Marriage is a moral issue and a personal issue. When you put such an issue on the ballot you are asking for their personnal opinion, and in this case you are not asking for what is best, for what is fair. You are asking if they believe it is right or wrong. So when a majority says this wrong via a ballot, you must accept the outcome. Gays have the same right to marriage as anyone else, to marry someone of the opposite sex. Not to marry someone of the same sex, a mailbox, a buffalo, a blow up doll, a child, multiple people, or any thing else you can imagine. If we eliminate any constraint, shouldn't we out of fairness and compassion allow marriage to anyone, dead, alive, old, young, in a coma. Some people believe their pets are more human and deserving of more rights than their neighbor. Perhaps the lady that puts her cat above people and would poison a child to benefit her cat, should be allowed to marry the cat. My point is, when you start chipping away at institutions, becareful where the pieces fall and that you don't destroy it beauty. Would the Mona Lisa be as revered with one more stroke of color?
I don't think there is anything ugly about two consenting adults agreeing to enter into a marriage contract, and I don't think our particular religious biases should come between said couple.
Marriage (between consenting adults) is good for families, good for the children they will birth or adopt, and good for the economy and the stability of our nation.
I disagree with majority rule when it comes to matters of personal liberty: I think our best bet is to allow the government to acknowledge gay marriage, and to allow any church that finds the idea objectionable the opportunity to opt out of sanctifying the marriage.
When something is placed on the ballot, it becomes majority rules. If you do not want it on the ballot but want it legal, use the legislative process then let the other side go on defensive. Again, when voting on morality, everyones vote is based on morals, their morals.
So we should allow beastiality, child pornography, slavery, Chinese owned Mexican Restaurants. Once you start moving the bar, the next group in line says "why did you stop there, I want to marry who I want to". Then the next group and next until I'm sitting on the train next to the 103 year old woman married to a tube sock and they are being intimate because sex is now allowed in public places and I have to move a cross dressing little person married to a Clydesdale from the potato bin so I can get a five pound bag to make dinner and get stopped on the way out because the bag boy fell in love at first sight and now wants to marry my potatoes and because I'm the legal guardian of the potatoes I just bought and It would be against the law for me to allow my biases to get in the way of the potatoes and the bag boy's happiness, I give him the bag and don't even get a cheap chicken dinner because I wasn't invited to the wedding and I felt obligated to buy a gift because I helped them meet. But it wouldn't matter because one of Bride's Maids feel in love with my gift and marrying it on Thursday.
While this is funny, it is a bad argument(although I am all for Chinese owned Mexican restaurants: Free market baby!).
If two consenting adults want to get married, I am not going to stand in their way. That's the bottom line. Rape, beastiality, child pornography, and all of the other Jerry Springer permutations you mentioned...they're not in the same category. I'm sure the same argument was made when interracial marriages were being made legal, and the argument was just as bad then. Aside from the 'ick' factor that many people feel towards homosexuality, there is no justification for not allowing gay marriage in a secular democracy. And we do live in a secular democracy.
Consenting adults entering into a marriage agreement before God & government: Good for families, Good for our economy, Good for individual liberty. Good for everyone.
Stop with feel good sayings. First, most of the examples were exagerations, but it was meant to illustrate that you are the one being bigotted. No one is stopping gays from finding a church and getting "married". No one is stopping a person from having a ceremony with more than one person (as long as you don't file paperwork with the state). My point is marriage is considered less important, not a sanctified union, not a committment as it was in the past. I give you the rising divorce rate as an example. In fact, relationships and treatment of other people in general has degraded to a point where everyone should feel shame. Now you might argue that this is proof we need gay marriage, I would argue the opposite. As your feel good made for a poster dribble indicates, you think the people demanding gay marriage will somehow beat the odds and these loving couple (insert chirping birds and violin music)who fought so hard for the right will be more determined to stay together. I think we are hearing the banter from another hatefilled activist group that sees someone else being happy and feels its unfair because they have a piece of paper in a photo album in the garage and thats why they are happy. They can't have the piece of paper, so they can't be happy. So again, the next group in line that can't marry is ????, and why are we not going to let them marry. Polygamist are probably the next group demanding nationwide right to marry. Then someone will do a study and find that children as young 7 have the reasoning capabilities to dtermind who they whould marry. So the pediphiles will line up. Each time you lower the bar, you also destroy some civility and the base the institution is built upon. If the institution is corrupt or a failed idea, it most likely will self-destruct. Marriage is an often abused privelage. I say privelage and not right because there are a lot of single people whose greatest desire is to be married. Should we mandate that people that are assholes marry people that are shy because they demand the right to marry. Maybe a state lottery would be good. The funny thing is, I remember a study that showed arranged marriages tended to last longer.
Perhaps instead of demanding the state endorsement, if they feel that deeply about it, they should have a ceremony of committment and cherish the fact they found someone to put up with them and be happy, even though they don't have the piece of paper in the photo album in the garage. Remember, some people don't have a garage. Then we have one less thing to argue about and less fighting in the world. I feel like those for it in many ways are like spoiled children. Didn't melissa etheridge say that since she could not marry her lover she's not a citizen and shouldn't pay taxes. Life isn't fair, you can't have everything you want, and shouldn't get it. If the worst thing in your life is that you didn't pay the state for a piece of paper that has an official seal saying the state officially recognizes the official ceremony officially allowing these two people to officially share thier official life together, your life sucks and I'll worry about what's important to me. (Wipe off all dripping sarcasm and continue.)Then when it comes onto the ballot I'll look at what I think is right and vote against it and feel good about it.
No about the bag of M&M's behind your couch and bowling in poorer neighborhoods leads to gang violence. Has something to do with wearing matching shirts and only eating the green ones.
I cannot stay for long because my computer is almost out of power, and looking at the clock on the wall, I realize that so am I.
I had some friends argue this same point to me and to be honest it is not easy for me to answer. Oh well, time to get mired in the crap.
I believe homosexuals should be accorded the same "legal" rights as every other couple in this country. I see that as a clearly societal and economic issue. I would hate for my spouse to not get my benefits if I were to pass away or for her to not be able to visit me if I were sick. I think America is a place where that is owed by our declarations about rights.
Christians (and especially Lutherans) have a view of the world that divides it into the kingdom of the left and the kingdom of the right. The two exist at the same time and place but have different roots from which grow different plants. I am an American. I pay the taxes, don't steal, and try not to speed. I am also a Christian. This means I pay my taxes, don't steal, and try not to speed. The problem comes when Christians and non-Christians alike try to make it sound like there is only one kingdom. Automatically Christians become livid if there is some homosexual civil union law in the pipeline and non-Christians become apoplectic if Christians say they disagree with homosexuality. Neither side is right because they base their anger on a violation of laws and not on understanding.
I think Mr. Huckabee's position is not quite right. I think he does not allow for the disambiguation of the two kingdoms. Nevertheless he correct on the supreme influence that words have to people. People are going to have to be proven that definitions of words are not going to be radically changed since words carry the seeds of thought. What is marriage? Are the religious definitions and the political definitions divisible, and by how much? Mr. Stewart is right to bring up the history of marriage, but he cannot dismiss the questions and fears felt by people on both sides of this issue as purely semantics.
That being said, I find that homosexuality is problematic for a Christian to back since it is spoken against numerous times in the Bible. Obviously it is there for a reason. The task of the Christian is not to figure out "how to stick it to them gays" [spoken in most redneck voice], but to figure out why it is in there in the first place. I believe that this issue is still to young an issue to really be understood. I do not believe it can be equated with segregation (much less slavery as Mr. Stewart did), but I believe it is an issue that Christians, non-Christians, gays, and heteros must really come to think about.
Well, pardon my spelling and grammar errors, but my power is almost gone.
I think one of the problems with religion is that first you are given an answer (do this/don't do this), and then it is up to you to figure out why, and 'Because God said so' is hardly ever a satisfying answer for us problem solving creatures.
Maybe this is an advantage to religion as well. You already have an answer. You just need to fill in some blanks.
I think the solution I have posited is the best, because it is the most respectful of all parties concerned. We do live in a secular democracy, so we cannot prevent consenting adults from entering into a marriage contract based on our religious views. We also have to respect people's religious views, insofar as they don't come into contact with the civil liberties of other citizens. Therefore we should legalize gay marriage, but not force churches who oppose such marriages to either perform or endorse them. It will sting a little bit for more conservative elements of the church (for the reason that you mentioned, regarding the separation of worlds), but it's what is right for a pluralistic society. Another reason I can easily support this position is that religious people will have nothing taken away from them by allowing gays to marry.
Stephen Jay Gould offered us the concept of Non Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) to reconcile science & religion. While many people find it insufficient (myself included) it's a safe principle that assures a mutual respect between different kingdoms of understanding.
Maybe we also need to apply NOMA to this issue too. Since our secular society does not want to make laws or regulate the happenings in the other world, and is only trying to manage itself, maybe the religious should focus more on that other world, and only bring it into this one when their personal rights are in danger of being violated.
Marriage is a moral issue and a personal issue. When you put such an issue on the ballot you are asking for their personnal opinion, and in this case you are not asking for what is best, for what is fair. You are asking if they believe it is right or wrong. So when a majority says this wrong via a ballot, you must accept the outcome. Gays have the same right to marriage as anyone else, to marry someone of the opposite sex. Not to marry someone of the same sex, a mailbox, a buffalo, a blow up doll, a child, multiple people, or any thing else you can imagine. If we eliminate any constraint, shouldn't we out of fairness and compassion allow marriage to anyone, dead, alive, old, young, in a coma. Some people believe their pets are more human and deserving of more rights than their neighbor. Perhaps the lady that puts her cat above people and would poison a child to benefit her cat, should be allowed to marry the cat. My point is, when you start chipping away at institutions, becareful where the pieces fall and that you don't destroy it beauty. Would the Mona Lisa be as revered with one more stroke of color?
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is anything ugly about two consenting adults agreeing to enter into a marriage contract, and I don't think our particular religious biases should come between said couple.
ReplyDeleteMarriage (between consenting adults) is good for families, good for the children they will birth or adopt, and good for the economy and the stability of our nation.
I disagree with majority rule when it comes to matters of personal liberty: I think our best bet is to allow the government to acknowledge gay marriage, and to allow any church that finds the idea objectionable the opportunity to opt out of sanctifying the marriage.
It's a win win for everyone.
When something is placed on the ballot, it becomes majority rules. If you do not want it on the ballot but want it legal, use the legislative process then let the other side go on defensive. Again, when voting on morality, everyones vote is based on morals, their morals.
ReplyDeleteThat's true, and it's why we shouldn't allow a majority vote to hinder the civil liberties of a minority group.
ReplyDeleteSo we should allow beastiality, child pornography, slavery, Chinese owned Mexican Restaurants. Once you start moving the bar, the next group in line says "why did you stop there, I want to marry who I want to". Then the next group and next until I'm sitting on the train next to the 103 year old woman married to a tube sock and they are being intimate because sex is now allowed in public places and I have to move a cross dressing little person married to a Clydesdale from the potato bin so I can get a five pound bag to make dinner and get stopped on the way out because the bag boy fell in love at first sight and now wants to marry my potatoes and because I'm the legal guardian of the potatoes I just bought and It would be against the law for me to allow my biases to get in the way of the potatoes and the bag boy's happiness, I give him the bag and don't even get a cheap chicken dinner because I wasn't invited to the wedding and I felt obligated to buy a gift because I helped them meet. But it wouldn't matter because one of Bride's Maids feel in love with my gift and marrying it on Thursday.
ReplyDeleteWhile this is funny, it is a bad argument(although I am all for Chinese owned Mexican restaurants: Free market baby!).
ReplyDeleteIf two consenting adults want to get married, I am not going to stand in their way. That's the bottom line. Rape, beastiality, child pornography, and all of the other Jerry Springer permutations you mentioned...they're not in the same category. I'm sure the same argument was made when interracial marriages were being made legal, and the argument was just as bad then. Aside from the 'ick' factor that many people feel towards homosexuality, there is no justification for not allowing gay marriage in a secular democracy. And we do live in a secular democracy.
Consenting adults entering into a marriage agreement before God & government: Good for families, Good for our economy, Good for individual liberty. Good for everyone.
Good luck coming up with a better line of attack.
Stop with feel good sayings. First, most of the examples were exagerations, but it was meant to illustrate that you are the one being bigotted. No one is stopping gays from finding a church and getting "married". No one is stopping a person from having a ceremony with more than one person (as long as you don't file paperwork with the state). My point is marriage is considered less important, not a sanctified union, not a committment as it was in the past. I give you the rising divorce rate as an example. In fact, relationships and treatment of other people in general has degraded to a point where everyone should feel shame. Now you might argue that this is proof we need gay marriage, I would argue the opposite. As your feel good made for a poster dribble indicates, you think the people demanding gay marriage will somehow beat the odds and these loving couple (insert chirping birds and violin music)who fought so hard for the right will be more determined to stay together. I think we are hearing the banter from another hatefilled activist group that sees someone else being happy and feels its unfair because they have a piece of paper in a photo album in the garage and thats why they are happy. They can't have the piece of paper, so they can't be happy. So again, the next group in line that can't marry is ????, and why are we not going to let them marry. Polygamist are probably the next group demanding nationwide right to marry. Then someone will do a study and find that children as young 7 have the reasoning capabilities to dtermind who they whould marry. So the pediphiles will line up. Each time you lower the bar, you also destroy some civility and the base the institution is built upon. If the institution is corrupt or a failed idea, it most likely will self-destruct. Marriage is an often abused privelage. I say privelage and not right because there are a lot of single people whose greatest desire is to be married. Should we mandate that people that are assholes marry people that are shy because they demand the right to marry. Maybe a state lottery would be good. The funny thing is, I remember a study that showed arranged marriages tended to last longer.
ReplyDeletePerhaps instead of demanding the state endorsement, if they feel that deeply about it, they should have a ceremony of committment and cherish the fact they found someone to put up with them and be happy, even though they don't have the piece of paper in the photo album in the garage. Remember, some people don't have a garage. Then we have one less thing to argue about and less fighting in the world. I feel like those for it in many ways are like spoiled children. Didn't melissa etheridge say that since she could not marry her lover she's not a citizen and shouldn't pay taxes. Life isn't fair, you can't have everything you want, and shouldn't get it. If the worst thing in your life is that you didn't pay the state for a piece of paper that has an official seal saying the state officially recognizes the official ceremony officially allowing these two people to officially share thier official life together, your life sucks and I'll worry about what's important to me. (Wipe off all dripping sarcasm and continue.)Then when it comes onto the ballot I'll look at what I think is right and vote against it and feel good about it.
You're certainly not alone in your feelings. Thanks for reading my blog, & have a happy holiday.
ReplyDeletePS: You're right about the statistics on arranged marriages.
Of course I'm right.
ReplyDelete...about the statistics on arranged marriages.
ReplyDeleteNo about the bag of M&M's behind your couch and bowling in poorer neighborhoods leads to gang violence. Has something to do with wearing matching shirts and only eating the green ones.
ReplyDeleteThose are M&M's? Uh-Oh.
ReplyDeleteI cannot stay for long because my computer is almost out of power, and looking at the clock on the wall, I realize that so am I.
ReplyDeleteI had some friends argue this same point to me and to be honest it is not easy for me to answer. Oh well, time to get mired in the crap.
I believe homosexuals should be accorded the same "legal" rights as every other couple in this country. I see that as a clearly societal and economic issue. I would hate for my spouse to not get my benefits if I were to pass away or for her to not be able to visit me if I were sick. I think America is a place where that is owed by our declarations about rights.
Christians (and especially Lutherans) have a view of the world that divides it into the kingdom of the left and the kingdom of the right. The two exist at the same time and place but have different roots from which grow different plants. I am an American. I pay the taxes, don't steal, and try not to speed. I am also a Christian. This means I pay my taxes, don't steal, and try not to speed. The problem comes when Christians and non-Christians alike try to make it sound like there is only one kingdom. Automatically Christians become livid if there is some homosexual civil union law in the pipeline and non-Christians become apoplectic if Christians say they disagree with homosexuality. Neither side is right because they base their anger on a violation of laws and not on understanding.
I think Mr. Huckabee's position is not quite right. I think he does not allow for the disambiguation of the two kingdoms. Nevertheless he correct on the supreme influence that words have to people. People are going to have to be proven that definitions of words are not going to be radically changed since words carry the seeds of thought. What is marriage? Are the religious definitions and the political definitions divisible, and by how much? Mr. Stewart is right to bring up the history of marriage, but he cannot dismiss the questions and fears felt by people on both sides of this issue as purely semantics.
That being said, I find that homosexuality is problematic for a Christian to back since it is spoken against numerous times in the Bible. Obviously it is there for a reason. The task of the Christian is not to figure out "how to stick it to them gays" [spoken in most redneck voice], but to figure out why it is in there in the first place. I believe that this issue is still to young an issue to really be understood. I do not believe it can be equated with segregation (much less slavery as Mr. Stewart did), but I believe it is an issue that Christians, non-Christians, gays, and heteros must really come to think about.
Well, pardon my spelling and grammar errors, but my power is almost gone.
I think one of the problems with religion is that first you are given an answer (do this/don't do this), and then it is up to you to figure out why, and 'Because God said so' is hardly ever a satisfying answer for us problem solving creatures.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is an advantage to religion as well. You already have an answer. You just need to fill in some blanks.
I think the solution I have posited is the best, because it is the most respectful of all parties concerned. We do live in a secular democracy, so we cannot prevent consenting adults from entering into a marriage contract based on our religious views. We also have to respect people's religious views, insofar as they don't come into contact with the civil liberties of other citizens. Therefore we should legalize gay marriage, but not force churches who oppose such marriages to either perform or endorse them. It will sting a little bit for more conservative elements of the church (for the reason that you mentioned, regarding the separation of worlds), but it's what is right for a pluralistic society. Another reason I can easily support this position is that religious people will have nothing taken away from them by allowing gays to marry.
Stephen Jay Gould offered us the concept of Non Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) to reconcile science & religion. While many people find it insufficient (myself included) it's a safe principle that assures a mutual respect between different kingdoms of understanding.
Maybe we also need to apply NOMA to this issue too. Since our secular society does not want to make laws or regulate the happenings in the other world, and is only trying to manage itself, maybe the religious should focus more on that other world, and only bring it into this one when their personal rights are in danger of being violated.