B--it has always been A + B. This simply goes to demonstrate that if some people want A + A they must invent something new, OR destroy the tradition of A + B in order to change it and make it more appealing for them.
As we have seen, this isn't an issue concerning "fairness", for no person, straight or gay, is free to marry the person he or she loves. Love is not the sole qualification for marriage. The reason Mr. Smith is off-balance is because A + B--regardless of race--is still A + B, and therefore fits within the definition of marriage. As I told him, to change marriage in order to ban it from certain racial groups is more akin to changing marriage to incorporate homosexual unions. One changes the law and tradition because of ones own racial bigotry or philosophy on race relations, and the other changes law because of ones own vested interest and conjured impression of repression--not because of any inherent inequality.
Wow, I apologize for this being so very long, I try very hard to keep things small, but I clearly failed this time. As such I tried to break it up into a few discrete sections. The first deals with your appeals to tradition (namely quotes them); two and three address your "not discriminatory" argument; and 4 is a summary.
"1) Law states that A may marry B."
^ this is completely irrelevant, current law has no bearing on whether something is ethical or not.
"[an argument] of a new social invention. Marriage has never been..."
^ this is that same appeal to tradition, and is not an acceptible argument.
"One changes the law and tradition..."
^ again here you seem to indicate that changing law and tradition is inherently wrong.
The rest of your argument is "it's an ok definition of marriage though, it's not unfair, because the restrictions imposed are imposed on all parties!"
First, this isn't actually an argument for using your definition of marriage (you appeal to tradition for that), but rather an argument for why yours should not be completely "thrown off the table" as unjust (i.e. it's an attempted defensive statement indicating why yours *could* be *a* definition of marriage, *not* a statement about why yours *should* be *the* definition of marriage).
But second, it even fails as a defensive statement. For instance a law passed saying you couldn't wear a yamaka would be struck down, even though it applies to person A who doesn't wear yamacha's and person B who does, and despite your argument that "the restrictions are imposed on all parties". Or even more generally, a law saying you weren't allowed to wear ceremonial daggers would also be struck down because despite "the restrcitions [being] imposed on all parties", it would apply most heavily to sikhs.
"therefore fits within the definition of marriage."
^ I think Mr. Smith brings up a more valid point than you give him credit for, which is that your logic works for *his* bigoted definition of marriage. Your refutation of him has always been essentially "you're wrong about the definition of marriage", which also isn't an argument, and requires that you rely on tradition for the "proper" definition of marriage.
You have tried to say that it's somehow discriminatory while yours is not, however the exact same logic you use (with merely replacing variable names) holds for race: law states that A may marry A, one A really wants to marry a B, but that is not the law. It doesn't matter whether or not A likes blacks or A is a racist, the racist A is just as restricted from marrying a black person as the black-lover A is. How exactly, other than variable names and initial assumption of marriage definition, is your logic *any* different from Mr. Smith's?
So essentially your argument is that your definition of marriage can be an acceptable definition of marriage and that it should be *the* definition of marriage:
1) my definition of marriage *could* be an acceptable definition because I claim it's not discriminatory because restrictions apply to all parties [which does not actually mean it's not discriminatory as addressed above twice]
2) my definition of marriage *should* be *the* definition of marriage because of tradition and current laws [which is an appeal to tradition and is not a valid argument]
P.S.
Or am I misunderstanding you? I am merely trying to boil down the rhetoric into simple discrete logical points, and these are the only two I have found.
I am always willing to concede that it is my own incompetence that is missing something important under the condition that my superior counterpart explains clearly what precisely I understand incorrectly (and having discussed many things with many varied PHDs and other experts, not one of them has ever failed to be capable of doing just that, such that I do not think this an unfair condition).
The issue is whether or not barring same-sex marriages is inequality or not. If we want to talk about ethics or morality, that is a different discussion. By appealing to the law I am demonstrating that the law is the same for both heterosexuals and homosexuals—therefore, there is no marriage inequality. Proponents cannot logically shout “unfair!” about this issue.
I'm having a really hard time understanding your response, so my apologies if I misunderstand your argument. Please use standard paragraph format next time.
Tradition defines what something is. Traditionally, scrambling up a liquid egg before or while heating it produces what we call “scrambled eggs”. When we talk about scrambled eggs, it is this concept of how eggs are prepared that we always have in mind. It is the tradition of preparing scrambled eggs that gives the phrase any meaning whatsoever. Without a shared understanding of scrambled eggs, the term “scrambled eggs” is meaningless.
Similarly, tradition defines what marriage is and has always been. I cannot argue about the morality of same-sex unions by appealing to tradition. But I can argue concerning what marriage is by appealing to tradition. If someone gave me a hard-boiled egg and said, “this is a scrambled egg”, I could confidently tell him that he is wrong—solely by appealing to the traditional preparation of how scrambled eggs are prepared. Likewise, marriage IS the union of a man and a woman and nothing else—solely because this is how marriage has been practiced since the beginning of man.
If a man wants to cook an egg in a manner unlike that of scrambled eggs, he must call it something other than scrambled eggs. This gives us a great diversity in the preparation of eggs. But if he insists that a hard-boiled-egg and eggs-over-easy are exactly the same as scrambled eggs, the distinction between egg preparation is lost, and for no good reason but to appease a little egg tyrant.
If homosexuals want some sort of union, fine. But their union is not a heterosexual union. Their union is something else. Yes, their union is egg, but it is not the same egg as a heterosexual union. And this is where the whole controversy finds its root. They can't stand that their union is not the same as a heterosexual union. There is nothing they can do about that. They are born into physical bodies that they cannot change. Hacking off bits and sewing on other bits does not change them. They also can't help who they love. The only thing they can do is change how other men think of marriage unions, and because of their own insecurity, this is what they are doing. They are being little egg tyrants.
Instead of demanding that the world call their union “marriage”, they should instead embrace the unique union they have.
None of this argument has dealt with the ethics of homosexual marriages, and this is where you are confused. I have always striven solely to demonstrate logically that there is no marriage inequality. But, since you want to, I will briefly cover the ethics of same sex unions.
I am a Christian and I believe the Bible. The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. I must believe the Bible. Therefore, I believe that homosexuality is an abomination. Likewise, homosexual unions must be an abomination. Morally, therefore, homosexuality is wrong, and homosexual unions are wrong.
Obviously, not everyone in this world is a Christian. Therefore, for me to argue that homosexuality or homosexual unions are ethically wrong, and have people agree, I must appeal to something else besides Christianity.
I have heard that studies have shown that children raised in same-sex unions grow up maladapted to life. Is this true? I do not know. Advocates from both sides look for the statistics and research that proves their own point. The issue is so polarizing at this point that I don't think we can ever get proper research on the issue.
Do I know that a child raised without a father misses that father? Yeah, I do know that. I can't appeal to statistics or research, but to own personal experience. From those experiences, I know that a child needs guidance from a father that he cant find in his mother. Likewise, a child needs a mother, because he can't find motherly love in a father. Does this mean that all children raised without a mother and a father are automatically doomed to failure? Of course not. But I do believe that they are all raised missing something.
Is this missed “something” worth barring same-sex unions from adopting children? I don't know. That is not up to me to decide.
Homosexuals can live within a union without ever adopting children. So deciding upon the morality of same-sex unions based on what it does to children is a bad argument. If we don't appeal to the Bible to define morality, then we must arbitrarily deem some things “bad” and some things “good”. Psychologists will look at unions and observe how certain personalities and attitudes affect that union. Some will say that male-male relationships and female-female relationships are never as healthy as male-female relationships. I am not a psychologist. I have no statistics and have read no research. I can't say for sure.
The argument over the morality of same-sex unions is one that will never be solved outside of appealing to one authority, because it involves so many different people with different belief systems, producing different biases. I, therefore, choose to appeal to the Bible as authority over everything, including same-sex unions, and including people who don't believe the Bible. So, yes, homosexual-unions are ethically wrong. I will never argue this issue with someone, for it is like spitting in the wind. I can, however, argue other issues, such as the logic behind marriage “equality”, which is what I have striven to do with this blog post.
It would please me greatly if people stayed on topic. :)
"They can't stand that their union is not the same as a heterosexual union."
I disagree here, I think it's about rights. This mormon fellow said it rather well (I am not religious, and finding this article was mere happenstance, but it's nice to have someone religious say it):
http://www.nine-moons.com/2008/07/13/looking-toward-egypt-why-government-endorsement-cannot-save-marriage/
"I have always striven solely to demonstrate logically that there is no marriage inequality."
And all I've done is to say your argument is illogical, more on that later.
"Bible"
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/2346/oxhorn.jpg
"From those experiences"
Please don't waste the time it takes to type the emotional appeal from anecdotal evidence. I could play the same emotional game and talk about how I find it offensive that you think that I am "missing something", but I'm not going to.
"If we don't appeal to the Bible to define morality, then we must arbitrarily..."
This is a common "strawman". I can easily derive from rational ethics why murder and theft are bad, this is not arbitrary, it is rational and logical. I can even point to the evolutionary process of "creating" morals, probably best summarized by Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" documentary.
Now that we've gotten through that:
"I have always striven solely to demonstrate logically that there is no marriage inequality."
I have already rather thoroughly addressed this, and you have effectively ignored it, so I present it here again edited in an attempt to create greater clarity (perhaps I didn't phrase it well enough the first time):
Your argument seems to be: "marriage defined as between man and women, is not unfair, because the restrictions imposed (man and woman) are imposed on all parties"
This is an argument for why a marriage definition of "one man one woman" should not be discarded as unjust (i.e. it's an attempted defensive statement indicating why "one man one woman" *could* be *a* definition of marriage, *not* a statement about why "one man one woman" *should* be *the* definition of marriage).
Unfortunately it fails even as a defensive statement, because the argument "it's only unfair if the restriction only applies to one party, but both heterosexuals and homosexuals have to abide by these restrictions, so it's fair", THAT argument is WRONG.
To see why, let's look at some examples: for instance a law saying you couldn't wear a yamacha would be unfair, even though person A who doesn't wear yamachas and person B who does wear yamachas both have to abide by the restrictions, they really only apply to yamacha wearing B. A law saying you weren't allowed to wear ceremonial daggers would also be unfair because despite "the restrcitions [being] imposed on all parties", it would really only apply to sikhs. A law passed saying "marriage is two whites or two blacks, NOT one white one black" would also be unfair, because despite a couple of white bigots being "just as restricted" as a mixed couple, the restrictions really only apply to a mixed couple.
In exactly the same way, a law saying same-sex couples can't marry is unfair because despite both heterosexuals [white bigots] and homosexuals [mixed couples] being unable to marry people of the same sex [opposite race], the restrictions really only apply to same-sex couples [mixed couples]. (note: brackets added to make analogy even clearer)
Post a Comment