I read recently that the US House of Representatives have approved a bill, granting broad protections against discrimination in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. Some have praised it as the most important civil rights legislation since the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Personally, I am not convinced that it is a fair comparison. People with disabilities do not choose to be who they are; and it is patently unjust to discriminate against them. Gays and lesbians, on the other hand, are becoming increasingly open about their choice of lifestyles – and I do not believe that is uniformly a good thing.
Gays have been around for thousands of years, of course: the most famous historical figure being Alexander the Great. More recently, Oscar Wilde was one of the few who dared to come out of the closet. But they rarely displayed their sexual orientation as openly and proudly as they do now. The predominant feeling was one of shame. Part of the reason could be religious. All the world’s major religions have always regarded homosexuality as an unnatural state – one of the temptations a good man is expected to struggle against. The West is highly critical of Islam’s strict intolerance of homosexuality, but they forget that their Christian Bible has strictures against it too. Moreover, if one believes in the Biblical proclamation to go forth and procreate, it becomes evident that same sex liaisons are not what God had in mind. That is why I have a problem with this new concept of gay marriages. If one subscribes to the view of marriage as a holy communion, how can one expect God to bless a union He considers unnatural?
I an aware that some scientists are trying to prove that homosexuality and lesbianism is in one’s genes and, consequently, beyond one’s control, but I would consider that a cop out. I would submit that, in common with all mammals, primitive urges like rage and uncontrolled sex are inbuilt in all of us. What separates us from the animals is our ability to control them. For thousands of years of years of human history, homosexuality (I am using that term generically to denote all same sex liaisons) was regarded as something to be ashamed of and suppressed: one of the temptations we prayed to Our Father not to lead us into. It has become acceptable only during the last thirty years; a mere blimp in the human experience.
Nowadays, people of either sex do not feel the slightest need to conceal their sexual orientation. They act upon their urges as soon as they discover them – as if it is the most natural thing in the world. There is no introspection, no feeling of right and wrong. It is enjoyable, so it must be all right. It is a natural urge, so why try to suppress it? Many of our natural urges – like sex, whenever the inclination strikes one - are, in fact, kept in check by social and religious strictures. Yes, illicit sexual liaisons have become less furtive and more frequent in recent times, but the strictures still play an effective role in preventing society from degenerating into a bacchanalian love fest. Gay sex, however, has suddenly burst out of the closet with a ferocity and abandon rarely witnessed in human history. It is not only acceptable to be gay, it is to be celebrated. (Gay “married” couples are being featured on the front page of national newspapers- for pete’s sake). It deserves all the rights and privileges accorded to other socially accepted unions. Those who oppose same sex unions are labeled as prejudiced, or bigots, or (shudder) Bush-lovers.
Even if one was to accept that homosexuals have got a raw deal through the millennia, is the pendulum swinging too far to the other side? Take this issue of gays in the military; and the policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. Can one honestly say that the presence of gay men in a platoon would not be a source of friction? Their officers may not ask, but the men would come to know soon enough. I’m not sure how things would develop in a life and death situation. And what about legalization of gay marriages? It took centuries of social change for women to even get the vote. And now – in the space of a few years - the gays expect, almost demand, that their legal union be blessed by the state; and by society.
I cannot help wondering if there is a certain amount of hypocrisy involved here, even among the ‘liberals’ who proclaim that gays are as ‘equal’ as any other segment of society. If one or more of their children declared that they are gay, the ‘liberal’ parents may accept it – even with good grace – but can they place their hands on their hearts and declare that they would be overjoyed at the revelation? Would a father beam with pride when his son told him he had a male lover? It is time to get real, folks.
In conclusion, then, I would submit that the coming out of homosexuals is a momentous social change. Leaving aside the merits or otherwise, it needs time to be assimilated by society as a whole. The gays have already come a long way in a remarkably short time. It would not be wise to push their luck.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 51
Its the forbidden fruit- once tasted- its hard to put down.
I have had alot of homosexual friends- very talented people whom I have studied with, worked with and performed on stage with, as well as in churches with. They were very professional people who performed their callings well.
I figure- what they do once they go home really is their business- I don't have to approve of it- but that doesn't mean I dislike them any the less.
One of my friends died of AIDS.
**
Most Churches do not approve of the Homosexual relationship. In the RC church- you can be that way- but you have to be chaste if you intend to practice. The was the ruling a few years back.
I still chuckle about that one..
Great article... :)
Johannes
So, if two people of the same (or different) sexual orientation wish to marry, would it be required that they claim they engage in sex together? If not, then obviously any two persons will then be granted this once special status upon request, and the original purpose of the institution fades to obscurity. And then, will it not be discriminatory to deny an individual each benifit that married folks have? It all becomes quite zany it seems, if one projects into the future a bit.
Why not just leave marriage as a union between man and woman, and go for general ability to obtain the partnership rights, for any who feel a need to support each other as life friends? Why push it indeed?
Of course, if all of this is relative; and the Bible is not applicable, then there is no basis to found what is sin is and then anything goes so what is the big deal. It is just another lifestyle.
If we say it is an okay lifestyle (I don't, but neither is having multiple children out of wedlock or having multiple sex partners as a heterosexual) the issue then is should this group have some of the same extra legal protections that have been needed for women and blacks?
I think some points are legitimate; for example being able to care for and visit a partner in the hospital. Others I don't agree with such as marital rights and benefits. If a company wants to grant partner benefits, that would be their perogative, but as a national decree I think we get to a point where ones rights may offend and abrogate anothers rights. I think we already have some of this occuring with many of the free speech and church and state issues to the point at times of ridiculousness. This is just another group pushing their agenda to the max; and so far successfully. Why should they stop?
1) "They act upon their urges as soon as they discover them – as if it is the most natural thing in the world. " Yes, it IS the most natural thing in the world. I am a relatively recent atheist, but even when I was a believer I could not accept the fact that God would create human beings as images of himself and make a significant part of them (their sexuality) evil. It's ignorant, prudish and just plain silly to make that kind of statement, whether you believe in a god or not. Sexuality is a major part of who we are as human beings - as you point out, it is necessary to our survival and just because it "feels good" does not mean that it should be labelled as a bad or evil thing in society, as many have done with heterosexual sex, nevermind homosexual.
2) Whether or not scientists eventually find a basis for homosexuality in genetics or not (and it is highly improbable that it is not based in genetics as those are our makeup's blueprints) it is NOT a choice - it is how one is wired. Just as a little experiment, imagine that you are living in a society that finds man/woman sex an abomination. Would you instantly feel that you could denounce your attraction to women and immediately become sexually attracted to men and want to spend your life in a marriage with a man? No, that's absurd to a heterosexual. But that is what you are saying to homosexuals, is it not? Essentially, you and others find their sexual makeup to be distasteful (whether based on religious practice or cultural norms) and you therefore decide that they can "choose" to be "normal" like yourself, or at least spend their lives denying their sexuality and feelings so as to please you.
3) If one of my children told me that they were gay, my only regret would be that they would have to face the hate and disapproval from ignorant, prejudiced, religious people in the world, and no one wants their own children to go through any kind of pain. The same question could be asked of people with children with some other kind of socially unacceptable feature - the mother of a facially scarred child would tell you that their heart breaks every time that child is shunned or ridiculed by others for being different.
Think about it a little. We are extremely complex creatures - this, in fact, is the basis of religious people's adherence to the theory of "intelligent design" - that only a god could create something so complex and varied. Why would a god create humans in such a complex and varied way, yet when it comes to such a large, important part of their makeup (i.e., their sexuality) god lost all imagination and complexity and made us all heterosexual - no variation in degrees (although we know that there is a vast difference in sexual drives among people), no variation in attraction (although we know that human beings in different ethnic groups find certain features attractive that others do not), no variation in sexual preference.
It just doesn't make sense at all to me when looked at objectively. The only arguments I can hear people making are either they are "turned off" by the idea of same sex physical closeness or the sexual acts involved, or they are against it because of some arcane religious text written by societies thousands of years ago, who also BTW condemned a number of practices that we consider absolutely normal nowadays.
If the objection is solely on procreation, then sterile people do not have a right to get married. People who do not like sex and do not want to have children have no right to get married. Marriage in the US is a legal state, with governmental benefits. If it was ONLY a religious state or sanction, then gay people would probably not be fighting for same sex marriage laws as they are. It would still be very sad, though, that homophobia and prejudice has not gone away, but rather strengthened in religious communities in the 21st century.
If I were you, I would be more worried about rapists and pedophiles than whether two people of the same sex are living together in love.
"Judge not lest ye be judged."
I don't know why, some people are gay, but if it is in the genes, what about someone being bi-sexual? So I don't think it is in the genes. I think they do choose the lifestyle themselves. Or we would be able to understand how someone can swing both ways. I have some gay friends and I have asked this same question of them. They cant answer it but still firmly believe that they didnt choose to be gay.
I don't believe that they should be picked on, beat up or harassed because they are gay, but I don't believe in allowing them to be married as a man and woman either. I have written on other sites on here, I feel that a contract of some kind should be issued to them, where they can have some of the benefits of being married. I feel that to let them marry and acknowledge it as such, would be a mockery to other straight married couples.
I have also, stated numerous times that society now, seems to accept anything. There seems to be no right or wrong. We have tried to become so politically correct about all issues, that we have broken away from morals and values. Some don't want Gods name in anything. I feel this is taken away others rights.
The Bible doesn't pick on gays. It points out a way for us to live our lives better. It doesn't just condemn being gay. It condemns many sins.
This is a good article.
Now, you bring Alexander in this discussion. Okay.
What do you think if gays go grooms and grooms only, this is totally unnatural and it will create a society of disobedience and profanity. Then there will no religious compassion prevail.
Religiously this issue is totally a crime since the human revelation., I mark your words "Would a father beam with pride when his son told him he had a male lover? " or Vice versa.
Medically it is proved dangerous to human body causes a permanent loss or death, as Johannes worded above about his HIV friend.
Not only gay but any illegal or as they call it in European culture 'love making' is purely inhumane act. It is better to suppress such inhuman indulgences in either cases.
Stop homosexuality spread.
This world has much more bigger issues than this.
Thanks
Homosexuality is certainly a choice of lifestyle...some people may be predisposed towards the same sex, but it is not beyond their ability to control...otherwise there would be no Catholic priests or nuns, for example. Sex is not the exclusive basis for a human being's existence.
I do agree with you that most person's abhorence of homosexuality is unreasoning and based on nothing more than bias. But it would be equally unreasonable to expect them to give their blessing to same sex relationships.
Are these choices say as sinful as not honoring your marriage vows; quitting in your commitment to your vows or even not being the parent to your children you should be because you are too focused on work and having your own good time? For the most part when we make the argument for something contrary to God's teachings; we are arguing for self deification.
And because of free will; that is a choice we can make. Will God agree or not with your position is a different kettle of fish altogether.
I think all of us have our own struggles and all can thank God for his grace. We each have to ask ourselves if God is; and if he is, should I agree with him or not (is he true, faithful, loving). All these choices require faith in whether we are making the correct choice - genetics or not.
I know I cannot disuade you from your feelings - you seem pretty convinced that they are correct and justified. It saddens me tremendously that there are so many people around the world who seek to change others to their own images, who seek to condemn other's natural behavior.
One of the other commentors cited men cruising around gay bars looking for sex, that they are cursed with AIDS/HIV because of this. This reminds me of the way lepers or cripples used to be viewed as cursed in past times. This is such an ignorant viewpoint. That people's actions invite some god to curse them with disease or deformity - that illness is a punishment metered out by a vengeful god. How sad, how sad. And what of all the heterosexual abuse that goes on, and in your country, too, Firoze? Young girls being sold into prostitution by their parents, women being imprisoned in brothels, too poor and isolated to be able to get out? Married men supporting these abuses by their extramarital sex, spreading AIDS and VD to their wives at home, then passing it onto their children. Is this a curse, too? Or is this acceptable because it is men, because it is between a man and a woman?
Sorry, I am so tired of the hate, of the ignorance, of the division, of the misuse of the terms "love" and "god". I cannot comment further. I must say that I have enjoyed your postings in the past, but am more than disappointed in this one. I know that this is a huge thing in India, but I would hope that people could at least start to consider the inhumanity of this view in the 21st century.
Talk about an argument that refutes itself. :)
I'm assuming that this article is a bit of trollery--outrageous asssertions to get people mad at each other.
That is just my opinion though.
And if marriage then is not related to sex, what becomes of the "vows" aspect? And what of other "alternative lifestyles"? Could a person "marry" an animal, and claim their attraction to that animal is "natural" on the grounds that bestiality is an urge they feel naturally? And shall we "discriminate" against those who wish to engage in three, or four, or ?, number of person "marriages"? On what grounds?
If we as a society wish to maintain the family stability aspects of the convention of marriage, we must maintain the procreation basis for it, in some degree. This is not to say others ought not be able to support each other in a variety of ways that are not now deemed "legal", and I personally think a person ought to be able to designate someone as a "partner", or "life-affiliate", or whatever term may be seen as appropriate. But to mess with the thing called marriage is to weaken the already fragile "family unit" which seems rather essential to providing a natural sense of stability and belonging to children.
That this institution is imperfect, or that "unconventional" folks can adopt children is not the issue. The issue is whether or not reproductive couples ought to be "set apart" in a fundamental way, and somewhat sheltered from various family erosive forces for the sake of a healthy society.
Those who simply assume that supporting such a thing as "gay marriage" places them in a morally superior position have no more standing than those who oppose it on moral grounds. The net effect of moving in that direction can be glossed over, and we can pretend that undermining the "set apart" status of those generating children will not come back to bite us in the ass, if one chooses to, but it cannot be moral to ignore the effects of something on human lives. For what then does morality even mean?
Given your argument, people should be tested for fertility prior to being granted a marriage license. If they are sterile, or do not want to reproduce, then they should be barred from marrying. If the only reason for marriage is procreation, and specifically by child-bearing where both parties are physically part of the fertilized egg, then I can think of even more exceptions.
As for the vows of which you speak, those have been basically obliterated and rewritten by couples for many, many years now, even in religious ceremonies. There are no government dictated vows written in any laws I know of.
This is NOT the basis for legal marriage and its associated civil rights, at least not in this country. You are describing some fantasy situation which exists no where I am aware of.
So, do you advocate obliterating what remains of the institution called marriage?
Let me just say that there are two views of the state of marriage - one from the governmental legal standpoint, and one from the religious standpoint. This should be apparent to everyone since there are people who get married in a town hall with no religious implications at all and they are legally married (even homosexual couples in Massachusetts where I have not seen marriage "obliterated" as an institution since this law was enacted.) AND, there are people who take religious vows in a church and are NOT legally married in the eyes of the government.
I am ONLY speaking to the government/legal definition of marriage when I say that homosexual couples (that's HUMAN BEINGS) should have the same rights to marry and receive the benefits of the legal state of marriage under the laws of the state that heterosexual married couples do. And, just so you know, there are other laws that bar marriage between relatives and probably even pets.
"And, just so you know, there are other laws that bar marriage between relatives and probably even pets"
Yes, I do know. But what I am asking is; What is the basis for such laws? On what basis would one continue to "discriminate" against family members who elected to be legally married?
Churches have every right to define marriage in their own terms and to deny marriage to homosexual couples. They have every right to discriminate based on sexual orientation right now, even after the bill that was passed last week that Firoze cites.
Perhaps you think businesses will start their steep downhill decline because of this law now? Perhaps the employer/employee relationship has somehow been degraded with this bill? That the workplace will suffer having these people as co-workers? Religious people think it will - they do not want to have to hire or be held liable for firing a person if they know they are gay. Is this right, too?
Firoze,
You insist that it is lifestyle. The gay person who chooses to be a reader, traveler, sports enthusiast, or anything else has chosen a lifestyle much as heterosexuals do. Gay life itself may be separate from the rest of society but it will always be with us because it is an innate quality just as heterosexuality is. When did you choose to be heterosexual?
Please stop equating everything I say with what other people said. I am just me.
I am asking if it would not be wise to preserve some degree of "specialness" to those who join together to generate young. I realize it would be wrong to become extreme in defining that concept or institution, but wonder if there is not something worthwhile put at great risk, if we dilute the underlying rationale for marriage.
Is it a good "trade-off", to enhance the emotional sense of "normalcy" gay folks might or might not feel, at the cost of further weakening the basic societal convention of setting reproductive couples somewhat apart?
Whether it's marriage or civil union what ever you want to label it it is still two people coming together out of love. If you carry the parent issue too far then you run into situations like those gay couples who choose to adopt a child or in the case of many Lesbian marriages use artificial insemination to procreate so if your definition of marriage hinges on the ability to have children then at least the lesbian unions meet your definition of marriage.
Firoze, I think it's rather disingenuous to claim homosexuality as a rarity. There are records of homosexual encounters throughout history... why do you think the physical act of sodomy is labelled as 'Greek'. There are also records of homosexual encounters within the animal kingdom that would suggest the inclination is biological not a matter of personal choice.
That being said, promiscuity in any form has it's own inherent dangers.
Either way people who are homosexual are still human beings, just like women and black, brown or red peoples and all the shades in between. Why should they be the only ones who's rights aren't protected by law?
Each of the aforementioned peoples have been, and sometimes still are, discriminated against at some point in history and we've managed to allow them to marry and enjoy basic human rights, why not gays and lesbians?
Again, folks can't seem to stop throwing stones at arguments no one here is making, and avoid the arguments actually put forth.
The question I ask is about the relative value of attempting to make gays feel more "mainstream", or "normal", verses further undermining the traditional practise of treating reproductive couples as a particularly important segment of society.
Let me clarify that I may consider being gay an unnatural state, but I do despise them. They have a right to be who they are. My point is that there is no longer any struggle to adopt a more conventional lifestyle; and that they are in a rush to demand full acceptance by the rest of society. Perhaps one day gay marriages will become commonplace, but like all major social changes, it is going to take a long time.
I think you would do well to read what you just wrote carefully. You seem to have a rather potent typo in there.
And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
You can see, obviously from the above comments, that many people are so entrenched in their religious dogma that they cannot and will not ever be able to separate their religious beliefs and teachings from equity under the law. For them, the law should always reflect their religious beliefs, no matter how inequitable to minority groups. This has always been and will always be a struggle for the minorities who have to suffer under this dogma. I hope that I have at least done some justice and provided some light to their struggles. In many cases, their struggle is my struggle, for until societies can treat each person equally under the law, no matter how disadvantaged in the eyes of the majority, we will never achieve true human justice in this world.
"You can see, obviously from the above comments, that many people are so entrenched in their religious dogma that they cannot and will not ever be able to separate their religious beliefs and teachings from equity under the law"
Then pay them no heed. But for heavens sake don't do as they do, and become ensnared in dogmatic viewpoints, or the off hand dismissal of those not so limited. Just as all blonds are not dumb, and all Muslims not violent; All who have faith in Christ are not robots.
Beware the tendency to place people in stereo-typical "boxes", and thus become callous to reason unlike what you first recognize. There can be no "correct" freedom of the mind, it must be wide open.
Full disclosure: I have two Uncles that are (were) gay, and a brother who reportedly is. After our divorce, my ex-wife came out of the closet. I have worked with and around Gays my entire life.
Having said that, and after examining my beliefs, I can honestly say that I am straight with a curiosity about the rest of the world.
Firoze, you mentioned "Don't ask, don't tell." Never was needed. The American military has had gay soldiers since the American Revolution. Some of them even practiced their "pecular perversion" (to misuse a phrase from Oscar Wilde.) I was in the Army from 1968 until I was medically retired in 1986. My last 12 years were in the Medical Corps. My last unit was a small hospital in Germany with about 100 personnel assigned to it. I think (I really did not carewhat the numbers were) that a 30 to 35% figure would not be out of the question for a gay populace in that hospital. This is both male and female. So what? Did it make the unit less effective? Less military? Less caring and less able to provide medical care? Less willing and able to carry a fight to the enemy if that became necessary? No, to all of these questions. Ergo sum, let's drop the question of gay soldiers here and now. They exist and they are there, and here... now. They are not happy with the fact that they are "different," or seen differently. They are not out to "get" you or your children to become gay. As one gay wisely said, "Why the Hell would I choose to be gay, with all the problems it has caused in my life?"
As to the religious condemnation of homosexuality. These are my own thoughts only. In the West, the Bible is the Book, said to be written by God and passed down to man. Yet Joseph Smith said the same thing about the Golden Plates he translated into the Book of Morman, and that is ridiculed by the rest of Christianity. The Bible, to my mind, is nothing more, or less, than a collection of stories, passed down through the generations, word of mouth, until some person, or persons wrote them down. They are rules for people to colectivly live together. And they teach lessons in their story in how to do just that, much like Aesop's fables. That, I am sure, is going to rile some who read it. So be it. It is MY thought.
Carrying that on, when humans lived together long ago, the community they lived in was much smaller, and the NEED to reproduce the species was imparitive. It made sense then to say that a man who was capable of producing offspring should do so. Hence the Biblical injunction that "a man shall not lay with another man."
Notice though, that NOTHING is mentioned about a woman laying with another woman. My thought on that is that the Bible was written by men, for men, in an effort to dominate woman. Maybe because woman was the one who physically brought life into the world, man thought he needed to have some way of exerting importance. I wasn't there, and I do not know.
I can go on further, but I won't. It is not my intent to anger anyone. It is my intent to try to get all to reason, and apply it to the question. Therefore, I pose this last question: If gay people are allowed to "marry," think about what harm their union could possible cause you, individually? Back in the 1960's, when the Civil Rights Movement was starting in the United States, these same questions were asked (in general terms.) Civil rights for Afro-Americans became the law, and today it is not uncommon to see a child of mixed race anywhere in the US. Parents, one of whom is white the other Afro-American, married, had children, pay their bills, and try to live the best theey can under the circumstances. The sky didn't open up, the locusts didn't devour the crops, it didn't change the things in the way that the doom-sayers predicted it would. I doubt that legalized gay marriage will either.
Guy
The Bible, to my mind, is nothing more, or less, than a collection of stories
Do you then grant yourself such wisdom as to treat that as a given? Does it not occur to you that regardless of what you may think, you cannot know that Book is not what very many people believe it is?
It is not a mark of reason, to dismiss the possibility that one has simply not observed things which actually have occurred, and so knows nothing of the reality of those things. Why do you insist on first establishing the premise that the Bible is not what it claims, if you are trying to be rational? Would it not be far wiser to state your own position, rather than trying to find some other position lacking by virtue of imaginary connections you see?
Why is your behaviour any different in this regard than those who base their reasoning on the premise that the Book is inviable?
"Believe what you want but do me a favor and let me believe what I believe to be true"
Sounds great. So, how come you turn right around and attempt to defame what others believe?
You can forever claim that your views are so very accurate and loving that they simply must be expressed and accepted, but then you are not really doing anything different than those you claim to oppose.
"I am the one tired of being preached to"
Believe me, you are not the only one tired of hearing preaching about such things. The amount of unadulterated bullshit that passes for "spiritual truth" these days is mind numbing. And rarely is it spoken, without first decrying some more established concepts as bullies that ought to be ignored and banished.
Seriously, I'm not saying you oughtn't speak your mind, but that you ought to accept that others will do so too. Strong arm tactics and scary preaching have nothing whatsoever to do with anything but those doing such things. Relating them to actual belief in God is not meaningful. Relate them to those who do these things, not some crap they spew about who they are doing it for, or why.
Surely the notion that if there is a God, He has "ways" He knows would be beneficial to us, is not insulting. He would be callous if He did not care whether we screwed ourselves up in ignorance. That basic reality ought not, I feel, cause one to mix what He might recommend, with what some person says or does. Folks believe all sorts of stuff, but a God would only deal in truth. Anything else cannot be God. The existence of anything else, cannot negate the existence of God. This was understood by me long before I witnessed anything that convinced me there was a God, it is simply rational thought.
I feel the question here is really about a word; marriage. I feel the word ought to be preserved for the greater good. There are plenty of other words available, and I have spoken to gays that wish folks would just leave that word out of the whole debate, and provide some partnership benefits in the real world. I almost never see anyone say that gays ought to be denied most of the benefits of marriage, and if that was treated independently of the word, they would most likely have those rights.
I do not oppose gays being treated fairly and equitably, but I oppose insisting on that particular word being gutted, to provide an ego boost to a few rather childish folks that deal in sentimental crap and screw up the deal for so many. The whole word thing just messes up further any who are freaking out about same sex relationships.
What does it matter? "Marriage" is just a word that connotes a formalized relationship between two people. Why should the two people be exclusively a male and a female? Can not two people of the same sex love each other, share their hopes dreams and aspirations? Can one not die in the armes of the other in old age? Where is it etched in stone?
"Do you then grant yourself such wisdom as to treat that as a given? Does it not occur to you that regardless of what you may think, you cannot know that Book is not what very many people believe it is?"
You have read too much into my writting. (I'm gonna beat a dead horse here.) I served a career in the military, for one, to enable all in the world (despite GW's preferences) to practice the religion of their choice, even if that choice is to practice NO religion. To believe, or not, as they choose. AS I said after the line you cite; "It is MY thought." I do not believe that that is "pushing my agenda" (as some would say it.) (And if, as you say, the Book is correct, I have the prayer of the Agnostic to fall back on: Dear God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul.) What I was trying to get across is that this is a subject that religion should stay out of.
With marriage going the way it is today in the West, with a large percentage of them ending in divorce, marriage as our ancestors knew it, is kaput. Today's marriage that lasts is the rarity, and not the norm. Today's marriage is more a serial type of affair. I'm 57. I am married for the third time. My wife is 51. I am her fourth husband. How many of those reading this are in similar straights? So why not define marriage as the union of two people, and leave it at just that? That way community and property rights can be preserved. That way, when one dies, the other will not have to go through the devestation of having the dead partners family come and take everything that was his/hers because they are the "family" and the partner is not. Legal marriage (vs religious marriage) is an economic entity created by the state, not by God. Let's acknowledge that fact, and move on from that point and make our laws reflect that reality.
Guy
"You have read too much into my writting."
Please answer the question I asked.;
"Do you then grant yourself such wisdom as to treat that as a given? Does it not occur to you that regardless of what you may think, you cannot know that Book is not what very many people believe it is?
. . or don't bother pretending you are. I am no child.
You display quite plainly that you do in fact assume your view as given. You plainly speak so, here for instance;
"is an economic entity created by the state, not by God. Let's acknowledge that fact"
Realize, I am not the robot or imbecile you might fancy yourself being much more than. I am a fully functional human being. You, on the other hand speak in perfectly recognizable self contradiction;
"It's just a word" . . . "What does it matter? "
If it's "just a word", why not go find another "just a word". That rationale leads nowhere. Obviously someone bickering for the right to get "married" doesn't think it's just word, and you seem to forget your own conclusion when adopting that position. Since you do not seem to realize that, How can I but conclude you are not approaching the matter rationally?
Sorry to be blunt, but I am losing patience with the supposedly wise who cannot reason. I worship not the god of my sentimentality, and do not assume all that stirs my emotions is a message form a god.
I am trying to deal with this as a simple matter of the greatest good for the greatest number, not a test of my freakin open-mindedness.
I think there are many people who dislike things based on others opinions and/or if one doesn't understand something, they dislike it. "That which is different or not understood is wrong."
Maybe if you put your question in an understandable way, I could answer it. As I put it, twice, "this is MY thought." That means that for me it IS a given. For ME!
And FYI: "Idiot" is also just a word.
Guy
""this is MY thought." That means that for me it IS a given. For ME!"
And here you said idiot was just a word.
I wish it could, but no one in the "pro gay marriage" camp seems to be able to keep away from it for more than a moment.
I made several arguments which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Book, yet no one has responded at all. It seems folks just can't help funneling all resistance to their thoughts on this, into some sort of debate about the Bible's supposed stance on heterosexuality. It seems there is no other rationale available for this cause than it spits in the eye of the God of Abraham.
There is no discussion of the ramifications of this hijacking of a word which we all no is a reflection of a basic fact of how societies set apart the members of a reproductive union, for all sorts of reasons, not just Biblical reverberations. The minuscule sympathetic feelings for a very few homosexual couples who wish to adorn their self images with whatever remains of the "sanctity of marriage", has simply been elevated to the very pinnacle of justice. No thought at all seems to be given to the effects on society as a whole which may ensue from such rolling of the dice. Even if it means gays as a whole will continue to be denied basic rights of other couples, when the dropping of that single demand for the obliteration of what that word is intended to symbolize and foster, could very possibly lead to them getting those rights. It is morality stripped of all concern for anything but the pride one feels in that minuscule sympathy. (in my opinion)
First, I wish to appologize to you for my last posting to you. In my frustration in understanding what you were asking, I resorted to trying to bait you. That was uncalled for and unjustified. I am sorry.
Now. What word would you use to stand in for the legal union of two or more people that has not already been used, and bring out the rage of the Biblically oriented society when confronted with a gay couple? "Legal union" sends the modern evangelical into fits of rage. Hell, they don't even have to be evangelical! A friend recently told me of his sister and her husband who completely deny the fact that their son has stated he is gay, even when he showed up at a family event with his lover.
What I would like to see occur is that the laws concerning marriage be changed to include the union of any two or more human individuals; if they have a birth certificate, duly signed by a governmental authority (to avoid someone making one up for their pooch) and stand in front of the "magistrate," then they can be "married" (until you, or someone comes up with a better word.)
To go back to something I posted earlier in this thread, in the US in the 60's, when the Civil Rights Movement was going strong, the sentiment of many was best described by the following statement (made by my father,) "Those Colored people may be all right. Nice, honest, law abiding folks. But would you want your sister to marry one?" Here we are 40 some years later, and in most places in the US, although not extremely common, a couple, one of whom is Afro American the other who is White, can walk on the streets, ande enjoy the fruits of society, without fear of being lynched. It is not the rarity it was in the 60's. By the time my Grandkids grow up, I hope that the color of a person is no longer something that one takes into consideration when dating or marrying.
I think that within the next few years, this is going to wind up in front of the United States Supreme Court. And I think that that body is going to schock the nation with their decision. And, I think their decision is going to be that it is illegal for the State to dictate that a marriage must be between a man and a woman. And that denial of the same perogitives to one couple, based on their sexual orientation, is against the law.
If and when that happens, I will be very happy for those who are gay, that have tried to work within for change. It will prove that the system is capable of changing. I expect it to change. I want it to change. But, in the meantime, I will not hold my breath, nor will I bet on the outcome being what I "want."
You called into question a couple of things, and I will try to give you some decent answers.
No, I do not know that the Book is what I think it to be. That is no different that the person who does believe in it, and that it is the infalible Word of God. I do what they do, I take it on faith. My faith is based on the studying I have done in various subjects, religion and anthropology being two. I am an expert in neither. But I have added one and one, and this is the "two" that I have come up with and believe. And, yes, it s a given, applicable only to me. It would be the height of arrogance for me to assume that what I believe and how I believe is the universal truth, and that if you do not believe as I do, then you are condemmed to the fires of hell. Balderdash and rat pucky!
As for marriage being an "economic entity created by the state, not by God." I offer this to you. I am married to my wife, both by the State of Texas, and by the Church that she attends. Those events happened 11 and a half years apart (legal first and church second.) When we were married, I was a prisoner in the penal system in the State of Texas. I was allowed a two hour visitation, once a week, with anyone on my visitation list. Unless the person visiting me was relatived to me, said visitation would be "non-contact." Now imagine that my wife and I had reversed the paths of marriage, church first and then, years later, the legal marriage. I would have spent the entire time I was in prison without being able to touch the person I considered to be my wife. All because I lacked the signed, sealed, stamped, notorized, and paid for (call it taxation) piece of paper. I also would not have been able to have exempted a larger portion of my income if I were not legally married. There is a famous Renissance painting of a wedding cerimony hanging in some museum. There are two very young people in it, they look like children (and may be.) The girl is pregnant. I have seen a picture of that painting and an explanation that the painting is the couples "marriage license." If I remember right, it was painted in the 1400's. When I was a soldier, stationed in West Germany, some of those I supervised married each other. When doing so, if they wanted, they would also have a church service and have their marriage blessed. But it was not necessary. In times past, the State said that a person of color could not be married to a white person (I can't find the spelling for it, as close as I can come is "mysegination.") In South Africa those laws applied to immigrees from India who wished to marry a white person. In the US, A white trying to marry an American Indian. My first wife's parents tryed to stop our marriage when they found out that my Grandfather was from Louisiana and of French Arcadian ancestory, because that meant that there was a possibility of my having some Arfican blood in me. The State makes laws, and those laws can be vicious in what they do, or what they stop. In many of the same cases, a church does not care about what color a person is, only if the person states belief in the doctrine of said church. And, while I cannot know the mind of God, somehow, I doubt that Diety cares.
I hope that answers the two questions that you asked, John. But remember, these are my thought, or if you wish, my opinions. I do not ask, or demand, that anyone else believe or follow them. And, they are, for me, and me alone, a "given."
Guy, who likes to run off at the mouth
Thank you for the contrition, I do appreciate that very much.
I believe the matter is far more complex than this statement implies;
"What I would like to see occur is that the laws concerning marriage be changed to include the union of any two or more human individuals; if they have a birth certificate, duly signed by a governmental authority (to avoid someone making one up for their pooch) and stand in front of the "magistrate," then they can be "married" (until you, or someone comes up with a better word.)"
Would your concept here include myself and my father? . . . for if there are various benefits to such a "marriage", why ought the presumption of sexual relations be the qualifying factor? Is it not rather odd, to consider the fact that two people are having sex, places them in a position above two friends not sexually involved, or two family members, or anyone at all who would benifit by the advantages of such a "marriage"?
I see no relevance whatsoever to all your talk of atrocities you seem to believe must be at the forefront of this discussion.
F wrote: "People with disabilities do not choose to be who they are; and it is patently unjust to discriminate against them."
**But if a person is paralyzed after an accident that results from illegal street racing, something that he had been doing for years and which is illegal, then his 'lifestyle choices" led to his condition and should not then be covered by disability law? Or a person who's disability is emphyzema from years of smoking?
F wrote: "If one subscribes to the view of marriage as a holy communion, how can one expect God to bless a union He considers unnatural?"
**No one is asking him to do this. It is a civil issue, primarily, not a religious one. Many marriages, currently, do not ask for god's blessing, nor would they likely get it if they did.
F wrote: "It has become acceptable only during the last thirty years; a mere blimp in the human experience."
**This is not entirely accurate. There were both places and times where homosexuality was either tolorated or celebrated. These occurred both before and after the rise of judiasm in the middle east (and its subsequent development of christianity).
F wrote: "Can one honestly say that the presence of gay men in a platoon would not be a source of friction?"
**Yes, simply look at both US history and at the armies currently in the world that have gay soldiers. This argument is used everytime a new group wants the right to help defend the country they love. Substitute women or blacks or japanese into that slot and you can find historically. However, we allow into the army currently felons and the uneducated without any worry about the effect that might have.
F wrote "And what about legalization of gay marriages? It took centuries of social change for women to even get the vote."
**Two thoughts on this one. 1) Gay people have been advocating for rights for well over a century now (1869 Hans Ulrich, I think was his name--and recently some newer materials that predate that by almost 100 years). 2) I fail to understand that argument that folks need to be patient because other groups took a while to get what they wanted.
F wrote: "Would a father beam with pride when his son told him he had a male lover?"
**You are presenting social conditioning as a rationale for legal status. Would a father beam with pride when his son came home and told him he had a female lover who was a crack head? Probably not, but know what? they could still get married. So if paternal pride was the litmus test for marriage eligibility, I'd guess we'd have fewer marriages all around.
If you want gays to stop making a racket, settle down, and act like everyone else, let them marry. Once they are coupled and raising kids they will become assimilated into society better, they'll be, essentially, acting straight. It will be, in some ways, a death blow to major parts of gay culture. And they'll increase your property values as well.
The idea that marriage is about a stable home for children is a very recent convention.
Even so, if saving marriage for the "greater good" which is defined as the children, then why shouldn't gay couples who have adopted have access to that right. Why do straight couples for whom children are not possible (biologically or otherwise) given those rights. And if it is about children, why do those rights cover so many things that would have little or no impact on the stability of the household? Testifying, for example, or tax benefits?
Also what are the erosive forces that you talk about?
JK wrote: "The question I ask is about the relative value of attempting to make gays feel more "mainstream", or "normal", verses further undermining the traditional practise of treating reproductive couples as a particularly important segment of society. "
**I don't believe that the argument is necessarily about a need to feel "mainstream" or "normal". It's about having committed your life to someone and then being told you have no right to make decisions about their medical condition for example, or to inherit their property or continue to raise the children that you adopted together. Of course there is a symbolic value as well, but you are also arguing for that symbolic value as well. Indeed your question could easily be turned around to read 'The question I ask is about the relative value of attempting to make religious folks feel more "secure", or "valued", verses further undermining the traditional practise of treating all people equally under the law.
humour me... decide to be gay for a day. its just a choice, right?
So, when I was 5 years old and some how knew I liked boys differently than girls that was a "choice"?
And at 14 when I had sex with a girl for the first time and almost vomited because it felt so unnatural, that too was just a "choice"?
And everytime I was beat up and put in the hospital for being a "sissy" or a "fag," that also was my "choice"?
I will tell you what my "choice" was... My "choice" was to buy into a 2000 year old, mistranslated, bastardized religion called, "Modern Christianity."
(Because anyone who knows the history of the religion knows that the original followers of Jesus and their traditions and beliefs are far, far from what is called "Christianity" today.)
My "choice" was to believe in an unproven diety and to believe that deity and its followers had the power to remove my "choice" and make me a heterosexual.
My "choice" was to get married to a female and have children because I "chose" to believe in a book written by man about 1500 years ago.
My "choice"was to become a pastor and dedicate every waking moment to this fictitious deity and attempted suicide repeatedly because of the extreme physical, mental and spiritual anguish of the "choice" to change. Because that's all it is... A "choice" to change, right?
After 13 years, I "chose" to get smart.
I "chose" to research the history and origins of all major religions.
I "chose" to study ancient Latin, Koine ( Greek), Hebrew & Aramaic and translated sections of the bible myself.
I "chose" to research the history of homosexuality and its effects in times past.
I "chose" to study about homosexuality in animals and found that there are many animals that couple for life with a same-sex partner.
I "chose" to leave the church I founded.
I "chose" to leave this joke of a religion.
I "chose" to begin live my life the way it was intended to be.
I have NEVER wanted to be gay/bisexual. I chose not to be. I have done many things to change and I have chosen not to feel the way I feel.
The fact of the matter is, I can't change my choice because I do not have a choice in the matter to change.
Dude, no one wakes up and chooses to live a life where they are hated by the majority of the country. No one wants to be the thing that everyone at school and church hates. No kid wakes up one morning and says, "Gee, I think I will be a big fag so I can get my ass kicked at school on a regular basis." No one in their right mind wants to be gay, lesbian, bisexual and especially transgendered!
To even suggest that folks "choose" to live a life of oppression and ridicule is to suggest that ignorance is bliss.