LGBT: An Open-Minded Movement?
March 19, 2012
Ben Stevens
If you have paid any attention at all to the current and ever-livelier dialogue between the LGBT movement and the Christian community, you have no doubt heard the question being asked of Christians everywhere: Do you realize how bigoted your views are? This is of course a trick question, and Christians are not doing themselves any favors by trying so hard to answer it.
A number of different suggestions have been made as to the most civil and sensible way for Christians to respond to accusations of bigotry, but the best is to simply point out what is being ignored in the accusation itself: the fundamental realities of modernity.
America is an increasingly modern, and therefore increasingly tense, society. As Boston University sociologist Peter Berger explains:
Modernity progressively undermines social environments which support taken-for-grantedness. [Due to] some of its most basic processes (such as mass migration, mass communication, and urbanization), the individual is increasingly confronted with different beliefs, values, and lifestyles, and is therefore forced to choose between them. Modernity problematizes beliefs because of the high degree of pluralism it creates.
To the extent that a society becomes “modern,” then, it will be packed with people who hold to widely divergent beliefs and values, any of which may be questioned. And the glue of this system is not that we all agree with one another but that we make a commitment to not always equate disagreement, or even disapproval, with bigotry.
At present, this model of society is being rejected by the LGBT movement. And it is being rejected not to the extent that the movement simply disagrees with, and disapproves of, its detractors, but to the extent that it equates all disagreement and disapproval of itself with bigotry, and seeks to classify any question about the tenets of its own orthodoxy as hate speech.
A truly modern movement will, by definition, expect to be questioned. Being questioned about one’s beliefs, as Berger explains, is a necessary consequence of living in a diverse, pluralistic society. Christians are required to answer every conceivable kind of question about their beliefs, and they can expect their convictions to be tested both formally, in university settings, and at the popular level, in TV specials about Jesus’ “real” identity. No one expects this kind of thing to stop, and in fact many find Christians find that the pressure to defend their views in the face of such dissent actually makes them more articulate regarding those views.
In light of that understanding of modernity, consider the “if you disagree with us, we’ll convince everyone you’re backwards” tactic the LGBT movement has been pursuing in its rise to prominence. Does it embrace and adapt to a world in which it must cordially and sympathetically re-articulate itself as one belief among many? Does it expect to be questioned? That is, is it a truly modern movement? I do not see how.
Former LGBT activist Michael Glatze knows well the limits of the movement’s love affair with modernity. He founded Young Gay America, co-wrote the XY Survival Guide, and lived as an extremely outspoken homosexual himself for years. But when Glatze began to question the roots of his homosexuality, he learned that that is the unpardonable sin of our age:
In the gay community, there was always a sense that “you don’t question your same-sex desires.” As soon as you join the club, that’s the rule. In fact it’s rule number one. You can examine any other thing’s cause. Ironically, it’s even OK for straights to question their heterosexuality. [But] I finally came to the realization that I could question my homosexuality too.
Glatze eventually declared himself heterosexual, and for this decision, the most reviled form of modern heresy, he was described with condescension in a piece in the New York Times. Because they fear a similar kind of public shunning, many Christians seem extremely reticent to discuss their convictions about homosexuality, but Glatze’s insight into the LGBT’s refusal to be examined like every other group should dispel our fears of engaging this issue, especially insofar it fundamentally changes the perspective from which we do so. Examining assumptions, even popular ones, is a core discipline of true pluralistic modernity, and it’s hard to see why that discipline should not be applicable to the LGBT movement as it is to all others.
When Christians are accused of bigotry, the refrain is consistently that we hold views which are not welcome in the modern world. We simply must point out—in a civil way—that the very understanding of modernity according to which we are being accused is deficient, and that, in seeing all dissent as a moral outrage, the LGBT movement is working to construct the same kind of society in which it was for so long unwelcome.
Ben Stevens works for Greater Europe Mission in Berlin, Germany.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
3.19.2012 | 8:27am
ferd says:
If there is no Creator, no created order and all things evolved randomly, therefore, one might reason to a single "moral absolute": that all things and relationships are of equal value. For example, the Strong should not bully the Weak because all of nature is equaL The Rich should not have more than the Poor because all things being equal...etc.
In such a worldview, there is no argument against gay relationships. The real question is...why do Christians allow an obviously false premise to go unchallanged while squirming at being called childish names.
In such a worldview, there is no argument against gay relationships. The real question is...why do Christians allow an obviously false premise to go unchallanged while squirming at being called childish names.
3.19.2012 | 9:26am
John Willems says:
JA,
I think you are making the fallacy of taking modern liberalism's view of classical liberalism. Also, I think we have to look at the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment as a result, not a cause. The author talks about how the need to tolerate other views comes from pluralism, which keeps increasing as migration and communication across long distances improves. That formulation is basically correct. The Enlightenment occurred after the Protestant Reformation and the many wars that event spawned. The need to tolerate other views becomes necessary when a lack of consensus occurs. As Madison said in the Federalist, there are two ways to deal with faction: one is to suppress it by force and the other is to balance one faction with another. In the modern world, people disagree about everything. There are two ways to deal with this. You can suppress those opinions you judge wrong by force, in which case you are on the path to despotism. Or you can tolerate them and hope they balance each other out, in which case you are on the path to liberal democracy. In Democracy in America, Alexi de Tocqueville predicted that the only two types of government in the future would be democracy and despotism. If we look around the world, we see that his prediction has largely born out. Traditionalists often complain about the dominance of liberalism in the U.S., but given the basic fact of pluralism, what other choice is there? The type of society you advocate requires a high degree of cultural consensus that has not existed in the West since the Protestant Reformation. While as a Catholic I hope that the church is one day unified, as a Southerner I have lived in a place where people start new churches in strip malls. The Reformation may be winding down in Europe, but in America it is an ongoing project.
Liberalism does not mean, however, that we say there is no truth, which is a self-contradicting statement. It merely means we tolerate error. That is why the author is writing about the intolerance of the LGBT movement to opposing views. Liberalism does not stand for the proposition that nothing is right. It merely says that you have the right to be wrong, which is a sentiment lacking from much of modern liberalism. Whether it is the HHS Mandate or gay marriage, modern liberalism is becoming increasingly intolerant of dissent, which means it must be transforming into something other than liberalism rightly understood. Pope Benedict has talked about a dictatorship of relativism, which may sound like a contradiction in terms, but it has its expression in the view that any claims to truth, no matter how basic, have to be driven out of public discussion. That, not liberalism, is ideology that is attacking the Church today. Liberal democracy has its problems, but it is better than the alternative, which is where certain people would love to send us to in the name of "tolerance."
I think you are making the fallacy of taking modern liberalism's view of classical liberalism. Also, I think we have to look at the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment as a result, not a cause. The author talks about how the need to tolerate other views comes from pluralism, which keeps increasing as migration and communication across long distances improves. That formulation is basically correct. The Enlightenment occurred after the Protestant Reformation and the many wars that event spawned. The need to tolerate other views becomes necessary when a lack of consensus occurs. As Madison said in the Federalist, there are two ways to deal with faction: one is to suppress it by force and the other is to balance one faction with another. In the modern world, people disagree about everything. There are two ways to deal with this. You can suppress those opinions you judge wrong by force, in which case you are on the path to despotism. Or you can tolerate them and hope they balance each other out, in which case you are on the path to liberal democracy. In Democracy in America, Alexi de Tocqueville predicted that the only two types of government in the future would be democracy and despotism. If we look around the world, we see that his prediction has largely born out. Traditionalists often complain about the dominance of liberalism in the U.S., but given the basic fact of pluralism, what other choice is there? The type of society you advocate requires a high degree of cultural consensus that has not existed in the West since the Protestant Reformation. While as a Catholic I hope that the church is one day unified, as a Southerner I have lived in a place where people start new churches in strip malls. The Reformation may be winding down in Europe, but in America it is an ongoing project.
Liberalism does not mean, however, that we say there is no truth, which is a self-contradicting statement. It merely means we tolerate error. That is why the author is writing about the intolerance of the LGBT movement to opposing views. Liberalism does not stand for the proposition that nothing is right. It merely says that you have the right to be wrong, which is a sentiment lacking from much of modern liberalism. Whether it is the HHS Mandate or gay marriage, modern liberalism is becoming increasingly intolerant of dissent, which means it must be transforming into something other than liberalism rightly understood. Pope Benedict has talked about a dictatorship of relativism, which may sound like a contradiction in terms, but it has its expression in the view that any claims to truth, no matter how basic, have to be driven out of public discussion. That, not liberalism, is ideology that is attacking the Church today. Liberal democracy has its problems, but it is better than the alternative, which is where certain people would love to send us to in the name of "tolerance."
3.19.2012 | 10:44am
Ayo Alao says:
If a burglar is accused by a pickpocket of being a criminal, the burglar could very well return the compliment. But when a police officer makes the same accusation against the burglar, there is no way to return the charge in kind. A different kind of answer must be provided. The officer's motives will be impugned. His personality is maligned. His fairness is challenged, and of course, he's considered "bigoted", for making a correct assessment of the burglar's behavior.
3.19.2012 | 11:44am
pdn Michael says:
Mr. Stevens thinks very insightfully here. Modernity's sneering and dismissive assault on Christianity always uses "if you were really Christian you'd see it my way" as background music. In the quote he provides from Peter Berger, Stevens shows that the very pervasiveness and relentlessness of alternatives and "choice" make the consistent living out of belief extremely difficult. In other words, Christians are no less human and no more intelligent and insightful than others; thus, humanly speaking, they are no more immune to making unfortunate choices (or failing to perceive the potential outcome of those choices) than others.
JA suggests that, perhaps especially in terms of marriage, Christians have "taken advantage" of modernity; I would respond, "what other choice was there?" Marriage has always had to adapt, and to call Christian marriage out for having adapted seems just a little specious.
If we accept the premise that the family, as traditionally understood, predated and in fact informed larger and more inclusive social arrangements such as extended families, then villages, then towns, then we have to admit that in fact marriage has always lived through social transition and each time arrived at the next change intact. "Wage labor" is in that sense just the latest transition from agrarian, which in turn transitioned from feudalism, and then back there someplace was foraging. No doubt some of those changes brought significant social challenges with accompanying family strain, but I don't believe any of them brought anything like the current (and this is the only thing to call it) assault on traditional marriage. Navigating a culture that is more and more blatantly hostile to traditional marriage brings strange compromises, to be sure, but then I believe the current post-enlightenment culture is less a result than it is a perversion of a Christian view of society.
JA suggests that, perhaps especially in terms of marriage, Christians have "taken advantage" of modernity; I would respond, "what other choice was there?" Marriage has always had to adapt, and to call Christian marriage out for having adapted seems just a little specious.
If we accept the premise that the family, as traditionally understood, predated and in fact informed larger and more inclusive social arrangements such as extended families, then villages, then towns, then we have to admit that in fact marriage has always lived through social transition and each time arrived at the next change intact. "Wage labor" is in that sense just the latest transition from agrarian, which in turn transitioned from feudalism, and then back there someplace was foraging. No doubt some of those changes brought significant social challenges with accompanying family strain, but I don't believe any of them brought anything like the current (and this is the only thing to call it) assault on traditional marriage. Navigating a culture that is more and more blatantly hostile to traditional marriage brings strange compromises, to be sure, but then I believe the current post-enlightenment culture is less a result than it is a perversion of a Christian view of society.
3.19.2012 | 11:54am
Linda says:
We just had a youth speaker at our church who talked about his prior homosexuality. He said he was not born with attraction to the same sex and now he sees that it is just an erotic perversion. He said, he just had a father who was very distant, poor self-esteem, felt inferior, and not socially accepted. So, he said, he became rebellious and homosexuality was his way to rebel. He showed great courage in speaking out and said finding fellowship in church and finding God has saved his life. He hated himself when he was acting as a homosexual. He said, it's not something you are born with.
3.19.2012 | 12:53pm
The Queen of Germany says:
Ayo:
Conservatives, and their "traditional" ideas about marriages, have indeed changed historically; and are not as historically-based as they seem to feel. As many rightly note here. Can no one remember the first appearances, c. 1979, of "neo" conservatives? The "Neo Cons"? And how suddenly, ironically ... strangely new things were appearing, in the name of tradition? What had Jesus said earlier, about condoms, for example? And yet suddenly opposing condoms was claimed to be conserving the very core of Christian values.
Should we really be following conservativism so religiously therefore? No doubt conservatives feel they and their idea of God, are a suitable policeman for us all. But in fact? Their views have not been made the law of the land; and they are not elected representatives/enforcers/police. They merely FEEL like they OUGHT to be obeyed just like the police; even though no one else agrees with them.
But that's the problem of course.
Conservatives, and their "traditional" ideas about marriages, have indeed changed historically; and are not as historically-based as they seem to feel. As many rightly note here. Can no one remember the first appearances, c. 1979, of "neo" conservatives? The "Neo Cons"? And how suddenly, ironically ... strangely new things were appearing, in the name of tradition? What had Jesus said earlier, about condoms, for example? And yet suddenly opposing condoms was claimed to be conserving the very core of Christian values.
Should we really be following conservativism so religiously therefore? No doubt conservatives feel they and their idea of God, are a suitable policeman for us all. But in fact? Their views have not been made the law of the land; and they are not elected representatives/enforcers/police. They merely FEEL like they OUGHT to be obeyed just like the police; even though no one else agrees with them.
But that's the problem of course.
3.19.2012 | 12:58pm
Gordon Hackman says:
An interesting and provocative argument Ben. I was especially intrigued by the contrast you draw between Christians who become more articulate in expressing their views due to the need to explain and defend them to others, and the LGBT community's refusal to "cordially and sympathetically re-articulate itself." I would say that goes some way towards explaining what I experience every time I read anything on the internet relating to this topic. No matter how well and respectfully articulated any defense of a Christian view of marriage or sexuality is, the comments in response from LGBT supporters nearly always ammount to name-calling, personal attacks, angry ranting, etc. As a result, I have come to believe that most supporters of LGBT either don't have any substantial arguments to make for their position or are simply incapable of articulating them in an intelligent and respectful manner.
3.19.2012 | 12:59pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
JA and John Williams's discussion (and I have some assent with each) may indeed underlie the surface debate. Hard to get much in in this setting. But that difficulty itself highlights the overall weakness of the Christian position. Some, though hardly all of us, are attempting to answer these questions logically. Our opponents do not need to trouble themselves with that, as they operating solely from a PR standpoint, which they may eventually win.
I will note that while I oppose SSM, the LGBT community is absolutely right that some Christians, at least, are simply bigoted and respond at a visceral, nonlogical level themselves. I meet such Christians more often than I would like.
I will note that while I oppose SSM, the LGBT community is absolutely right that some Christians, at least, are simply bigoted and respond at a visceral, nonlogical level themselves. I meet such Christians more often than I would like.
3.19.2012 | 1:18pm
Mike Melendez says:
But, ferd, if all things are of equal value then why isn't the Christian viewpoint also equal?
3.19.2012 | 1:36pm
Fred says:
John Willems,
The problem is that you have an irresistable force meeting an imovable object. On the one hand, I want my child to grow up believing that, while individual homosexuals can be woderful people, homosexuality _per se_ is morally wrong and physically, emotionally, and psychologically unhealthy, and transgendering is a freakish defiance of nature. To LGBT folks, that is an attack on what they consider to be their core identity, the same to them (obviously I would disagree) as saying, "well, individual African Americans may be fine, but racially, African Americans are inferior." So either they don't get the validation to which they think they are entitled, not to mention the "official victim" status that has become so advantageous in our culture, or I have to raise my child in a hostile culture and disadvantage him with the label "bigot." There is no _tertium quid_, no real possibility of balance. One side will defeat the other and suppress the other's point of view. And in the decadent (in the root sense of decayed, rotten), ennervated, morally nihilistic culture we live in, it's not hard to guess who will win.
The problem is that you have an irresistable force meeting an imovable object. On the one hand, I want my child to grow up believing that, while individual homosexuals can be woderful people, homosexuality _per se_ is morally wrong and physically, emotionally, and psychologically unhealthy, and transgendering is a freakish defiance of nature. To LGBT folks, that is an attack on what they consider to be their core identity, the same to them (obviously I would disagree) as saying, "well, individual African Americans may be fine, but racially, African Americans are inferior." So either they don't get the validation to which they think they are entitled, not to mention the "official victim" status that has become so advantageous in our culture, or I have to raise my child in a hostile culture and disadvantage him with the label "bigot." There is no _tertium quid_, no real possibility of balance. One side will defeat the other and suppress the other's point of view. And in the decadent (in the root sense of decayed, rotten), ennervated, morally nihilistic culture we live in, it's not hard to guess who will win.
3.19.2012 | 2:10pm
Lara says:
I wouldn't go so far to call this emancipation. In many ways, the huge demonstrations of early 2011 that took place in Tahrir Square and led to the toppling of President Hosni Mubarak inspired Egypt’s gay community to join the call for a new, more democratic nation.
3.19.2012 | 2:36pm
David Nickol says:
I would like an example of an "open-minded movement," particularly a movement trying to secure rights (or what it believes to be rights) for a specific group of people. Was the black civil rights movement open minded? Did Martin Luther King say, "Well, I certainly understand your position that black people must go to the back of the bus. Let's agree to disagree."
It is always a difficult question, for those advocating tolerance, to say how tolerant genuinely tolerant people should be of truly intolerant people.
Surely no one is arguing that there is no such thing at all as anti-gay bigotry. Even the Catholic Church says homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
It is always a difficult question, for those advocating tolerance, to say how tolerant genuinely tolerant people should be of truly intolerant people.
Surely no one is arguing that there is no such thing at all as anti-gay bigotry. Even the Catholic Church says homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
3.19.2012 | 3:21pm
Gil says:
Rainer Werner Fassbinder, in my view, is the greatest German filmmaker of the 20th century, and certainly among the greatest of all filmmakers of the 20th century. Yet in a 600+-page tome on all the gay film artists of the 20th century in every category, Fassbinder was left out. Why?
First, Fassbinder was an honest man, and in general an honest man is always in trouble. Second, although Fassbinder was one of the first gay artists to come out of the closet and insisted on more than a few occasions (as did the woman he had married early on) that sexual attraction for him was exclusively with males, he still couldn’t kick a deep longing to be united with a woman in marriage and to have children. In other words, he was prepared to go the distance to arrive at the place he longed for most, but when the fullness of this longing came crashing in on him and he proposed to the woman he believed he could accomplish it with, the woman turned him down. Think about the irony in this: in the past, when gay men couldn’t kick this longing, they married and kept their homosexuality and the activity associated with it secret, which was fine for them in that time and milieu because it was part and parcel of how the gay sexual underground worked. But now this secrecy is a violation of gay ideology, and you will be punished if you dare to admit that you are gay but have a deeper longing to be united with a woman in marriage. Third, Fassbinder made masterpieces that explored aspects of being gay that horrified gay activists, films like “Fox and His Friends” and “In a Year With Thirteen Moons” (in my view Fassbinder’s greatest film).
Fassbinder early on had rejected the misogyny that was rampant in gay culture (before the activists of that culture began to adapt to a strategy that would suppress that common penchant), revealed in his words: “Women think in [Douglas] Sirk’s films. Something which has never struck me with other directors. None of them. Usually women are always reacting, doing what women are supposed to do, but in Sirk they think. It’s something that has to be seen. It’s great to see women think. It gives one hope. Honestly.”
Fassbinder also attempted to idealize monogamy that permits sexual encounters outside committed relationships as does Andrew Sullivan and other prominent gay activists today, but he didn’t in the process mangle the word “monogamy” and his view maintained a tragic sense: “I detest the idea that love between two persons can lead to salvation. All my life I have fought against this oppressive type of relationship. Instead, I believe in searching for a kind of love that somehow involves all of humanity.” Of course, this speaks to his deepest longing, the union of man and woman in a procreative adventure, and how all his other efforts in many directions failed miserably. If only he was alive to make a film about that, and that’s precisely why of all his existent film, for me “In a Year With thirteen Moons” comes closest and why I consider it his most personal and greatest film.
First, Fassbinder was an honest man, and in general an honest man is always in trouble. Second, although Fassbinder was one of the first gay artists to come out of the closet and insisted on more than a few occasions (as did the woman he had married early on) that sexual attraction for him was exclusively with males, he still couldn’t kick a deep longing to be united with a woman in marriage and to have children. In other words, he was prepared to go the distance to arrive at the place he longed for most, but when the fullness of this longing came crashing in on him and he proposed to the woman he believed he could accomplish it with, the woman turned him down. Think about the irony in this: in the past, when gay men couldn’t kick this longing, they married and kept their homosexuality and the activity associated with it secret, which was fine for them in that time and milieu because it was part and parcel of how the gay sexual underground worked. But now this secrecy is a violation of gay ideology, and you will be punished if you dare to admit that you are gay but have a deeper longing to be united with a woman in marriage. Third, Fassbinder made masterpieces that explored aspects of being gay that horrified gay activists, films like “Fox and His Friends” and “In a Year With Thirteen Moons” (in my view Fassbinder’s greatest film).
Fassbinder early on had rejected the misogyny that was rampant in gay culture (before the activists of that culture began to adapt to a strategy that would suppress that common penchant), revealed in his words: “Women think in [Douglas] Sirk’s films. Something which has never struck me with other directors. None of them. Usually women are always reacting, doing what women are supposed to do, but in Sirk they think. It’s something that has to be seen. It’s great to see women think. It gives one hope. Honestly.”
Fassbinder also attempted to idealize monogamy that permits sexual encounters outside committed relationships as does Andrew Sullivan and other prominent gay activists today, but he didn’t in the process mangle the word “monogamy” and his view maintained a tragic sense: “I detest the idea that love between two persons can lead to salvation. All my life I have fought against this oppressive type of relationship. Instead, I believe in searching for a kind of love that somehow involves all of humanity.” Of course, this speaks to his deepest longing, the union of man and woman in a procreative adventure, and how all his other efforts in many directions failed miserably. If only he was alive to make a film about that, and that’s precisely why of all his existent film, for me “In a Year With thirteen Moons” comes closest and why I consider it his most personal and greatest film.
3.19.2012 | 3:41pm
Ray Ingles says:
Just curious, regarding the Glatze quote - what if I were to find a parallel quote about questioning Mormonism from within? Or Christianity in general? What would that demonstrate?
3.19.2012 | 4:27pm
Sergio Méndez says:
"At present, this model of society is being rejected by the LGBT movement. And it is being rejected not to the extent that the movement simply disagrees with, and disapproves of, its detractors, but to the extent that it equates all disagreement and disapproval of itself with bigotry, and seeks to classify any question about the tenets of its own orthodoxy as hate speech."
Well, of course, that is a matter of discusion. Is no that christian disagreement with LGTB comunity is just a minor one. One you´re sexual preference is virtually, or literraly in many cases, treated as a disease and you demand that gay people have LESS rights than ordinary citizens, why not call such beliefs bigoted and discriminatives? Christians pretend they are having simply a difference of opinion on this matter. So do many racists, but with the last ones there is more concensus they are bigots.
Well, of course, that is a matter of discusion. Is no that christian disagreement with LGTB comunity is just a minor one. One you´re sexual preference is virtually, or literraly in many cases, treated as a disease and you demand that gay people have LESS rights than ordinary citizens, why not call such beliefs bigoted and discriminatives? Christians pretend they are having simply a difference of opinion on this matter. So do many racists, but with the last ones there is more concensus they are bigots.
3.19.2012 | 4:31pm
Sergio Méndez says:
Felapon said: "Just say, ´Yeah, I'm bigoted against muggers and pedophiles too.´"
And this is the kind of stuff I was refering. When you say that gay people are like pedophiles or muggers, and you don´t pretend to be treated like a bigot, you just have some serious congnitive disfunction.
And this is the kind of stuff I was refering. When you say that gay people are like pedophiles or muggers, and you don´t pretend to be treated like a bigot, you just have some serious congnitive disfunction.
3.19.2012 | 4:40pm
Martin McPhillips says:
This article about modernity and the homosexual movement is pretty weak tea. Our culture is being deconstructed by a dominant minority that is essentially a human sacrifice and sodomy cult, which is atavistic, not modern. That's the explanation for why it doesn't behave according to the rules of modern pluralism, such as they might be. Trying to be civil while resisting it will at best get you a headache. At worst they'll go after your reputation and livelihood. The problem isn't that we are modern and need some compliance with the rules. The problem is that the Western Civilization has ended and something else is upon us.
3.19.2012 | 5:01pm
Don Roberto says:
Gay is as gay does. The "B" in the name is especially revealing: it's behavior, not inate proclivity, and it is learned. Do the thought experiement: what if you were trained from early childhood that pleasure X was obtained via activity Y? GLBTQ behavior is questionable. All sorts of negative consequences arise from it.
And always love the sinner, hate the sin.
And always love the sinner, hate the sin.
3.19.2012 | 5:15pm
Samuel Foxdale says:
The LGBT "movement" deals with something that is fundamental to human nature and our society, right and wrong.
Yes, there is a such thing as relative morality, differing cultures, differing morals. But, this, this deals with something very basic, something that all humans should have: equality.
See, if Christians would let us have our equal rights to marriage and protections under the law there would be no issue; there would be no debate; there would be a lot less of a need for this very post. But, they're fundamentally flawed in there viewpoint because their viewpoint is based on something that has not been scientifically proven, i.e. God, while the LGBT movement IS based on something proven: there's nothing unnatural, changeable, or "wrong" with being homosexual.
Also, as another commenter pointed out, in the past, a similar debate was raised: whether blacks should get equal rights or not. During this debate, people said the same sorts of things. People defended that being racist was a difference of a opinion in the same way. They used the bible to suppress peoples' rights just as they're doing today.
I ask this: Why are we letting this travesty occur? Why are we not learning from our past mistakes and letting history repeat itself?
Yes, there is a such thing as relative morality, differing cultures, differing morals. But, this, this deals with something very basic, something that all humans should have: equality.
See, if Christians would let us have our equal rights to marriage and protections under the law there would be no issue; there would be no debate; there would be a lot less of a need for this very post. But, they're fundamentally flawed in there viewpoint because their viewpoint is based on something that has not been scientifically proven, i.e. God, while the LGBT movement IS based on something proven: there's nothing unnatural, changeable, or "wrong" with being homosexual.
Also, as another commenter pointed out, in the past, a similar debate was raised: whether blacks should get equal rights or not. During this debate, people said the same sorts of things. People defended that being racist was a difference of a opinion in the same way. They used the bible to suppress peoples' rights just as they're doing today.
I ask this: Why are we letting this travesty occur? Why are we not learning from our past mistakes and letting history repeat itself?
3.19.2012 | 5:42pm
Chris says:
It would be easier to believe that there were no bias against/animus toward gay people if there were not concerted efforts in the churches to deny equal civil rights to gays that their non-gay fellow citizens enjoy (e.g., Social Security benefits, DOMA), or to obstruct the passage of laws prohibiting discrimination in employment/housing (e.g., federal hate crimes laws), or to create alarmist but patently false arguments about how teachers will begin to teach children in schools that those kids should consider marrying persons of the same-sex (see California Prop. 8 ads), or that kindergarten children will be taught in school about gay sex (see campaign against California's inclusive textbook law), or that if gay people get the legal rights of marriage, somehow all of Western civilation will collapse and your kids will become confused about their own sexuality, or the silly argument that allowing gays to marry will somehow force a religious person's priest/minister/pastor to conduct weddings the church is opposed to (e.g., a Jew and a Catholic have the legal right to get married to each other, but when has a priest or rabbi ever been forced to conduct such a wedding? Certainly not at MY Catholic church, and the priest will tell you that up front)....
I don't understand how one can argue that there is no bias in such outlandish conduct, but instead lay it all at the feet of modernism. What does moderism have to do with religious folks' decision to indulge in alarmism?
I don't understand how one can argue that there is no bias in such outlandish conduct, but instead lay it all at the feet of modernism. What does moderism have to do with religious folks' decision to indulge in alarmism?
3.19.2012 | 6:09pm
SteveP says:
A truly modern movement will, by definition, expect to be questioned. Being questioned about one’s beliefs . . . is a necessary consequence of living in a diverse, pluralistic society.
If pluralism is seen as heterogeneous it is not surprising that homosexuals do not find the arrangement attractive.
If pluralism is seen as heterogeneous it is not surprising that homosexuals do not find the arrangement attractive.
3.19.2012 | 6:35pm
Sergio Méndez says:
Don Roberto:
Why is it relevant to you if being gay is innate or not? Let´s suppose being gay is some fully conscious decision (highly unlikely, but let’s suppose it): How that makes it wrong?
Why is it relevant to you if being gay is innate or not? Let´s suppose being gay is some fully conscious decision (highly unlikely, but let’s suppose it): How that makes it wrong?
3.19.2012 | 6:53pm
Don Roberto says:
Chris, why would you doubt that kids are being taught from the earliest ages that being gay is a-okay? In Albany New York kids are required to go on gay rights marches. Sex ed classes encourage "exploration." Some explicitly encourage kids to experiment with same sex activity. ("Try it; you may like it.") Here in California, the "many kinds of marriage" and "non-bullying" movements are pushed all the way down to kindergarten. This libertine "education" will only become more prevalent as younger cohorts have been more thoroughly indocrinated by Hollywood and the rest of mainstream media.
One would think that even atheists and free thinkers should be able to see that society needs kids, and that kids need a mother and a father. Blinded by lust, they rationalize anything, so long as their own perversions will not as readily be frowned upon. They do clearly understand that behavior can be taught, else they would not work so hard to reach the young and innocent.
If those with traditional values to not resist, in a few decades we will see things that even the current crop of libertines would call degenerate. (The libertines of the 1950s and 60s never anticipated their medical insurance paying for sex toys, e.g., contraceptives, or even for surgery to turn Qs into Ts.)
One would think that even atheists and free thinkers should be able to see that society needs kids, and that kids need a mother and a father. Blinded by lust, they rationalize anything, so long as their own perversions will not as readily be frowned upon. They do clearly understand that behavior can be taught, else they would not work so hard to reach the young and innocent.
If those with traditional values to not resist, in a few decades we will see things that even the current crop of libertines would call degenerate. (The libertines of the 1950s and 60s never anticipated their medical insurance paying for sex toys, e.g., contraceptives, or even for surgery to turn Qs into Ts.)
3.19.2012 | 6:57pm
Jon Rowe says:
"Gay is as gay does. The "B" in the name is especially revealing: it's behavior, not inate proclivity, and it is learned."
This isn't true. Sexual orientation is diverse and exists on a continuum. I know no analogy is perfect and the race analogy bothers some folks; but in this specific sense, sexual orientation and race are analogous: There is a diverse continuum of both. Through no fault or no choice of their own, there are some folks who are really white, some who are really black and folks of every shade in between. Likewise, through no fault and no choice of their own some folks are perfectly homosexual, some are perfectly heterosexual and there are bisexuals all over the continuum.
And indeed, in BOTH circumstances, sexual orientation AND race, it's the folks in the middle who have more of a meaningful choice as to how to define and understand their identity. The mixed race person can "pass" as white while the really black person cannot. Yet, the mixed race person also can choose to identify as black and not white or mixed race.
As it were, Ellen Degeneres, perfectly and purely homosexual, has less of a "choice" on the matter than Cynthia Nixon who is somewhere on the bisexual continuum but, like the mixed race person who chooses a "black" and not a "mixed race" identity, chooses a "gay" and not a "bi" identity.
This isn't true. Sexual orientation is diverse and exists on a continuum. I know no analogy is perfect and the race analogy bothers some folks; but in this specific sense, sexual orientation and race are analogous: There is a diverse continuum of both. Through no fault or no choice of their own, there are some folks who are really white, some who are really black and folks of every shade in between. Likewise, through no fault and no choice of their own some folks are perfectly homosexual, some are perfectly heterosexual and there are bisexuals all over the continuum.
And indeed, in BOTH circumstances, sexual orientation AND race, it's the folks in the middle who have more of a meaningful choice as to how to define and understand their identity. The mixed race person can "pass" as white while the really black person cannot. Yet, the mixed race person also can choose to identify as black and not white or mixed race.
As it were, Ellen Degeneres, perfectly and purely homosexual, has less of a "choice" on the matter than Cynthia Nixon who is somewhere on the bisexual continuum but, like the mixed race person who chooses a "black" and not a "mixed race" identity, chooses a "gay" and not a "bi" identity.
3.19.2012 | 7:17pm
Saint Louis says:
Samuel Foxdale said: "But, they're fundamentally flawed in there [sic] viewpoint because their viewpoint is based on something that has not been scientifically proven, i.e. God, while the LGBT movement IS based on something proven: there's nothing unnatural, changeable, or 'wrong' with being homosexual."
I'm so tired of atheists making this juvenile argument against God and thinking they're so clever. Of course there are no scientific proofs of God since science is the study of the natural world and God is, by definition, supernatural. There are of course several logical proofs for God's existence.
On the other hand, how can there be any scientific proof that homosexuality is neither unnatural, changeable, or wrong? The key to this is whether you define homosexuality as an inclination or as a behavior. If defined as an inclination, then maybe Samuel has an argument, but if defined as a behavior, then he loses me.
Is homosexuality unnatural? Well, the inclination might not be as it seems that it does occur in some species. But the behavior obviously is. The natural purpose of sex is to procreate and no offspring have ever been produced by homosexual intercourse.
Is homosexuality changeable? Again, the inclination may or may not be. But the behavior clearly is. All behaviors are changeable, even highly addictive ones. Smokers quit smoking, drinkers quit drinking, etc. Certainly those inclined to homosexuality can quit the behavior, too.
Is homosexuality wrong? According to Samuel, it's been scientifically proven that it's not, but since science doesn't deal morality/right and wrong, I don't see how this is possible.
I'm so tired of atheists making this juvenile argument against God and thinking they're so clever. Of course there are no scientific proofs of God since science is the study of the natural world and God is, by definition, supernatural. There are of course several logical proofs for God's existence.
On the other hand, how can there be any scientific proof that homosexuality is neither unnatural, changeable, or wrong? The key to this is whether you define homosexuality as an inclination or as a behavior. If defined as an inclination, then maybe Samuel has an argument, but if defined as a behavior, then he loses me.
Is homosexuality unnatural? Well, the inclination might not be as it seems that it does occur in some species. But the behavior obviously is. The natural purpose of sex is to procreate and no offspring have ever been produced by homosexual intercourse.
Is homosexuality changeable? Again, the inclination may or may not be. But the behavior clearly is. All behaviors are changeable, even highly addictive ones. Smokers quit smoking, drinkers quit drinking, etc. Certainly those inclined to homosexuality can quit the behavior, too.
Is homosexuality wrong? According to Samuel, it's been scientifically proven that it's not, but since science doesn't deal morality/right and wrong, I don't see how this is possible.
3.19.2012 | 7:26pm
maineman says:
Really? Should pedophiles and muggers have the same rights as the rest of us? Serial murderers? It's not as simplistic as many here would make it out to be.
The question is where should the line of permissible behavior be drawn, for the benefit of us all, and why? And if permissible, what behavior should be encouraged and rewarded and why or why not?
For that matter, the question really is what kind of behavior is good, right, and productive - which is determined not by us but by something beyond us - and what is bad, wrong, and destructive.
At any rate, religious bigotry just doesn't cut it when advocating ancient forms of paganism that were painstaking brought to heel through thousands of years of blood, sweat, and tears precisely because doing so allowed for the creation of more civil and successful cultures.
The question is where should the line of permissible behavior be drawn, for the benefit of us all, and why? And if permissible, what behavior should be encouraged and rewarded and why or why not?
For that matter, the question really is what kind of behavior is good, right, and productive - which is determined not by us but by something beyond us - and what is bad, wrong, and destructive.
At any rate, religious bigotry just doesn't cut it when advocating ancient forms of paganism that were painstaking brought to heel through thousands of years of blood, sweat, and tears precisely because doing so allowed for the creation of more civil and successful cultures.
3.19.2012 | 7:52pm
Mike Melendez says:
Chris,
You seem to have all the answers. It must make your life very simple.
You seem to have all the answers. It must make your life very simple.
3.19.2012 | 8:20pm
Dean from Ohio says:
"...in seeing all dissent as a moral outrage, the LGBT movement is working to construct the same kind of society in which it was for so long unwelcome."
Of course it is. Their ideology is the brownheaded cowbird, an alien life form laying its eggs in other birds' nests, starving the nestmates, growing up to do the same elsewhere, and (this unique to humans) fouling the nest while they're at it.
The other day I was discussing the issue of scriptural infallibility with a friend. I noted that a person's attitude makes all the difference. Historically, those who approach scripture willing to be judged remain faithful, while those who approach scripture willing to judge it become apostate. This applies both to individuals and to institutions. After departing down the road toward apostasy, the person's mind and conscience are defiled and are no longer able to discern the truth. As J. Budziszewski states in his essay on this very website, "The Revenge of Conscience," the conscience becomes a factory for evil deeds as an attempted relief mechanism for the awful moral pressure it exerts on itself.
So here we are in this cultural war over sexuality and marriage. So called "same-sex marriage" of two men or two women is an impossibility, just as absurd as what might result from a wedding of two women and a man, or from two people and a rock, or from any number of humans and other life forms. None of those is a marriage. All of those things are coming, and they will all be called marriage just as falsely. Every one of those persons, without exception, will have turned against the truth he or she did know, and sat in judgment over it, and so forfeited the opportunity to learn more truth. Marriage is a legal echo of natural biology and anthropology and theology, of creation itself: namely a daddy and a mommy becoming loving mates for life and bringing up the next generation to do the same. Homosexuals and lesbians in society do not create; they feed.
I don't know what the public policy solution is for this, but the Christian approach to rescue individuals from this prison is love, friendship, truth, prayer, fasting and the community of the church of redeemed sinners for whom Christ died.
Of course it is. Their ideology is the brownheaded cowbird, an alien life form laying its eggs in other birds' nests, starving the nestmates, growing up to do the same elsewhere, and (this unique to humans) fouling the nest while they're at it.
The other day I was discussing the issue of scriptural infallibility with a friend. I noted that a person's attitude makes all the difference. Historically, those who approach scripture willing to be judged remain faithful, while those who approach scripture willing to judge it become apostate. This applies both to individuals and to institutions. After departing down the road toward apostasy, the person's mind and conscience are defiled and are no longer able to discern the truth. As J. Budziszewski states in his essay on this very website, "The Revenge of Conscience," the conscience becomes a factory for evil deeds as an attempted relief mechanism for the awful moral pressure it exerts on itself.
So here we are in this cultural war over sexuality and marriage. So called "same-sex marriage" of two men or two women is an impossibility, just as absurd as what might result from a wedding of two women and a man, or from two people and a rock, or from any number of humans and other life forms. None of those is a marriage. All of those things are coming, and they will all be called marriage just as falsely. Every one of those persons, without exception, will have turned against the truth he or she did know, and sat in judgment over it, and so forfeited the opportunity to learn more truth. Marriage is a legal echo of natural biology and anthropology and theology, of creation itself: namely a daddy and a mommy becoming loving mates for life and bringing up the next generation to do the same. Homosexuals and lesbians in society do not create; they feed.
I don't know what the public policy solution is for this, but the Christian approach to rescue individuals from this prison is love, friendship, truth, prayer, fasting and the community of the church of redeemed sinners for whom Christ died.
3.19.2012 | 8:45pm
Gil says:
Chris,
Your concern that Christians are being alarmist. Is this what you are referring to?:
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/Schools/fistrep.htm#4
Your concern that Christians are being alarmist. Is this what you are referring to?:
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/Schools/fistrep.htm#4
3.19.2012 | 9:12pm
savvy says:
Race is an objective feature. People should be treated with fairness, based on their being human beings.
But, when the LGBT lobby pretends that they are literally another race, there are issues going to arise, since men and women have been proven to be different.
Is a same-sex attracted man any less of a man than other men or is a same-sex attracted woman any less of a woman than other women?
The idea that social conservatives play along with this notion, and not point out the objective nature of actions between homosexual relations and that between men and women, and then be accused of hate for pointing out the obvious.
Kirk Cameron being called an accomplice to murder because of his views on gay marriage, and the rest of us are supposed to be silent because nobody is allowed to question the libertine police and their forced acceptance of homosexual acts, in order to get rid of what they perceive to be heterosexism.
Some of us actually lived on this planet.
I have aspergers and yes, so I know that there can be differences in brain function, and I should be accommodated, but cannot demand, that I be treated like a different species, trying to re-make the world in my image.
A lot of these groups also disagree with pre-martial sex, adultery and a variety of practices but do not take the heat for doing so, the way they do with homosexuality.
But, when the LGBT lobby pretends that they are literally another race, there are issues going to arise, since men and women have been proven to be different.
Is a same-sex attracted man any less of a man than other men or is a same-sex attracted woman any less of a woman than other women?
The idea that social conservatives play along with this notion, and not point out the objective nature of actions between homosexual relations and that between men and women, and then be accused of hate for pointing out the obvious.
Kirk Cameron being called an accomplice to murder because of his views on gay marriage, and the rest of us are supposed to be silent because nobody is allowed to question the libertine police and their forced acceptance of homosexual acts, in order to get rid of what they perceive to be heterosexism.
Some of us actually lived on this planet.
I have aspergers and yes, so I know that there can be differences in brain function, and I should be accommodated, but cannot demand, that I be treated like a different species, trying to re-make the world in my image.
A lot of these groups also disagree with pre-martial sex, adultery and a variety of practices but do not take the heat for doing so, the way they do with homosexuality.
3.19.2012 | 9:34pm
Gil says:
And Chris,
Here's another example of the effect of introducing into sex education classes years ago the joy, normalcy and intimate expression of anal sex, all to accommodate gay activists. And be clear this insanity wasn’t being taught before the demands of gay activists demanded it:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6428003&page=1
Note how the liberal ABC news staff blinds itself to what the gay agenda has accomplished in convincing children it is perfectly fine to indulge in this destructive behavior.
Here's another example of the effect of introducing into sex education classes years ago the joy, normalcy and intimate expression of anal sex, all to accommodate gay activists. And be clear this insanity wasn’t being taught before the demands of gay activists demanded it:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6428003&page=1
Note how the liberal ABC news staff blinds itself to what the gay agenda has accomplished in convincing children it is perfectly fine to indulge in this destructive behavior.
3.19.2012 | 9:56pm
Red Phillips says:
From my blog post about this article.
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=11053
"Stevens gets one thing right. The reason we are having this debate is because of the excesses of modernity. Modern pluralism has undermined “taken-for-grantedness” (not Stevens’ term.) But instead of questioning modern pluralism, he essentially accuses the homosexual apologists of being insufficiently modern.
This concedes the modern liberal premise before the debate even starts. No wonder Christians are losing. But Christians aren’t responsible for being good little modernist liberals. They are responsible for being good Christians. They should respond to accusations of bigotry by unapologetically proclaiming the Truth of the Word of God in love. If the homosexual apologist don’t like it then that is between them and God."
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=11053
"Stevens gets one thing right. The reason we are having this debate is because of the excesses of modernity. Modern pluralism has undermined “taken-for-grantedness” (not Stevens’ term.) But instead of questioning modern pluralism, he essentially accuses the homosexual apologists of being insufficiently modern.
This concedes the modern liberal premise before the debate even starts. No wonder Christians are losing. But Christians aren’t responsible for being good little modernist liberals. They are responsible for being good Christians. They should respond to accusations of bigotry by unapologetically proclaiming the Truth of the Word of God in love. If the homosexual apologist don’t like it then that is between them and God."
3.19.2012 | 10:19pm
Patrick says:
Chris, so "just relax," then? Dismissing all such concerns out of hand as "alarmism" doesn't actually show them to be invalid. You didn't give any actual reasons for any of your positions, other than implying that you feel better not worrying and thinking positive thoughts.
"deny equal civil rights to gays that their non-gay fellow citizens enjoy (e.g., Social Security benefits, DOMA)"
Yes, well when you simply assume and assert that people have the right to marry the same sex, then it does seem rather obvious and straightforward. But you're just begging the question, which is, does the state have the power to upend thousands of years of established practice and recognize same-sex unions as in fact being marriage?
"kindergarten children will be taught in school about gay sex"
California has, in fact, passed a law requiring (presumably a very positive version of) "gay history." So that one has happened, the "alarmists" were right there. Do you really think there aren't many people who would like to see that happen across the country?
"that if gay people get the legal rights of marriage, somehow all of Western civilation will collapse and your kids will become confused about their own sexuality"
Well the former would be alarmist, yes, but not the latter. Don't you think it's potentially harmful to teenagers, who are already struggling to figure out their place in the world, to be indoctrinated with the view that sodomy is acceptable and forced to affirm it as equal? (And that's exactly what will be happening in California's state-mandated "gay history" courses.)
Are there hysterical anti-gay fanatics? Yes. Are there hysterical pro-gay fanatics? Yes again, and those are the ones you're much likely to see on TV. While we should treat all people with respect and compassion, there is no need to flatter homosexuals or to be naive about many of the illiberal viewpoints and tactics of the homosexual lobby.
(By the way, Catholic canon law allows inter-religious marriage.)
"deny equal civil rights to gays that their non-gay fellow citizens enjoy (e.g., Social Security benefits, DOMA)"
Yes, well when you simply assume and assert that people have the right to marry the same sex, then it does seem rather obvious and straightforward. But you're just begging the question, which is, does the state have the power to upend thousands of years of established practice and recognize same-sex unions as in fact being marriage?
"kindergarten children will be taught in school about gay sex"
California has, in fact, passed a law requiring (presumably a very positive version of) "gay history." So that one has happened, the "alarmists" were right there. Do you really think there aren't many people who would like to see that happen across the country?
"that if gay people get the legal rights of marriage, somehow all of Western civilation will collapse and your kids will become confused about their own sexuality"
Well the former would be alarmist, yes, but not the latter. Don't you think it's potentially harmful to teenagers, who are already struggling to figure out their place in the world, to be indoctrinated with the view that sodomy is acceptable and forced to affirm it as equal? (And that's exactly what will be happening in California's state-mandated "gay history" courses.)
Are there hysterical anti-gay fanatics? Yes. Are there hysterical pro-gay fanatics? Yes again, and those are the ones you're much likely to see on TV. While we should treat all people with respect and compassion, there is no need to flatter homosexuals or to be naive about many of the illiberal viewpoints and tactics of the homosexual lobby.
(By the way, Catholic canon law allows inter-religious marriage.)
3.19.2012 | 11:12pm
Michael says:
I read the articles that Stevens' first sentence linked to. I expected to see articles that accused Christian conservatives of being bigoted, but they didn't. Bruni never mentions any motivation for discrimination against gays. The second article quotes Barber's claim that the Church's stand is prejudiced, but bigotry is not the same as prejudice, and by definition, the Church's view is prejudiced because it makes a prejudgment about the propriety of gay behavior. In short, I found the article misrepresenting the sources.
3.19.2012 | 11:37pm
Polly Olga Yobek says:
This article is great. Calling Christians bigots because they don't believe homosexuality is right is just baseless name-calling. And I disagree with the comment that homosexuality has been scientifically proven to be unchangeable. If anything, studies have shown that Sexuality is fluid and on a spectrum - Freud posited most people were bisexual, and the Kinsey Scale shows this as well. I, myself, used to think I was completely lesbian. I was even engaged to another woman. Then I met a man I fell completely in love with. He is still the only man I have been attracted to, and I still prefer women over men. But I also think, given how fluid sexuality is, comparing those who don't think same-sex marriage is right to people who didn't think interracial marriage is right is a faulty analogy. One cannot change one's race. Sexuality is fluid and does change. Further, if one is truly going to talk about discrimination in terms of who can marry, then one need to consider the plight of those who believe in plural marriage.
3.20.2012 | 1:01am
Sergio Méndez says:
"Yes, well when you simply assume and assert that people have the right to marry the same sex, then it does seem rather obvious and straightforward. But you're just begging the question, which is, does the state have the power to upend thousands of years of established practice and recognize same-sex unions as in fact being marriage?"
This question is frankly, ridicoulous. In the same way we could have asked:
"does the state have the power to upend thousands of years of established practice and recognize women as equalls (allowed to have property, not considered property of their husbands, etc...) in a marriage?"
"does the state have the power to upend thousands of years of established practice and recognize interracial unions as in fact being marriage?"
And we could go on and on, and not simply with marriage.
This question is frankly, ridicoulous. In the same way we could have asked:
"does the state have the power to upend thousands of years of established practice and recognize women as equalls (allowed to have property, not considered property of their husbands, etc...) in a marriage?"
"does the state have the power to upend thousands of years of established practice and recognize interracial unions as in fact being marriage?"
And we could go on and on, and not simply with marriage.
3.20.2012 | 1:18am
GlennB says:
The validity of science depends on something besides science. Even the belief that scientists are objective in their research has been shown to be problematic. Science was once used to argue for some ethnicities being inferior to others. Samuel Foxdale's unproven assertion (he gives no support for his claim) that LGBT is based on something proven is news to me. Does he mean scientifically proven? And I wonder just how science proves what is morally right or wrong. Just what experiment do we run to show that stealing or lying is wrong? Just how do we get an "ought" from an "is"? The notion that homosexuality is "natural" is questionable. Evolutionary biology itself calls into question the anomaly that is homosexuality. Medical science argues against much of homosexual behavior as risky to health. There are still psychiatrists and psychologists who question it. But just how does science validate or invalidate any particular sexual behavior? Lots of adulterers seek to justify themselves with arguments that their behavior is perfectly
okay. That adultery is "normal" in that it is a frequent behavior does not mean it is "normative"- that it is to be encouraged and accepted as contributing to human flourishing. For Christians, homosexuality is not the only sin, let alone the only sexual sin. As for history repeating itself, decadent sex has played a prominent role in the demise of many cultures. And Christians love history because they also happen to believe in truth based on testimony and not just truth based on experiment. N.T. Wright's "Resurrection of the Son of God" is one great example.
okay. That adultery is "normal" in that it is a frequent behavior does not mean it is "normative"- that it is to be encouraged and accepted as contributing to human flourishing. For Christians, homosexuality is not the only sin, let alone the only sexual sin. As for history repeating itself, decadent sex has played a prominent role in the demise of many cultures. And Christians love history because they also happen to believe in truth based on testimony and not just truth based on experiment. N.T. Wright's "Resurrection of the Son of God" is one great example.
3.20.2012 | 3:26am
andrew says:
perhaps what we are witnessing is the triumph of feelings over truth. the LGBT pre-cognitive and instinctive "argument" often amounts to little more than "don't you dare make me feel like an outsider, don't you dare make me feel dirty and inferior, don't you dare make me feel like a "second class citizen," don't you dare make me feel X, Y, and Z. you are such a bigot because of my feelings. it's so obvious that you are a bigot." but surely it's self-evident that argumentum ad misericordium arguments are fallacious?
granted, there are bigots everywhere, and certainly among those who call themselves christians. this fact aside, is reasoning with such "feelers" even possible? perhaps the author of the article is a little too optimistic....
granted, there are bigots everywhere, and certainly among those who call themselves christians. this fact aside, is reasoning with such "feelers" even possible? perhaps the author of the article is a little too optimistic....
3.20.2012 | 3:48am
DIYPoststructuralism says:
It surprises me that something as obviously complex as LGBTetc is discussed as monolithic (the whole point of the acronym is to express diversity).
There have been decades long debate between lesbian sepratists, gay assimilationists, essentialist trans activists, queer poststructuralists etc. All with divergent and self-critical assessments of sexuality. It just so happens that radicals in any movement shout the loudest. In feminism as with LGBT, there is a real contrast between academic and activist arms, with competing theories and goals.
That "you don't question same-sex desire" might appear true in the same way that "boy's dont cry", as a disciplinary expectation: but the reality is entirely the opposite of both statements. Stevens, you have a bit of work to do.
In your defence "bigot" is a pretty hollow-to-the-point-of-meaningless accusation. It doesn't educate or open up debate.
There have been decades long debate between lesbian sepratists, gay assimilationists, essentialist trans activists, queer poststructuralists etc. All with divergent and self-critical assessments of sexuality. It just so happens that radicals in any movement shout the loudest. In feminism as with LGBT, there is a real contrast between academic and activist arms, with competing theories and goals.
That "you don't question same-sex desire" might appear true in the same way that "boy's dont cry", as a disciplinary expectation: but the reality is entirely the opposite of both statements. Stevens, you have a bit of work to do.
In your defence "bigot" is a pretty hollow-to-the-point-of-meaningless accusation. It doesn't educate or open up debate.
3.20.2012 | 10:50am
David Nickol says:
I don't have the time or disposition to do it, but it would be fascinating for someone truly fair-minded to go through all the comments and to rate them for "open mindedness."
3.20.2012 | 2:24pm
Patrick says:
Sergio Méndez:
This question is frankly, ridicoulous. In the same way we could have asked:
"does the state have the power to upend thousands of years of established practice and recognize women as equalls (allowed to have property, not considered property of their husbands, etc...) in a marriage?"
"does the state have the power to upend thousands of years of established practice and recognize interracial unions as in fact being marriage?"
.
No because marriage predates the state. The state recognizes marriage, whereas property laws can't, as such, exist outside of the state. Thus, it can change them. There is nothing biologically unnatural about interracial marriages, so there is no need to prohibit them. (There are even theories that they produce healthier children due to a "hybrid vigor.")
Isn't the real ridiculous thing to pretend that marriage somehow can be disconnected from creating a family, and that that can be disconnected from the ability to have children? We can call homosexual unions "marriage," but all that will do is flatter them and play along with their perverse "two dads" fantasy play world.
"And we could go on and on, and not simply with marriage."
.
We could. For example, why not three or four people "marrying?" Or why not have the state step in to encourage hiring female football players for NFL teams? Seems kind of bigoted that they all seem to have only men, doesn't it? Perhaps while we're at it we should make men feel better about themselves by introducing mandatory male maternity wards in hospitals? (Don't worry, they'll be "free.") Men and women are the same if the state says so, right?
This question is frankly, ridicoulous. In the same way we could have asked:
"does the state have the power to upend thousands of years of established practice and recognize women as equalls (allowed to have property, not considered property of their husbands, etc...) in a marriage?"
"does the state have the power to upend thousands of years of established practice and recognize interracial unions as in fact being marriage?"
.
No because marriage predates the state. The state recognizes marriage, whereas property laws can't, as such, exist outside of the state. Thus, it can change them. There is nothing biologically unnatural about interracial marriages, so there is no need to prohibit them. (There are even theories that they produce healthier children due to a "hybrid vigor.")
Isn't the real ridiculous thing to pretend that marriage somehow can be disconnected from creating a family, and that that can be disconnected from the ability to have children? We can call homosexual unions "marriage," but all that will do is flatter them and play along with their perverse "two dads" fantasy play world.
"And we could go on and on, and not simply with marriage."
.
We could. For example, why not three or four people "marrying?" Or why not have the state step in to encourage hiring female football players for NFL teams? Seems kind of bigoted that they all seem to have only men, doesn't it? Perhaps while we're at it we should make men feel better about themselves by introducing mandatory male maternity wards in hospitals? (Don't worry, they'll be "free.") Men and women are the same if the state says so, right?
3.20.2012 | 4:12pm
Sergio Méndez says:
Patrick:
1. If marriage "predates the State", why conservatives such as yourself are so eager to use the power of the state to impose your own version of what is marriage to the rest of society?
2. You say there is nothing "biologically unnatural" about interratial marriages (funny racists used the biological argument to foster their case). But then, what has "biology" to do with marriage? Or is marriage just some biological imperative driven by sex and not a commitement of people deciding to live togheter and loving each other?
3. The argument about marriage and family is ludicrous. Not only because many marriage never end procreating (by will of its participants), but because their is nothing that a gay couple perfectly can start a family by abortion or in vitro fertilization (or even, one of the participants may have a son from a previous heterosexual engagment).
4. "why not three or four people "marrying?" As far it is concensual, why not?
5. "Or why not have the state step in to encourage hiring female football players for NFL teams?" You do understand that the state is NOT encouraging gays to marry just by allowing them to engage in such arrengement? A more correct analogy is that the state FORBADE NFL teams to ever contracting a woman in their team (who knows, maybe it will happen one day), don´t you agree?
6. Man and woman have the same rights, regardless if the state, conservatives of churches say they do or not. Sorry to remind you.
1. If marriage "predates the State", why conservatives such as yourself are so eager to use the power of the state to impose your own version of what is marriage to the rest of society?
2. You say there is nothing "biologically unnatural" about interratial marriages (funny racists used the biological argument to foster their case). But then, what has "biology" to do with marriage? Or is marriage just some biological imperative driven by sex and not a commitement of people deciding to live togheter and loving each other?
3. The argument about marriage and family is ludicrous. Not only because many marriage never end procreating (by will of its participants), but because their is nothing that a gay couple perfectly can start a family by abortion or in vitro fertilization (or even, one of the participants may have a son from a previous heterosexual engagment).
4. "why not three or four people "marrying?" As far it is concensual, why not?
5. "Or why not have the state step in to encourage hiring female football players for NFL teams?" You do understand that the state is NOT encouraging gays to marry just by allowing them to engage in such arrengement? A more correct analogy is that the state FORBADE NFL teams to ever contracting a woman in their team (who knows, maybe it will happen one day), don´t you agree?
6. Man and woman have the same rights, regardless if the state, conservatives of churches say they do or not. Sorry to remind you.
3.20.2012 | 5:23pm
Gil says:
I make it a point to return every five years to what I consider the greatest American play, Eugene O'Neill's "The Iceman Cometh", and although there are many versions, I have settled on John Frankenheimer's faithful (in words and length) 1973 version, that does suffer in some respects with casting problems.
The reason I consider it the greatest American play is because it speaks relentlessly to America as the ultimately progressive country where one must be successful in all that one pursues, or, as an alternative, one can live the American Dream, literally, inside a dream, most especially a drunken or drug-addicted dream, what O'Neill repetitively refers to as "pipe dreams". He not only references in the play the pipe dreams related to degenerative forms of finance (laissez-faire capitalism) and politics (socialism and anarchy), but most especially the pipe dreams of relationships that are founded on narcissistic self-absorption. O'Neil makes clear over a four-hour autopsy on self worship that its end is always death: death of the soul that inevitably is accompanied by a resigned embracing of physical death.
Andrei Tarkovsky's last film was a meditation on the nature of sacrifice ("The Sacrifice"). He was dying of cancer when he made it, and, in my view, he decided to explore what is most essential in the human condition for humans to truly progress as a species, and he concluded that it is sacrifice, what post-modernism utterly rejects as foundational, best expressed by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life...” In other words, sacrifice has no value in and of itself, but is one of many things a person can choose or reject to make one's life meaningful.
Gay marriage is a disordered social arrangement that is for most gay persons in our country a pipe dream, a pipe dream that is not only selfish (for the heart of a real marriage is between a man and a woman in the love sacrifices they will make in modeling what is best for their children in pursuing a fruitful life), but an actual enemy to children. Gay marriage will model what? It will model the notion that children don’t deserve a mother or a father, that their parents’ selfish desires trumps what they (children) deserve and need. It will model sexual relatedness choices that are always destructive, and if the children judge those behaviors to be disgusting or life-threatening, they will be ostracized and psychologically/emotionally mangled by their parents in being labeled "bigots". In other words, the children in gay marriages will be sacrificed on the altar of their parents’ selfishness.
Time for another viewing of "The Iceman Cometh", for he has returned with a vengeance and is determined to stay till the end.
The reason I consider it the greatest American play is because it speaks relentlessly to America as the ultimately progressive country where one must be successful in all that one pursues, or, as an alternative, one can live the American Dream, literally, inside a dream, most especially a drunken or drug-addicted dream, what O'Neill repetitively refers to as "pipe dreams". He not only references in the play the pipe dreams related to degenerative forms of finance (laissez-faire capitalism) and politics (socialism and anarchy), but most especially the pipe dreams of relationships that are founded on narcissistic self-absorption. O'Neil makes clear over a four-hour autopsy on self worship that its end is always death: death of the soul that inevitably is accompanied by a resigned embracing of physical death.
Andrei Tarkovsky's last film was a meditation on the nature of sacrifice ("The Sacrifice"). He was dying of cancer when he made it, and, in my view, he decided to explore what is most essential in the human condition for humans to truly progress as a species, and he concluded that it is sacrifice, what post-modernism utterly rejects as foundational, best expressed by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life...” In other words, sacrifice has no value in and of itself, but is one of many things a person can choose or reject to make one's life meaningful.
Gay marriage is a disordered social arrangement that is for most gay persons in our country a pipe dream, a pipe dream that is not only selfish (for the heart of a real marriage is between a man and a woman in the love sacrifices they will make in modeling what is best for their children in pursuing a fruitful life), but an actual enemy to children. Gay marriage will model what? It will model the notion that children don’t deserve a mother or a father, that their parents’ selfish desires trumps what they (children) deserve and need. It will model sexual relatedness choices that are always destructive, and if the children judge those behaviors to be disgusting or life-threatening, they will be ostracized and psychologically/emotionally mangled by their parents in being labeled "bigots". In other words, the children in gay marriages will be sacrificed on the altar of their parents’ selfishness.
Time for another viewing of "The Iceman Cometh", for he has returned with a vengeance and is determined to stay till the end.
3.20.2012 | 5:24pm
pentamom says:
"does the state have the power to upend thousands of years of established practice and recognize women as equalls (allowed to have property, not considered property of their husbands, etc...) in a marriage?"
There's no such thing as thousands of years of universal established practice to that effect. It's even mostly untrue in most of modern and medieval Western culture. I'm not aware of any widespread culture that endured for any length of time in which 1) individual property ownership was recognized but 2) women were not allowed to own property.
So, you might try to find a real example, and ask the question again.
There's no such thing as thousands of years of universal established practice to that effect. It's even mostly untrue in most of modern and medieval Western culture. I'm not aware of any widespread culture that endured for any length of time in which 1) individual property ownership was recognized but 2) women were not allowed to own property.
So, you might try to find a real example, and ask the question again.
3.20.2012 | 5:26pm
pentamom says:
"does the state have the power to upend thousands of years of established practice and recognize interracial unions as in fact being marriage?"
Oops, missed this one. As far as I'm aware this was only the case in small corner of the world for a couple of centuries. The thousands of years of established practice was to allow marriage across races.
Oops, missed this one. As far as I'm aware this was only the case in small corner of the world for a couple of centuries. The thousands of years of established practice was to allow marriage across races.
3.20.2012 | 5:35pm
Sergio Méndez says:
Pentamon:
Excuse me, but at least in christian societies, women were universally treated as inferior beings in (and outside marriage) until the XX century...that makes more than 1 thousend years the way traditional mariage was "defined". And to be honest, the pagan traditions (say, roman for example) that made its way into western christian society weren´t any better, so the tradition goes futher as far as the west (christian or not) is concerned.
Excuse me, but at least in christian societies, women were universally treated as inferior beings in (and outside marriage) until the XX century...that makes more than 1 thousend years the way traditional mariage was "defined". And to be honest, the pagan traditions (say, roman for example) that made its way into western christian society weren´t any better, so the tradition goes futher as far as the west (christian or not) is concerned.
3.20.2012 | 8:23pm
SteveP says:
Sergio Méndez: Augustine writes a fairly sharp criticism of the edict which made it illegal for women to inherit.
3.21.2012 | 11:39am
pentamom says:
I don't deny that there was a lot of ill-treatment of women as inferior. But there was nothing like a universal notion that women were "property" or "couldn't own property" inside or outside Christian societies. That's pure mythology. Let's not go "fake but accurate" here with what you said.
3.21.2012 | 8:40pm
James M. says:
Sergio:
You ask "If marriage 'predates the State', why (are) conservatives such as yourself are so eager to use the power of the state to impose your own version of what is marriage to the rest of society?" While the state recognizes the validity of real things, it doesn't "impose" them any more than one can accuse the state of "imposing" on a thief when denying his right to someone else's property. When I stand in opposition to the notion of gay marriage, I'm not doing it out of a sense of bigotry but rather out of an opposition to the state legitimizing something that is not real, a point made in earlier comments. Either marriage is a real institution or it is not. If it is real, then what is it? If it is not real, IE an arbitrary social construction, then what is the point? Dispense with all the marriage talk and let LGBT folk simply lobby for social approval and public goods on the basis of their sexual proclivities. As to the ontological question itself, good luck with putting together a cogent definition of marriage that is subject to mere preference.
You ask "If marriage 'predates the State', why (are) conservatives such as yourself are so eager to use the power of the state to impose your own version of what is marriage to the rest of society?" While the state recognizes the validity of real things, it doesn't "impose" them any more than one can accuse the state of "imposing" on a thief when denying his right to someone else's property. When I stand in opposition to the notion of gay marriage, I'm not doing it out of a sense of bigotry but rather out of an opposition to the state legitimizing something that is not real, a point made in earlier comments. Either marriage is a real institution or it is not. If it is real, then what is it? If it is not real, IE an arbitrary social construction, then what is the point? Dispense with all the marriage talk and let LGBT folk simply lobby for social approval and public goods on the basis of their sexual proclivities. As to the ontological question itself, good luck with putting together a cogent definition of marriage that is subject to mere preference.
3.22.2012 | 12:58am
A Rasmussen says:
"Either marriage is a real institution or it is not. If it is real, then what is it? If it is not real, IE an arbitrary social construction, then what is the point?"
Since when are arbitrary social constructions not real? Money is an arbitrary social constructions and it is real. First Things magazine is an arbitrary social construction and it is real.
Marriage, too, is an arbitrary social construction, and it is real. It can be defined in a multitude of ways by society. Allowing same-sex marriage doesn't make it any less real. All of society is an arbitrary social construction. That doesn't make it unreal.
The point is that marriage in our society creates stable, long-lasting family ties and relationships. It provides a framework for assigning rights, duties and responsibilities to those who partake in it. It provides a variety of benefits, and many of us feel that denying those benefits to same-sex couples who are willing to assume the duties and responsibilities of marriage is unfair, and a form of discrimination.
I don't like the word "bigot" because it implies active hatred or animosity, and at least most of the christian voices on the subject of same-sex marriage don't seem to speak with that amount of venom (notwithstanding the comparisons with pedophiles and muggers that have popped up in this comment thread - I still think those are mostly outliers). And I agree that throwing around the word "bigot" is a cheap way to try and end a debate instead of engaging in it. To that extent I agree with the author of this article.
But I do believe that christian opposition to full acceptance of gays in our society is based on a rigid religious dogma that could be abandoned without diminishing one bit our faithfulness to God. To me, this hemming and hawing about sexual orientation makes about as much sense as the church's former opposition to acknowledging that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa. And I have faith that one day it will sound just as archaic - it's just a matter of how much hurt and suffering the rigid adherence to dogma will cause along the way.
Since when are arbitrary social constructions not real? Money is an arbitrary social constructions and it is real. First Things magazine is an arbitrary social construction and it is real.
Marriage, too, is an arbitrary social construction, and it is real. It can be defined in a multitude of ways by society. Allowing same-sex marriage doesn't make it any less real. All of society is an arbitrary social construction. That doesn't make it unreal.
The point is that marriage in our society creates stable, long-lasting family ties and relationships. It provides a framework for assigning rights, duties and responsibilities to those who partake in it. It provides a variety of benefits, and many of us feel that denying those benefits to same-sex couples who are willing to assume the duties and responsibilities of marriage is unfair, and a form of discrimination.
I don't like the word "bigot" because it implies active hatred or animosity, and at least most of the christian voices on the subject of same-sex marriage don't seem to speak with that amount of venom (notwithstanding the comparisons with pedophiles and muggers that have popped up in this comment thread - I still think those are mostly outliers). And I agree that throwing around the word "bigot" is a cheap way to try and end a debate instead of engaging in it. To that extent I agree with the author of this article.
But I do believe that christian opposition to full acceptance of gays in our society is based on a rigid religious dogma that could be abandoned without diminishing one bit our faithfulness to God. To me, this hemming and hawing about sexual orientation makes about as much sense as the church's former opposition to acknowledging that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa. And I have faith that one day it will sound just as archaic - it's just a matter of how much hurt and suffering the rigid adherence to dogma will cause along the way.
3.22.2012 | 2:15am
Sergio Méndez says:
Stevep:
What is your point? That there was some disense inside the church about some aspects concerning the status of women? So what? Isn´t or isn´t true that the Church and christian societies treated women as inferior second rate human beings during more than a millenia?
Pentanom:
I never said women were treated like property in the past in christian societies (althought they were not very far from that). About owning property, that is very discusable. But the point remains by your own admision: women were treated as inferiors, and so that reflected in the way traditional marriage was conceived . By your own logic concerning gay marriage, you should be also defending that treatment.
James:
"While the state recognizes the validity of real things, it doesn't "impose" them any more than one can accuse the state of "imposing" on a thief when denying his right to someone else's property."
Well, it does impose a sense of marriage when it denies gays the right to marry. When you say that the state cannot legitimize gay marriage, basically what you are doing is reclaiming yourself the right to use its arm to forbid people from marrying (and only recognizing the kind of of unions you pretend are valid). You say that either "marriage is a real institution or not". Well, the question is: If it is real, why do you require the hand of the state to enforce your version of it over all others?
Your analogy with the thief and private property is misguided: gay people marrying are not denying heterosexual or anybody else the right to form such kind of unions (as the thief does when he steals property that is not his or hers). And as far as I have seen, nor you nor your chuch has the right to deny gays the right to form unions, live toghether, raise a family and, yes, if they want it, call it "marriage".
What is your point? That there was some disense inside the church about some aspects concerning the status of women? So what? Isn´t or isn´t true that the Church and christian societies treated women as inferior second rate human beings during more than a millenia?
Pentanom:
I never said women were treated like property in the past in christian societies (althought they were not very far from that). About owning property, that is very discusable. But the point remains by your own admision: women were treated as inferiors, and so that reflected in the way traditional marriage was conceived . By your own logic concerning gay marriage, you should be also defending that treatment.
James:
"While the state recognizes the validity of real things, it doesn't "impose" them any more than one can accuse the state of "imposing" on a thief when denying his right to someone else's property."
Well, it does impose a sense of marriage when it denies gays the right to marry. When you say that the state cannot legitimize gay marriage, basically what you are doing is reclaiming yourself the right to use its arm to forbid people from marrying (and only recognizing the kind of of unions you pretend are valid). You say that either "marriage is a real institution or not". Well, the question is: If it is real, why do you require the hand of the state to enforce your version of it over all others?
Your analogy with the thief and private property is misguided: gay people marrying are not denying heterosexual or anybody else the right to form such kind of unions (as the thief does when he steals property that is not his or hers). And as far as I have seen, nor you nor your chuch has the right to deny gays the right to form unions, live toghether, raise a family and, yes, if they want it, call it "marriage".
3.22.2012 | 9:18am
SteveP says:
Sergio Méndez: Augustine, Bishop and Roman citizen, criticized the imperial edict forbidding female Roman citizens from inheriting property. Likewise Ignatius of Antioch examined couples to ensure the motivation to wed was love.
In the United States, all males did not have the right to vote until a couple of years after all females got the right to vote.
In other words the assertions you made are hardly universal for the time period you invoked.
In the United States, all males did not have the right to vote until a couple of years after all females got the right to vote.
In other words the assertions you made are hardly universal for the time period you invoked.
3.22.2012 | 11:47am
James M. says:
A. Rasmussen:
I understand to a degree the professed atheist's objections, but I'm not sure how being faithful to God squares with the idea that marriage is arbitrary. Institutions are identified as such because they have grounding in a real God who created them for particualar purposes. Or am I missing something?
I understand to a degree the professed atheist's objections, but I'm not sure how being faithful to God squares with the idea that marriage is arbitrary. Institutions are identified as such because they have grounding in a real God who created them for particualar purposes. Or am I missing something?
3.22.2012 | 2:45pm
A Rasmussen says:
James M:
"I understand to a degree the professed atheist's objections, but I'm not sure how being faithful to God squares with the idea that marriage is arbitrary. Institutions are identified as such because they have grounding in a real God who created them for particualar purposes. Or am I missing something?"
Social institutions, in general, are _not_ identified as such because the have grounding in a real God who created them for particular purposes. Is the institution of the University of Washington recognized as such because it is grounded in a real God who created it? No. It is recognized because it was chartered by the State of Washington and society recognizes it to be what society created it to be.
I again use money as an example. Is the dollar bill in my pocket recognized as legal tender because God created it? No. It is an arbitrary social institution. We could print in any color, call it anything we wanted, make it of any value - heck, we could use rocks for money if society wanted to. Not necessarily workable, but no more arbitrary than the paper we use now.
Every social institution is in some way arbitrary. Even if marriage were created by God, did he set the age of consent at 16, like it is set at in my state, or that you can't marry your first cousin? No. Society creates arbitrary rules for the institution, including who can engage in it.
Now I understand that marriage is a unique institution and many feel that it was created by God in the Garden of Eden, prior to society or government, to be immutable and forever the union solely between one man and one woman. I'm saying that I don't believe this. I'm saying that this is the rigid religious dogma that causes more harm than good in the world, and I don't believe that God intended that same-sex couples should be forever excluded from the institution.
What was God supposed to do, have Moses put an asterisk in Genesis, saying "*this passage shall not be construed as a basis for discriminating against same-sex couples in the twenty-first century when society finally gets around to recognizing their basic humanity - a humanity that should have been apparent from most everything else I've said in this book and the message of my son, who you don't know about yet, but who I'm going to send later on. Oh and by the way, I'm going to okay polygamy, and stoning for adultery for a few millenia as well, but eventually you'll come to realize that those are wrong, too, so don't get too attached to them."
Is marriage not something that can evolve _at all_? And if it can change or be adapted to different social environments, why can't it be changed or adapted to allow same-sex marriage?
"I understand to a degree the professed atheist's objections, but I'm not sure how being faithful to God squares with the idea that marriage is arbitrary. Institutions are identified as such because they have grounding in a real God who created them for particualar purposes. Or am I missing something?"
Social institutions, in general, are _not_ identified as such because the have grounding in a real God who created them for particular purposes. Is the institution of the University of Washington recognized as such because it is grounded in a real God who created it? No. It is recognized because it was chartered by the State of Washington and society recognizes it to be what society created it to be.
I again use money as an example. Is the dollar bill in my pocket recognized as legal tender because God created it? No. It is an arbitrary social institution. We could print in any color, call it anything we wanted, make it of any value - heck, we could use rocks for money if society wanted to. Not necessarily workable, but no more arbitrary than the paper we use now.
Every social institution is in some way arbitrary. Even if marriage were created by God, did he set the age of consent at 16, like it is set at in my state, or that you can't marry your first cousin? No. Society creates arbitrary rules for the institution, including who can engage in it.
Now I understand that marriage is a unique institution and many feel that it was created by God in the Garden of Eden, prior to society or government, to be immutable and forever the union solely between one man and one woman. I'm saying that I don't believe this. I'm saying that this is the rigid religious dogma that causes more harm than good in the world, and I don't believe that God intended that same-sex couples should be forever excluded from the institution.
What was God supposed to do, have Moses put an asterisk in Genesis, saying "*this passage shall not be construed as a basis for discriminating against same-sex couples in the twenty-first century when society finally gets around to recognizing their basic humanity - a humanity that should have been apparent from most everything else I've said in this book and the message of my son, who you don't know about yet, but who I'm going to send later on. Oh and by the way, I'm going to okay polygamy, and stoning for adultery for a few millenia as well, but eventually you'll come to realize that those are wrong, too, so don't get too attached to them."
Is marriage not something that can evolve _at all_? And if it can change or be adapted to different social environments, why can't it be changed or adapted to allow same-sex marriage?
3.22.2012 | 2:56pm
Gil says:
A Rasmussen,
You write, "But I do believe that christian opposition to full acceptance of gays in our society is based on a rigid religious dogma that could be abandoned without diminishing one bit our faithfulness to God."
I am supposing you mean here that that "full acceptance" includes gay marriage and the disordered sexual behavior that attempts to replicate the sexual union between man and woman (and why there is this penchant in many gay relationships for one of the males to take on mannerisms and attitudes that simulate women). Two points: Church dogma has never been abandoned in its 2000-year history, and it will not be abandoned in the future. Second, the Church has defended in numerous ways the institution of marriage not because it is rightly perceived as the domestic church, but because it is convinced, as legitimate science has proved throughout the centuries, that a child being raised by both a father and mother lends best to the child's full maturation, which prepares that child in his/her full maturation to make a lasting contribution to humanity's march to the end of history.
What we humans have learned throughout thousands of years of history is that a child being deprived of a mother or father has dire consequences. Just look at what the welfare system did to poor African American families in excluding the male from the family as a condition for assistance. Government bureaucrats really believed the State in partnership with the woman was a better alternative than having a male parent present (philosophically it meant subtracting the corrupt patriarchal element that was perceived as the singular cause of all the problems in the West). This came out of experiments taking place in Communist Russia and Cuba that were touted as highly successful in the rearing of children, and many influential social scientists in America bought into it. We know now (or most do) that this was a big mistake, for with the male absent the children far too often didn't mature and their lives got caught up in innumerable dilemmas. There just isn’t any better way to raise a child than in the nuclear family construct of man, woman and child.
It is a delusional naiveté bordering on psychosis that believes a child doesn't need a mother or father in his/her maturation process. And as I pointed out above, once gay marriage is instituted, that will begin the process of affirming a motherless or fatherless family as part of the norm in the raising of children (it won’t be viewed as a deprivation for the child, something the child can at some future date contend with). Children will be subjected to psychological and emotional deprivation, and, as Alice Miller makes clear in her book “The Drama of the Gifted Child” it isn’t the deprivation (abuse) that makes children crazy, but being convinced that they aren’t being deprived (abused). And our entire society—from the parents to the teachers to psychologists the children will later seek out for help to discern the meaning of their neurotic lives—will insist that it is they, the children, who have the problem, not society, and certainly not their “loving parents” who foot the bills for the professionals.
Many gays continue to point out that through divorce, the death of one parent and other causes a child will end up fatherless or motherless. But these are AFFLICTIONS the a child will have to learn to endure, and hopefully through extended family, with a realistic awareness that the child does need a male and female involved in his/her maturation, the child will be provided with ongoing gender-specific influences, especially having regularly modeled to him/her relationships between men and women.
My question to you is this: WHY would you want to institute a dynamic that GUARANTEES that the child will be deprived of a gender-specific parent?
We know
You write, "But I do believe that christian opposition to full acceptance of gays in our society is based on a rigid religious dogma that could be abandoned without diminishing one bit our faithfulness to God."
I am supposing you mean here that that "full acceptance" includes gay marriage and the disordered sexual behavior that attempts to replicate the sexual union between man and woman (and why there is this penchant in many gay relationships for one of the males to take on mannerisms and attitudes that simulate women). Two points: Church dogma has never been abandoned in its 2000-year history, and it will not be abandoned in the future. Second, the Church has defended in numerous ways the institution of marriage not because it is rightly perceived as the domestic church, but because it is convinced, as legitimate science has proved throughout the centuries, that a child being raised by both a father and mother lends best to the child's full maturation, which prepares that child in his/her full maturation to make a lasting contribution to humanity's march to the end of history.
What we humans have learned throughout thousands of years of history is that a child being deprived of a mother or father has dire consequences. Just look at what the welfare system did to poor African American families in excluding the male from the family as a condition for assistance. Government bureaucrats really believed the State in partnership with the woman was a better alternative than having a male parent present (philosophically it meant subtracting the corrupt patriarchal element that was perceived as the singular cause of all the problems in the West). This came out of experiments taking place in Communist Russia and Cuba that were touted as highly successful in the rearing of children, and many influential social scientists in America bought into it. We know now (or most do) that this was a big mistake, for with the male absent the children far too often didn't mature and their lives got caught up in innumerable dilemmas. There just isn’t any better way to raise a child than in the nuclear family construct of man, woman and child.
It is a delusional naiveté bordering on psychosis that believes a child doesn't need a mother or father in his/her maturation process. And as I pointed out above, once gay marriage is instituted, that will begin the process of affirming a motherless or fatherless family as part of the norm in the raising of children (it won’t be viewed as a deprivation for the child, something the child can at some future date contend with). Children will be subjected to psychological and emotional deprivation, and, as Alice Miller makes clear in her book “The Drama of the Gifted Child” it isn’t the deprivation (abuse) that makes children crazy, but being convinced that they aren’t being deprived (abused). And our entire society—from the parents to the teachers to psychologists the children will later seek out for help to discern the meaning of their neurotic lives—will insist that it is they, the children, who have the problem, not society, and certainly not their “loving parents” who foot the bills for the professionals.
Many gays continue to point out that through divorce, the death of one parent and other causes a child will end up fatherless or motherless. But these are AFFLICTIONS the a child will have to learn to endure, and hopefully through extended family, with a realistic awareness that the child does need a male and female involved in his/her maturation, the child will be provided with ongoing gender-specific influences, especially having regularly modeled to him/her relationships between men and women.
My question to you is this: WHY would you want to institute a dynamic that GUARANTEES that the child will be deprived of a gender-specific parent?
We know
3.22.2012 | 3:00pm
Gil says:
Oh, and Rasmussen, the nuclear family that marriage affirms is not an "arbitrary social constructions". It is a construction you will find throughout human history: it just happens to go with being human. How it gets defined later on and in various cultures can certainly be arbitrary, but it still comes back to what is obvious: man, woman, child.
3.22.2012 | 5:00pm
A Rasmussen says:
Gil:
You make a lot of interesting arguments. I don't think we will ever agree on all of this, but I appreciate the debate.
I don't buy all of the hand-wringing over the alleged negative effects that same-sex marriage will have on children. Maybe I'm delusionally naive, or a borderline psychotic, but it just doesn't resonate with me.
First, gay people will continue to have and raise children, inside or outside of marriage. To the extent this is seen as an "affliction" (debatable, but I'm not going to argue that point here), it is only made worse by denying the family the legitimacy and stability that comes with a bona fide, state recognized marriage, with all of its corresponding rights, duties and responsibilities.
Second, children of same-sex couples may indeed experience particular issues in their psychological development. I don't see this as any different than any other hurdle that a child may face in their psychological development. A Chinese baby adopted by a white American couple may face particular issues in their psychological development. So what? Should we ban cross-cultural adoption? No. Because we trust that with love and good parenting, the child will be able to deal with these issues. Same thing with interracial marriages... there are countless examples of interracial children who struggle to find their cultural identity. Should interracial marriage be banned because the offspring may experience some amount of psychological confusion? No. We trust that love and good parenting will help the child mature and understand these questions. How about poverty? Should we have to show proof of income before obtaining a marriage license? Maybe if poor people weren't allowed to marry, none of them would have children out of wedlock, and none of those children would have to grow up in poverty. Oh, wait a minute...
By the way, heterosexual parents manage to create all kinds of psychological issues for their children. Heterosexual drug dealers, child molesters, pornographers - you name it - are all allowed to marry and have children in the most unhealthy environments. The state has never based the right to marry on the ability to provide an _optimal_ environment for child-rearing. If it did, very few people would be allowed to marry. So even if it were shown that same-sex marriage is somehow sub-optimal, by itself, that would still not be a good enough reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples, if they are otherwise to be treated equally to opposite-sex couples under the law. In one very real sense, all of life consists of learning to overcome whatever hurdles life places in front of you. No amount of anti-gay social engineering will ever prevent this.
Third, while child-rearing is certainly one of marriage's most important aspects, it is still only one aspect of marriage. For many people who are married it is not even the primary aspect of their marriage (elderly couples, infertile couples, couples who decide not to have children). Marriage affects all kinds of social rights, duties and responsibilities, including qualification for health care, the distribution of property upon death, rights to make health care decisions on behalf of the spouse, duties to support the spouse in the event of divorce, and all kinds of other issues. Those who seek to limit the purpose of marriage _solely_ to child-rearing between a man and a woman are denying what marriage _actually is_ in our society. The singling out of this one purpose that marriage serves (child-rearing) and using that as a rationale for excluding same-sex couples from all of the other purposes that marriage serves, is too cute by half. It is essentially cherry-picking out a single justification for marriage that conveniently marginalizes same-sex couples and excludes them from the institution, though the majority of marriage's rights, benefits and obligations would still apply to them. This is both unfair and fits a little too conveniently with the anti-gay agenda of marginalizing homosexuals generally. It tries to put a respectable face on what seems to me to be an irrational disapproval of homosexuality.
Fourth, children who grow up and come to realize that they are gay need modeling as well. Gay marriage gives them an alternative model for gay life - a model that many would consider preferable to the models that they have right now.
Fifth, well... I could go on and on, but I'll leave it at this. The Church hasn't abandoned this particular rigid dogma (though some denominations have relaxed it significantly) but many christians have abandoned it. I am one of them, and I don't apologize for it at all.
I don't consider homosexuality to be immoral, and I suspect that this underlies most of my disagreement with the christian anti-gay voices.
You make a lot of interesting arguments. I don't think we will ever agree on all of this, but I appreciate the debate.
I don't buy all of the hand-wringing over the alleged negative effects that same-sex marriage will have on children. Maybe I'm delusionally naive, or a borderline psychotic, but it just doesn't resonate with me.
First, gay people will continue to have and raise children, inside or outside of marriage. To the extent this is seen as an "affliction" (debatable, but I'm not going to argue that point here), it is only made worse by denying the family the legitimacy and stability that comes with a bona fide, state recognized marriage, with all of its corresponding rights, duties and responsibilities.
Second, children of same-sex couples may indeed experience particular issues in their psychological development. I don't see this as any different than any other hurdle that a child may face in their psychological development. A Chinese baby adopted by a white American couple may face particular issues in their psychological development. So what? Should we ban cross-cultural adoption? No. Because we trust that with love and good parenting, the child will be able to deal with these issues. Same thing with interracial marriages... there are countless examples of interracial children who struggle to find their cultural identity. Should interracial marriage be banned because the offspring may experience some amount of psychological confusion? No. We trust that love and good parenting will help the child mature and understand these questions. How about poverty? Should we have to show proof of income before obtaining a marriage license? Maybe if poor people weren't allowed to marry, none of them would have children out of wedlock, and none of those children would have to grow up in poverty. Oh, wait a minute...
By the way, heterosexual parents manage to create all kinds of psychological issues for their children. Heterosexual drug dealers, child molesters, pornographers - you name it - are all allowed to marry and have children in the most unhealthy environments. The state has never based the right to marry on the ability to provide an _optimal_ environment for child-rearing. If it did, very few people would be allowed to marry. So even if it were shown that same-sex marriage is somehow sub-optimal, by itself, that would still not be a good enough reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples, if they are otherwise to be treated equally to opposite-sex couples under the law. In one very real sense, all of life consists of learning to overcome whatever hurdles life places in front of you. No amount of anti-gay social engineering will ever prevent this.
Third, while child-rearing is certainly one of marriage's most important aspects, it is still only one aspect of marriage. For many people who are married it is not even the primary aspect of their marriage (elderly couples, infertile couples, couples who decide not to have children). Marriage affects all kinds of social rights, duties and responsibilities, including qualification for health care, the distribution of property upon death, rights to make health care decisions on behalf of the spouse, duties to support the spouse in the event of divorce, and all kinds of other issues. Those who seek to limit the purpose of marriage _solely_ to child-rearing between a man and a woman are denying what marriage _actually is_ in our society. The singling out of this one purpose that marriage serves (child-rearing) and using that as a rationale for excluding same-sex couples from all of the other purposes that marriage serves, is too cute by half. It is essentially cherry-picking out a single justification for marriage that conveniently marginalizes same-sex couples and excludes them from the institution, though the majority of marriage's rights, benefits and obligations would still apply to them. This is both unfair and fits a little too conveniently with the anti-gay agenda of marginalizing homosexuals generally. It tries to put a respectable face on what seems to me to be an irrational disapproval of homosexuality.
Fourth, children who grow up and come to realize that they are gay need modeling as well. Gay marriage gives them an alternative model for gay life - a model that many would consider preferable to the models that they have right now.
Fifth, well... I could go on and on, but I'll leave it at this. The Church hasn't abandoned this particular rigid dogma (though some denominations have relaxed it significantly) but many christians have abandoned it. I am one of them, and I don't apologize for it at all.
I don't consider homosexuality to be immoral, and I suspect that this underlies most of my disagreement with the christian anti-gay voices.
3.22.2012 | 7:01pm
Sergio Méndez says:
Funny how anti gay marriage parrot, in the same magazine pages, how the case is based on reason and a carefull study of natural law, bla bla bla. And then the argument is "but God created marriage...". Sorry, I do not accept the premise that a God exists nor that he created anything at all to start. If conservative christians and religionists of all kinds don´t want to recognize gay unions as "marriages", they are welcome. But if they are going to force the rest of us not to recognize such unions, they are going to offer a common ground, a reason, and not their dogmas as some revealed truth.
3.22.2012 | 7:11pm
Sergio Méndez says:
Gil:
The NUCLEAR family is a construction you will find tru all human history? Geez....why don´t you start reading your own bible and tell me what kind of family did the they have in ancient israel, to start (and before).
The NUCLEAR family is a construction you will find tru all human history? Geez....why don´t you start reading your own bible and tell me what kind of family did the they have in ancient israel, to start (and before).
3.22.2012 | 8:00pm
Patrick says:
"Now I understand that marriage is a unique institution and many feel that it was created by God in the Garden of Eden, prior to society or government, to be immutable and forever the union solely between one man and one woman. I'm saying that I don't believe this. I'm saying that this is the rigid religious dogma that causes more harm than good in the world, and I don't believe that God intended that same-sex couples should be forever excluded from the institution."
It's worth noting that, for example, Korea, which is not traditionally a monotheist society, currently treats marriage with far greater reverence than does the West. Thus one might deduce that no religious arguments are necessary to affirm traditional marriage. Simply one has to examine how children come to be born.
It's worth noting that, for example, Korea, which is not traditionally a monotheist society, currently treats marriage with far greater reverence than does the West. Thus one might deduce that no religious arguments are necessary to affirm traditional marriage. Simply one has to examine how children come to be born.
3.22.2012 | 8:26pm
Mick Leahy says:
@ A Rasmussen:
"I don't consider homosexuality to be immoral...".
My understanding is that to be homosexual is not immoral, but that homosexual acts, like all illicit sexual acts are sinful: in other words, all acts except those between a husband and wife and being open to life. That is the way it is.
"I don't consider homosexuality to be immoral...".
My understanding is that to be homosexual is not immoral, but that homosexual acts, like all illicit sexual acts are sinful: in other words, all acts except those between a husband and wife and being open to life. That is the way it is.
3.22.2012 | 9:51pm
Mark VA says:
A Rasmussen:
Please note that the LGBT movement is a subsidiary of a broader coalition controlled by the ideological left, and as such, it is not wholly free to choose its goals or modes of operation.
In my opinion, the left is using, for the time being, the LGBT rank and file, but not because the left particularly cares about extending the benefits of marriage. I believe that the left finds the LGBT activism useful because this activism acts as a solvent on the foundational institutions, and the traditional sexual norms, of our society (which the left sees as fundamentally reactionary).
Dissolution of the family (however it may be defined) and its replacement by the "new man", is one of the unrealized historical goals of the left. In the past, whenever they held almost total power, they never quite managed it. This is an old story, being replayed in our time yet again, but this time including the "LGBT" supporting actor on the stage.
Yevgeny Zamyatin, a man worth knowing about, warned of this desire of the left as early as 1921 - take a look at his book "We". George Orwell was quite impressed by it.
Please note that the LGBT movement is a subsidiary of a broader coalition controlled by the ideological left, and as such, it is not wholly free to choose its goals or modes of operation.
In my opinion, the left is using, for the time being, the LGBT rank and file, but not because the left particularly cares about extending the benefits of marriage. I believe that the left finds the LGBT activism useful because this activism acts as a solvent on the foundational institutions, and the traditional sexual norms, of our society (which the left sees as fundamentally reactionary).
Dissolution of the family (however it may be defined) and its replacement by the "new man", is one of the unrealized historical goals of the left. In the past, whenever they held almost total power, they never quite managed it. This is an old story, being replayed in our time yet again, but this time including the "LGBT" supporting actor on the stage.
Yevgeny Zamyatin, a man worth knowing about, warned of this desire of the left as early as 1921 - take a look at his book "We". George Orwell was quite impressed by it.
3.22.2012 | 10:17pm
Gil says:
Rasmussen,
As you say, we disagree. I remain certain that to impose on a child that he/she will not have a mother or a father due not to tragic circumstances but as a legally defined norm societally forced on the child, and that the child will be indoctrinated by the parents and every social institution and agency existent in our culture into believing that he/she is not being deprived of anything essential in his/her maturation (guaranteed to do psychological damage) is...well, criminal. It is intentionally deciding to inflict damage on a child in a social experiment that by its very nature is doomed to fail, for we already know (cowering scientists and politicians notwithstanding) that every child deserves a mother and father.
As you say, we disagree. I remain certain that to impose on a child that he/she will not have a mother or a father due not to tragic circumstances but as a legally defined norm societally forced on the child, and that the child will be indoctrinated by the parents and every social institution and agency existent in our culture into believing that he/she is not being deprived of anything essential in his/her maturation (guaranteed to do psychological damage) is...well, criminal. It is intentionally deciding to inflict damage on a child in a social experiment that by its very nature is doomed to fail, for we already know (cowering scientists and politicians notwithstanding) that every child deserves a mother and father.
3.22.2012 | 10:52pm
Gil says:
Sergio Mendez,
I would not say God created marriage. I would say he affirmed it. In other words, I'm certain that when he looked on the first marriage ceremony in human history (whether it was religious or not) that involved the affirmation that a man and woman joining in union in a life commitment to raise children and grandchildren as their sacrificial commitment not only to the propagation of the species, but to the best possible dynamic that would insure it, the nuclear family, he no doubt thought, "It is good."
I would not say God created marriage. I would say he affirmed it. In other words, I'm certain that when he looked on the first marriage ceremony in human history (whether it was religious or not) that involved the affirmation that a man and woman joining in union in a life commitment to raise children and grandchildren as their sacrificial commitment not only to the propagation of the species, but to the best possible dynamic that would insure it, the nuclear family, he no doubt thought, "It is good."
3.22.2012 | 11:09pm
Mark VA says:
Sergio:
Try this as an exercise in logic:
First, provide principled arguments, without recourse to any religious beliefs, why gay marriage and heterosexual marriage can both be considered "marriage" under a common set of mutually agreed to arguments. Then, if the above is possible,
Provide principled arguments, without recourse to any religious beliefs, why polygamy or polyamory cannot ever be considered "marriage", because they do not fall under a common set of mutually agreed to arguments.
Possible to show that both are true, or not?
Try this as an exercise in logic:
First, provide principled arguments, without recourse to any religious beliefs, why gay marriage and heterosexual marriage can both be considered "marriage" under a common set of mutually agreed to arguments. Then, if the above is possible,
Provide principled arguments, without recourse to any religious beliefs, why polygamy or polyamory cannot ever be considered "marriage", because they do not fall under a common set of mutually agreed to arguments.
Possible to show that both are true, or not?
3.23.2012 | 12:39am
James M. says:
Sergio, I'm not interested in a contest where our worldviews swing past each other, but I would simply advance the notion that if one claims atheism, then really all bets are off on any discussion, and there is no grounding to the ethic underlying any question. In a godless universe, an atheist's assertion that the state should support the notion of gay marriage can be no better or worse than its opposite. If tall people want to exterminate short folk, and vice versa, who's to say it is wrong? And so on.
AR, I will not argue that there isn't a certain arbitrariness as to how moral rules are applied in a society if by that we mean that context and pragmatic considerations are taken into account as the state performs its responsibilities via policy making (positive law) to carry forward an institution's benefits to society. A state requiring blood tests to obtain a marriage license is doing so on the basis of the public good. Arbitrary? After a fashion. But, that kind of formulation has nothing to do with the nature of the institution in its essence. So, we return to the grounding question. We might note that while proponents of revealed and natural law may have bones to pick, without that sort of basis we are taken back to the dilemma in paragraph 1. And we really don't want to go there.
AR, I will not argue that there isn't a certain arbitrariness as to how moral rules are applied in a society if by that we mean that context and pragmatic considerations are taken into account as the state performs its responsibilities via policy making (positive law) to carry forward an institution's benefits to society. A state requiring blood tests to obtain a marriage license is doing so on the basis of the public good. Arbitrary? After a fashion. But, that kind of formulation has nothing to do with the nature of the institution in its essence. So, we return to the grounding question. We might note that while proponents of revealed and natural law may have bones to pick, without that sort of basis we are taken back to the dilemma in paragraph 1. And we really don't want to go there.
3.23.2012 | 10:31am
pentamom says:
"I never said women were treated like property in the past in christian societies (althought they were not very far from that). About owning property, that is very discusable. But the point remains by your own admision: women were treated as inferiors, and so that reflected in the way traditional marriage was conceived . By your own logic concerning gay marriage, you should be also defending that treatment."
That was not the original point you made with it.
The original point was, thousands of years of near-universal settled law (Christian or otherwise) knows nothing of legally recognized same sex unions. You attempted to use a false notion that there is also thousands of years of near-universal settled law about women not being allowed to own property (not to mention about inter-racial marriage) to show that thousands of years of settled law can be changed.
The problem is, there's no such thing as thousands of years of near-universal settled law (Christian or otherwise) preventing women from owning property, so your parallel fails. You might still be able to make the point with a different example, but you still haven't come up with a real one. Your argument won't be convincing if it's based on myths.
That was not the original point you made with it.
The original point was, thousands of years of near-universal settled law (Christian or otherwise) knows nothing of legally recognized same sex unions. You attempted to use a false notion that there is also thousands of years of near-universal settled law about women not being allowed to own property (not to mention about inter-racial marriage) to show that thousands of years of settled law can be changed.
The problem is, there's no such thing as thousands of years of near-universal settled law (Christian or otherwise) preventing women from owning property, so your parallel fails. You might still be able to make the point with a different example, but you still haven't come up with a real one. Your argument won't be convincing if it's based on myths.
3.23.2012 | 11:20am
Sergio Méndez says:
MArk VA:
I think the word "marriage" has many different possible meanings in different cultures, societies and religious traditions to pretend to define it in a unified way. In general terms marriage is a lawful arrangement of two or more people desiring to live together, and sometimes forming a family, to share some mutual economical benefits. I fail to see why two persons of the same sex, if they are acting in a consensual manner, cannot form such arrangement. So I think the burden of proof is on you to explain to us why they can´t. Are they violating the rights of other people in the process? If not that, what is your argument? Saying God forbids it, is not argument at all, not only because the premises are doubtful and unproven, but also cause it will be a religious violation religious liberty of this people (what if they think God actually allows it?).
James:
Well, let me start with this: I am not really interested in the state supporting gay marriage. I am libertarian, and I think the state has no business at all supporting any form of marriage. My point is that the state has not the right to forbid any forms of mutual consensual arrangement between consenting adults, and that the state has not the right to privilege some forms of this arrangements among others (say, heterosexual over homosexual arrangements). But if the State has something to say concerning these unions, then it cannot act in a discriminative way toward some group of adults on behalf of others. I also want to not that even if there is such a thing as the “public good” and that even if it is over individual liberties, you still haven´t presented a case where homosexual marriage goes against it.
Pentanom:
Sorry, but you completely missed my point. My point is that if people like you want to appeal to tradition to oppose gay marriage, then you have to acknowledge that in the traditional marriage you want to defend, women were treated as inferior beings and interracial unions were forbidden. So, in the end, tradition is not very good argument to oppose gay marriage, unless of course, you want to defend also the inferiority of women of the ban on interracial marriages.
I think the word "marriage" has many different possible meanings in different cultures, societies and religious traditions to pretend to define it in a unified way. In general terms marriage is a lawful arrangement of two or more people desiring to live together, and sometimes forming a family, to share some mutual economical benefits. I fail to see why two persons of the same sex, if they are acting in a consensual manner, cannot form such arrangement. So I think the burden of proof is on you to explain to us why they can´t. Are they violating the rights of other people in the process? If not that, what is your argument? Saying God forbids it, is not argument at all, not only because the premises are doubtful and unproven, but also cause it will be a religious violation religious liberty of this people (what if they think God actually allows it?).
James:
Well, let me start with this: I am not really interested in the state supporting gay marriage. I am libertarian, and I think the state has no business at all supporting any form of marriage. My point is that the state has not the right to forbid any forms of mutual consensual arrangement between consenting adults, and that the state has not the right to privilege some forms of this arrangements among others (say, heterosexual over homosexual arrangements). But if the State has something to say concerning these unions, then it cannot act in a discriminative way toward some group of adults on behalf of others. I also want to not that even if there is such a thing as the “public good” and that even if it is over individual liberties, you still haven´t presented a case where homosexual marriage goes against it.
Pentanom:
Sorry, but you completely missed my point. My point is that if people like you want to appeal to tradition to oppose gay marriage, then you have to acknowledge that in the traditional marriage you want to defend, women were treated as inferior beings and interracial unions were forbidden. So, in the end, tradition is not very good argument to oppose gay marriage, unless of course, you want to defend also the inferiority of women of the ban on interracial marriages.
3.23.2012 | 11:11pm
Mark VA says:
Sergio:
I think you have it upside down. Marriage, that is the union between one man and one woman, is one of the foundational institutions of our society. We already know how marriage functions, how to keep it healthy, and how it supports our civilization.
The argument that redefining marriage will not have a detrimental effect on the functioning of our society is utterly unconvincing to me - such arguments, at any rate, are in your domain, not ours.
I think the results of such a redefinition are not difficult to discern - we'll march back to the days when alpha males collected women as some collect cars today, and children were deprived of a stable and loving home (we're already half way there). Or, the state will take control of interpersonal relationships, and mould them as it sees fit. Either way, there are two good words for these states of affairs - barbarism and totalitarianism.
Thus, the definition of marriage is non-negotiable.
I think you have it upside down. Marriage, that is the union between one man and one woman, is one of the foundational institutions of our society. We already know how marriage functions, how to keep it healthy, and how it supports our civilization.
The argument that redefining marriage will not have a detrimental effect on the functioning of our society is utterly unconvincing to me - such arguments, at any rate, are in your domain, not ours.
I think the results of such a redefinition are not difficult to discern - we'll march back to the days when alpha males collected women as some collect cars today, and children were deprived of a stable and loving home (we're already half way there). Or, the state will take control of interpersonal relationships, and mould them as it sees fit. Either way, there are two good words for these states of affairs - barbarism and totalitarianism.
Thus, the definition of marriage is non-negotiable.
3.25.2012 | 12:21am
Jason says:
I don't like the sweeping generalizations. I.e. THE GAY COMMUNITY vs. CHRISTIANITY. Christians are guilty of this kind of bigotry, (And I'm not just talking about the Westboro Baptist Church.) just the same as ... the ... gay community is guilty of stereotyping all Christians as bigots.
I'm pro-gay (if that's what you call it) and I'm okay with the respectful "we love you but we don't love that you're gay" response from Christians. I think this is a healthy disagreement as long as you aren't treating the person as a second-class citizen. Few Christians follow this. I've found that the reason we are so criticized is because other Christians put the stereotype out there. We just need to be louder than them to help turn that stereotype around.
I'm pro-gay (if that's what you call it) and I'm okay with the respectful "we love you but we don't love that you're gay" response from Christians. I think this is a healthy disagreement as long as you aren't treating the person as a second-class citizen. Few Christians follow this. I've found that the reason we are so criticized is because other Christians put the stereotype out there. We just need to be louder than them to help turn that stereotype around.
3.25.2012 | 5:11pm
Gil says:
Jason,
I can't recall coming across the slogan THE GAY COMMUNITY vs. CHRISTIANITY anywhere from gays or Christians. Certainly there are Christians who wrongly hate persons who have adopted a gay identity, just as there are gays who wrongly hate persons for being Christian.
It is important to distinguish between same-sex attraction, homosexuality and gay.
Same sex attraction refers to anyone who experiences same sex attraction; for example teens, the majority of which will go on to heterosexual attraction, if they escape the professionals who would indoctrinate them into become gay, i.e., embracing gay ideology that will fix them in a sexual identity.
Homosexuality refers to a person who senses he/she is fixed in same-sex attraction, but that does not mean he/she will necessarily adopt a sexual identity, i.e., being gay. There was a famous politician in Washington State who was outed, and the gay community set out to lacerate him in any way they could when they found out he disagreed with sexual identity. He viewed his same-sex attraction as a sexual desire that didn't encompass who he was as a person, the gestalt of who he is.
Gay refers to a person who is homosexual and chooses to adopt a sexual identity that gives ongoing definition to same-sex attraction as the gestalt of who a person is, even though there is no gene that determines it.
Gay is a person who will
I can't recall coming across the slogan THE GAY COMMUNITY vs. CHRISTIANITY anywhere from gays or Christians. Certainly there are Christians who wrongly hate persons who have adopted a gay identity, just as there are gays who wrongly hate persons for being Christian.
It is important to distinguish between same-sex attraction, homosexuality and gay.
Same sex attraction refers to anyone who experiences same sex attraction; for example teens, the majority of which will go on to heterosexual attraction, if they escape the professionals who would indoctrinate them into become gay, i.e., embracing gay ideology that will fix them in a sexual identity.
Homosexuality refers to a person who senses he/she is fixed in same-sex attraction, but that does not mean he/she will necessarily adopt a sexual identity, i.e., being gay. There was a famous politician in Washington State who was outed, and the gay community set out to lacerate him in any way they could when they found out he disagreed with sexual identity. He viewed his same-sex attraction as a sexual desire that didn't encompass who he was as a person, the gestalt of who he is.
Gay refers to a person who is homosexual and chooses to adopt a sexual identity that gives ongoing definition to same-sex attraction as the gestalt of who a person is, even though there is no gene that determines it.
Gay is a person who will
3.26.2012 | 6:12pm
MegavIdeo says:
I read an interesting article written by a Catholic priest, and I thought I would share his viewpoint. Although this doesn’t directly have to do with the LGBT movement, it does have to do with our tolerance as God loving individuals. The article summarized came down to one thing, and that was our interpretation of the word ‘abomination’. We interpret that word as something horrible that should be avoided, however the priest clarified what he believed it to mean.
He wrote that he believed ‘abomination’ to mean something that was unnatural/uncommon. His reasoning for this was because of the other passages the word was used in. In the bible it states that a man lying with another man is an abomination, however a few lines down it states it’s an abomination to mix linen and wool. I believe that the word ‘abomination’ is interpreted to mean something much more detrimental than it really is.
He wrote that he believed ‘abomination’ to mean something that was unnatural/uncommon. His reasoning for this was because of the other passages the word was used in. In the bible it states that a man lying with another man is an abomination, however a few lines down it states it’s an abomination to mix linen and wool. I believe that the word ‘abomination’ is interpreted to mean something much more detrimental than it really is.
3.27.2012 | 10:36am
AKO says:
Felapton- Are you comparing muggers and pedophiles to homosexuals? If so, it is ignorant comments like that, that give us Christians a bad name. So often do I see arguments against homosexuality that use this type of crude reasoning. This apparent ‘hate’ that Christians portray towards the LGBT community is what gives people ammunition to take jabs at our religion, and subsequently us. Christians need to start practicing what they preach. Whatever happened to love thy neighbor as thyself?
3.27.2012 | 2:51pm
Gil says:
MegavIdeo,
Thanks for demonstrating that even priests aren't immune to the word games propagated by sex liberationists. I would refer your priest friend to this website:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=358
where Brad Bromling explains your priest friend's error, including: "The Levitical condemnation of homosexual behavior is treated differently than the legislations against mixing cloths and sowing mixed seed. The former was under penalty of death; the latter were not (Leviticus 19:19). A better, though more unpleasant, analogy to the Levitical view of homosexuality is seen in the prohibitions against incest and bestiality, which are mentioned in the same context (Leviticus 20:14-16ff.)" and "...it should be noted that Jesus’ silence on the issue is no argument that He approved of homosexuality. He never specifically addressed the issues of pedophilia, bestiality, or any number of other sexual perversions. Does this mean that Jesus approved of whatever He did not condemn by name? Are we to think that as long as people feel love, it doesn’t matter what they do? To ask is to answer. In fact, the Lord Jesus always spoke of sexual relations in heterosexual terms. What Jesus did say carries more weight than our views of what He did not say. Clearly, Jesus’ heterosexual view must be taken as normative (read Matthew 19:4-6 et al.)"
There are at least 5 different Hebrew words with different meanings that get translated as "abomination". To get a general sense of where homosexual practices (not the person who is afflicted with same sex attraction) find their home in abomination, explore the words of Jesus in Luke 16:15: "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight."
Presently the dominant theme of the gay agenda (espoused by persons afflicted with what they experience as irremediable same-sex attraction who have decided to adopt a sexual identity and then pursue via word-manipulation a leveling of all distinctions between the committed union of a man and woman in marriage committed to raising children and the union of two men doing the same) seeks to destroy the definition of marriage that once guaranteed the highest possibility that children would experience optimum maturation with models of masculinity and femininity in union, a radically unique harmonious ground that all children deserve which cannot be replicated, while the marriage of two men or two women guarantees that that maturation process will never take place for the children, their maturation sacrificed on an altar of self-edification grounded not in caring for children, but in sexual desire, including a modeling and sanctioning of destructive sexual practices to the children.
Gay activists attempt to justify this action in the eyes of others, and Jesus no doubt finds it detestable, an abomination; for it is an activity that speaks of millstones being tied around one's neck.
Thanks for demonstrating that even priests aren't immune to the word games propagated by sex liberationists. I would refer your priest friend to this website:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=358
where Brad Bromling explains your priest friend's error, including: "The Levitical condemnation of homosexual behavior is treated differently than the legislations against mixing cloths and sowing mixed seed. The former was under penalty of death; the latter were not (Leviticus 19:19). A better, though more unpleasant, analogy to the Levitical view of homosexuality is seen in the prohibitions against incest and bestiality, which are mentioned in the same context (Leviticus 20:14-16ff.)" and "...it should be noted that Jesus’ silence on the issue is no argument that He approved of homosexuality. He never specifically addressed the issues of pedophilia, bestiality, or any number of other sexual perversions. Does this mean that Jesus approved of whatever He did not condemn by name? Are we to think that as long as people feel love, it doesn’t matter what they do? To ask is to answer. In fact, the Lord Jesus always spoke of sexual relations in heterosexual terms. What Jesus did say carries more weight than our views of what He did not say. Clearly, Jesus’ heterosexual view must be taken as normative (read Matthew 19:4-6 et al.)"
There are at least 5 different Hebrew words with different meanings that get translated as "abomination". To get a general sense of where homosexual practices (not the person who is afflicted with same sex attraction) find their home in abomination, explore the words of Jesus in Luke 16:15: "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight."
Presently the dominant theme of the gay agenda (espoused by persons afflicted with what they experience as irremediable same-sex attraction who have decided to adopt a sexual identity and then pursue via word-manipulation a leveling of all distinctions between the committed union of a man and woman in marriage committed to raising children and the union of two men doing the same) seeks to destroy the definition of marriage that once guaranteed the highest possibility that children would experience optimum maturation with models of masculinity and femininity in union, a radically unique harmonious ground that all children deserve which cannot be replicated, while the marriage of two men or two women guarantees that that maturation process will never take place for the children, their maturation sacrificed on an altar of self-edification grounded not in caring for children, but in sexual desire, including a modeling and sanctioning of destructive sexual practices to the children.
Gay activists attempt to justify this action in the eyes of others, and Jesus no doubt finds it detestable, an abomination; for it is an activity that speaks of millstones being tied around one's neck.
3.27.2012 | 3:24pm
pentamom says:
"My point is that if people like you want to appeal to tradition to oppose gay marriage, then you have to acknowledge that in the traditional marriage you want to defend, women were treated as inferior beings and interracial unions were forbidden."
But you're wrong. Inter-racial marriage has not "traditionally" been forbidden. It happened for a couple of centuries on one continent and perhaps at some other times in some other places. It has been widely tolerated at far more times and places than it was ever forbidden.
And yes, women have "traditionally" been treated as inferior, but that is not a function of marriage, but of life in general. In those few societies where women were not regarded as inferior, married women were not given a special status of inferiority. Regardless, I was specifically taking exception to your ahistorical and incorrect claim that women have "traditionally" not been allowed to "own property," and the implied suggestion that "not being allowed to own property" is a function of traditional marriage. That is not even close to accurate.
I appreciate the larger point you are trying to make. I'm simply saying it would be more convincing if it wasn't all mixed up with widely-believed inaccuracies. You can't make a case that many other things about "traditional marriage" have been overturned by referring to things that have actually not been a function of "traditional marriage."
But you're wrong. Inter-racial marriage has not "traditionally" been forbidden. It happened for a couple of centuries on one continent and perhaps at some other times in some other places. It has been widely tolerated at far more times and places than it was ever forbidden.
And yes, women have "traditionally" been treated as inferior, but that is not a function of marriage, but of life in general. In those few societies where women were not regarded as inferior, married women were not given a special status of inferiority. Regardless, I was specifically taking exception to your ahistorical and incorrect claim that women have "traditionally" not been allowed to "own property," and the implied suggestion that "not being allowed to own property" is a function of traditional marriage. That is not even close to accurate.
I appreciate the larger point you are trying to make. I'm simply saying it would be more convincing if it wasn't all mixed up with widely-believed inaccuracies. You can't make a case that many other things about "traditional marriage" have been overturned by referring to things that have actually not been a function of "traditional marriage."
3.29.2012 | 10:33am
MegavIdeo says:
Gil - I'll start by reiterating that said priest was no friend of mine. It was simply an article that I read that I found to be an interesting alternating viewpoint than is typically shown. I'll go on to address a few of the other points you have made in your reply.
The argument against gay marriage due to the fact of an abandonment of the teaching of gender roles no longer holds up in this society. I think it's safe to say that we no longer live in a 1950s housewife country where the woman will always represent herself in grace and femininity, and a man will teach his son or daughter the importance of masculinity. Although some families still hold onto traditional gender roles, there are many that have evolved. Nearly all houses are two income households, and more frequently we are finding women in non-conventional jobs where they may be the primary bread winners in the family. I do think that in the 1950s it would have been important to learn the roles associated with your sex, however these days it is much less important.
I don't see same sex parents being a detriment to the 'sanctity' of marriage. Studies have shown that gay couples have less divorces, less spousal abuse, and less child abuse. I think that if we are making an attempt to point fingers at people for ruining the sanctity of the American family we shouldn't begin with same sex couples.
The argument against gay marriage due to the fact of an abandonment of the teaching of gender roles no longer holds up in this society. I think it's safe to say that we no longer live in a 1950s housewife country where the woman will always represent herself in grace and femininity, and a man will teach his son or daughter the importance of masculinity. Although some families still hold onto traditional gender roles, there are many that have evolved. Nearly all houses are two income households, and more frequently we are finding women in non-conventional jobs where they may be the primary bread winners in the family. I do think that in the 1950s it would have been important to learn the roles associated with your sex, however these days it is much less important.
I don't see same sex parents being a detriment to the 'sanctity' of marriage. Studies have shown that gay couples have less divorces, less spousal abuse, and less child abuse. I think that if we are making an attempt to point fingers at people for ruining the sanctity of the American family we shouldn't begin with same sex couples.
3.29.2012 | 4:13pm
Gil says:
MegavIdeo,
In all that I wrote here I was making no reference to anything peculiar to the '50s. I also wasn't referencing the teaching of gender roles, but simply how wise it would be to acknowledge that there are many differences between males and females and precisely why the phrase “gender specificity” exists. I also wasn't advocating that women should not pursue careers, or that a woman should not be the "bread winner" in a single-income family, for even if the man stays at home and the wife works, the children still experience the fullness of gender specificity and the union of man and woman. You did not respond to my concerns, but instead invented what you view as my concerns, extrapolating from your own ideological vision and then imposing your view of what I am writing about.
During the 60s many gay fashion designers began the "unisex look", which fit nicely in the program of sexual liberation that promulgated that there are no real differences between males and females, that we are all packaged bio-chemically in our universal sexual desires as being the fullness as persons, period (if you choose not to experiment and broaden your identity, that is your choice), and if we simply adopt a sexual identity, we could then freely pursue any sexual expression as one more manifestation of who we truly are as persons (including sex between men and boys). They essentially attempted to get women to look like boys, possibly to give some relief to gays who are culturally forced to imitate the mannerisms of women to feel whole? And what was the result? Rampant anorexia. This is why the gay filmmaker John Cameron Mitchell, who, after advocating the joys of an adult male engaging a male child in sex in his film “Hedwig and the Angry Inch” (and making the child the villain and the adult the victim) proceeded to make a film, “Shortbus”, to encourage heterosexually oriented folks to embrace a sexual identity as gays had towards the goal of true freedom, even convincing his actors in the film to engage in sex on film. In other words, dispense with gender specificity and admit that the all of identity involves sexual gratification, and precisely why gay parents see nothing wrong with modeling dangerous sexual acts to their children, for those acts are simply another expression of true freedom, and to deny their children an opportunity to know what they are and the ability to indulge those acts would be tantamount to denying them full freedom as persons.
If gender specificity is meaningless, then why do so many gays wantonly adopt mannerisms that mirror feminine traits? I suppose you feel we can all eventually outgrow this. Perhaps even anorexia will eventually be viewed not as a cruse but a positive first step in the negation of gender specificity.
In all that I wrote here I was making no reference to anything peculiar to the '50s. I also wasn't referencing the teaching of gender roles, but simply how wise it would be to acknowledge that there are many differences between males and females and precisely why the phrase “gender specificity” exists. I also wasn't advocating that women should not pursue careers, or that a woman should not be the "bread winner" in a single-income family, for even if the man stays at home and the wife works, the children still experience the fullness of gender specificity and the union of man and woman. You did not respond to my concerns, but instead invented what you view as my concerns, extrapolating from your own ideological vision and then imposing your view of what I am writing about.
During the 60s many gay fashion designers began the "unisex look", which fit nicely in the program of sexual liberation that promulgated that there are no real differences between males and females, that we are all packaged bio-chemically in our universal sexual desires as being the fullness as persons, period (if you choose not to experiment and broaden your identity, that is your choice), and if we simply adopt a sexual identity, we could then freely pursue any sexual expression as one more manifestation of who we truly are as persons (including sex between men and boys). They essentially attempted to get women to look like boys, possibly to give some relief to gays who are culturally forced to imitate the mannerisms of women to feel whole? And what was the result? Rampant anorexia. This is why the gay filmmaker John Cameron Mitchell, who, after advocating the joys of an adult male engaging a male child in sex in his film “Hedwig and the Angry Inch” (and making the child the villain and the adult the victim) proceeded to make a film, “Shortbus”, to encourage heterosexually oriented folks to embrace a sexual identity as gays had towards the goal of true freedom, even convincing his actors in the film to engage in sex on film. In other words, dispense with gender specificity and admit that the all of identity involves sexual gratification, and precisely why gay parents see nothing wrong with modeling dangerous sexual acts to their children, for those acts are simply another expression of true freedom, and to deny their children an opportunity to know what they are and the ability to indulge those acts would be tantamount to denying them full freedom as persons.
If gender specificity is meaningless, then why do so many gays wantonly adopt mannerisms that mirror feminine traits? I suppose you feel we can all eventually outgrow this. Perhaps even anorexia will eventually be viewed not as a cruse but a positive first step in the negation of gender specificity.
4.1.2012 | 11:57am
Lee says:
Definitely sense the left is having a lot of fun empowering the lgbt movement, because they know it upsets trad Christians. But pls remember that the global power players are using heated social issues to distract us from real problems for us as people, as individual human beings gay or straight or whatever. All of this is Hegelian Dialect (HD). Sounds kooky, but it is basically psych ops. While we are all fussing over social justice issues for adults and school kids, the big wigs whomever are stealing us all blind, and conditioning us to 'going along' with less and less private individual rights. They are steering us all into groups. Groups they can manage. Global tax you hear Biden tossing out there this past week? They do not want the US to be sovereign. Do you ever hear anyone value the US Constitution and how it has so far somewhat kept us ALL from becoming the EU or worse? Do you know how hard it is to buy a little house with a little backyard in the burbs in Denmark, Sweden, Norway - the most wonderful places to live on earth they say? Oh you just know the bigwigs are wheeling behind our backs to form the NA Union, yes they are. That is why there is so much dissent on borders. LGBT's aren't going anywhere, so come to good terms. The gov has no business in marriage. This issue is SMALL stuff vs. being controlled by the Gov. Do not buy into the forced controversy rhetoric (HD). Always be kind, you may need the help of your Christian or LGBT neighbor in a crisis. Strengthen your family whatever it looks like. Get off gov assistance and be kind always. PTL. Pls consider - democratsagainstagenda21.com :)
4.3.2012 | 11:39am
MegavIdeo says:
Gil-
Since you felt that I did not respond to your previous concerns, I will start over. I felt that the 1950s analysis would be the most simplistic way to get my view across. Evidently it was too broad, and I must specifically address your post.
“destroy the definition of marriage that once guaranteed the highest possibility that children would experience optimum maturation with models of masculinity and femininity in union”
What I meant in my previous post was not that you denounce females in the workplace, but that you have a dated perspective of how modern people are. In older times, I would have to agree with you. It used to be important for girls to grow up watching their mother, and learn from her femininity and grace. It was equally as important for young men to watch their father, and learn the masculine attitude that was needed at that time. The issue with this is, life is no longer like that. There are plenty of heterosexual women out there that don’t have a hint of femininity. There are also heterosexual men that don’t exert any masculinity. I’m not saying this is right or wrong, I’m just stating that times have changed.
If your main concern is that children will not learn the feminine or masculine attitudes that they must, do you disapprove of a non-feminine woman raising a child? Do you believe single mother’s should have their child taken from them and adopted by a heterosexual married couple in order to ensure the child will mature properly? No, of course you don’t.
“gay parents see nothing wrong with modeling dangerous sexual acts to their children, for those acts are simply another expression of true freedom, and to deny their children an opportunity to know what they are and the ability to indulge those acts would be tantamount to denying them full freedom as persons.”
What modeling of dangerous sexual acts do gay couples do? If you are speaking of a sexual education talk, that all parents give to their children at some point, then I don’t understand the problem. It is true that homosexuals are definitely very liberal, and sexual freedom is important to them, however I don’t see how them being together is hindering the child’s view on sex. Like other couples, they will keep their sexual life in the bedroom, and not in front of the children. Most gay couples are in a monogamous, committed relationship. I do not see what is dangerous about it.
“If gender specificity is meaningless, then why do so many gays wantonly adopt mannerisms that mirror feminine traits?”
These mannerisms are not artificially developed; it is who the person is. I think it’s safe to say that many homosexual males lack testosterone. Thus resulting in a high voice, and feminine –like qualities. Once again, if your main concern is that children will not learn both feminine and masculine traits, what is wrong with a masculine and a feminine man raising a child together? Wouldn’t they then get the best of both worlds, so to speak?
The fact is, I don’t believe that you denounce gay marriage because you think the child will grow up without full maturation. There are PLENTY of scenarios that I could give you where the child would be better off growing up in a homosexual home, yet I still feel like you would choose the heterosexual family. I believe your anti-gay marriage view stems from taking a literalistic viewpoint of the bible. I think that is the sole reason you find it to be wrong, and no one will be able to change your view on it.
As for me, I do as Jesus said, and I love my neighbor as myself. I do not judge people, and I understand that everyone was made in God’s image and likeness. I would never cast a stone at someone who is attempting to find happiness in the world.
Since you felt that I did not respond to your previous concerns, I will start over. I felt that the 1950s analysis would be the most simplistic way to get my view across. Evidently it was too broad, and I must specifically address your post.
“destroy the definition of marriage that once guaranteed the highest possibility that children would experience optimum maturation with models of masculinity and femininity in union”
What I meant in my previous post was not that you denounce females in the workplace, but that you have a dated perspective of how modern people are. In older times, I would have to agree with you. It used to be important for girls to grow up watching their mother, and learn from her femininity and grace. It was equally as important for young men to watch their father, and learn the masculine attitude that was needed at that time. The issue with this is, life is no longer like that. There are plenty of heterosexual women out there that don’t have a hint of femininity. There are also heterosexual men that don’t exert any masculinity. I’m not saying this is right or wrong, I’m just stating that times have changed.
If your main concern is that children will not learn the feminine or masculine attitudes that they must, do you disapprove of a non-feminine woman raising a child? Do you believe single mother’s should have their child taken from them and adopted by a heterosexual married couple in order to ensure the child will mature properly? No, of course you don’t.
“gay parents see nothing wrong with modeling dangerous sexual acts to their children, for those acts are simply another expression of true freedom, and to deny their children an opportunity to know what they are and the ability to indulge those acts would be tantamount to denying them full freedom as persons.”
What modeling of dangerous sexual acts do gay couples do? If you are speaking of a sexual education talk, that all parents give to their children at some point, then I don’t understand the problem. It is true that homosexuals are definitely very liberal, and sexual freedom is important to them, however I don’t see how them being together is hindering the child’s view on sex. Like other couples, they will keep their sexual life in the bedroom, and not in front of the children. Most gay couples are in a monogamous, committed relationship. I do not see what is dangerous about it.
“If gender specificity is meaningless, then why do so many gays wantonly adopt mannerisms that mirror feminine traits?”
These mannerisms are not artificially developed; it is who the person is. I think it’s safe to say that many homosexual males lack testosterone. Thus resulting in a high voice, and feminine –like qualities. Once again, if your main concern is that children will not learn both feminine and masculine traits, what is wrong with a masculine and a feminine man raising a child together? Wouldn’t they then get the best of both worlds, so to speak?
The fact is, I don’t believe that you denounce gay marriage because you think the child will grow up without full maturation. There are PLENTY of scenarios that I could give you where the child would be better off growing up in a homosexual home, yet I still feel like you would choose the heterosexual family. I believe your anti-gay marriage view stems from taking a literalistic viewpoint of the bible. I think that is the sole reason you find it to be wrong, and no one will be able to change your view on it.
As for me, I do as Jesus said, and I love my neighbor as myself. I do not judge people, and I understand that everyone was made in God’s image and likeness. I would never cast a stone at someone who is attempting to find happiness in the world.
4.4.2012 | 10:22am
Justin W says:
The LGBT movement is not open minded. If those of the gay community truly seek open mindedness they should start by realizing everyone is not going to agree with them. Perhaps if they would pause from attacking the character of those who disagree with them they would learn why we disagree with them. They would see that those who actually read God's Word learn that in God's eyes homosexuality is detestable. They would see that many are repulsed by the actions of gay pride parades. They would see that we resent being cast as ignorant because we do not embrace their cause.
The LGBT group's greatest achievement is they have managed to associate the terms fair and equal with their cause. Perhaps they should realize there is another word at play--respect. It is hard to respect any person or cause which demands you accept them or else...
The LGBT group's greatest achievement is they have managed to associate the terms fair and equal with their cause. Perhaps they should realize there is another word at play--respect. It is hard to respect any person or cause which demands you accept them or else...
4.4.2012 | 12:36pm
Jan N says:
It seems to me that the farther we get from the Garden experience, the more perverse and just plain messed up we become. There's no way I could read all of the above comments, but I believe my experience brings a unique position. I have a sibling who is male and female in the same body. I call her my sister, as that's the way she was raised. Outwardly she is female, yet she has inside male sexual organs and a high level of testosterone. We can use all kinds of big words to describe where we are as a society, but when you're dealing with a person who faces a true issue, how to respond in a way that brings glory and honor to the Father becomes the challenge. I tell my sis that in a perfect world everyone's insides would match their outsides. While true, that still doesn't help her/him know how to live in the now. My sis relates mostly as male and would have surgery to make the inside and outside match. But it's expensive and she's in her fifties. So I ask myself how many more are truly like her and how many are just in some experimental it's the social thing to do or support. How do I know? How do we know? God's heart must break over situations like this as all creation groans for His return. We've made such a mess of the world He's created. Lord forgive us as we ask You to heal our land and hearts.
4.7.2012 | 4:06pm
Gil says:
MegavIdeo,
I have to throw in the towel. You will not get what I'm saying no matter how I say it. For example, you write, "If your main concern is that children will not learn the feminine or masculine attitudes that they must, do you disapprove of a non-feminine woman raising a child?" I insisted in my prior post that I am NOT talking about teaching masculine and feminine attitudes to children. This is your persistent notion of what I am writing to avoid addressing my real concerns and drag me into a discussion where I leave behind my own arguments. Women as far back as you can go in recorded history will exhibit masculine attitudes, and vice versa with men. That is not my point. It is easy to rent films from the 30's and 40's with women actors like Katherine Hepburn exhibiting all kinds of masculine attitudes, but there is no way you would perceive that she is trying to be a man out of some sense of not being a woman. There are female farmers who do every conceivable job on a farm in jeans, flannel shirts and boots, yet everything they exude says woman, including heir “male attitudes”. When a female senses she is in fact not a woman, but a man, or a person who is both woman and man, and vice versa with a man, then they are involved in a gender identity crisis whether they know it or not, no matter how many psychologists will say it is normal. And you can witness this phenomenon throughout gay and lesbian cultures. This has nothing to do with a male or female attitude a man or woman possesses, but with identity.
Also, when a child comes home from school and goes to his two gay parents and says to them, "My friend Johnnie told me that there are a lot of gay men who have anal intercourse, something that is not only disgusting but harmful, yet they believe it is not disgusting, not harmful and actually an expression of intimacy", how do you respond to the child? Regardless what your answer is, sex educators in sex education classes across America are teaching that anal intercourse is an act of intimacy and a valid way of two persons communicating sexually, that there is nothing harmful as long as one wears a condom. That's what they taught my daughter. And that's why I pulled her out of the sex education class. And this lying to children about anal intercourse is precisely to accommodate gays and no other reason, and precisely why sadistic heterosexually oriented boys con their teen girlfriends into having anal intercourse, to enjoy sexually inflicting pain and humiliation on the girls. For anal intercourse is intrinsically a sadomasochistic act: it always involves doing harm to another, whether the person learns to masochistically enjoy the harm or not.
I have to throw in the towel. You will not get what I'm saying no matter how I say it. For example, you write, "If your main concern is that children will not learn the feminine or masculine attitudes that they must, do you disapprove of a non-feminine woman raising a child?" I insisted in my prior post that I am NOT talking about teaching masculine and feminine attitudes to children. This is your persistent notion of what I am writing to avoid addressing my real concerns and drag me into a discussion where I leave behind my own arguments. Women as far back as you can go in recorded history will exhibit masculine attitudes, and vice versa with men. That is not my point. It is easy to rent films from the 30's and 40's with women actors like Katherine Hepburn exhibiting all kinds of masculine attitudes, but there is no way you would perceive that she is trying to be a man out of some sense of not being a woman. There are female farmers who do every conceivable job on a farm in jeans, flannel shirts and boots, yet everything they exude says woman, including heir “male attitudes”. When a female senses she is in fact not a woman, but a man, or a person who is both woman and man, and vice versa with a man, then they are involved in a gender identity crisis whether they know it or not, no matter how many psychologists will say it is normal. And you can witness this phenomenon throughout gay and lesbian cultures. This has nothing to do with a male or female attitude a man or woman possesses, but with identity.
Also, when a child comes home from school and goes to his two gay parents and says to them, "My friend Johnnie told me that there are a lot of gay men who have anal intercourse, something that is not only disgusting but harmful, yet they believe it is not disgusting, not harmful and actually an expression of intimacy", how do you respond to the child? Regardless what your answer is, sex educators in sex education classes across America are teaching that anal intercourse is an act of intimacy and a valid way of two persons communicating sexually, that there is nothing harmful as long as one wears a condom. That's what they taught my daughter. And that's why I pulled her out of the sex education class. And this lying to children about anal intercourse is precisely to accommodate gays and no other reason, and precisely why sadistic heterosexually oriented boys con their teen girlfriends into having anal intercourse, to enjoy sexually inflicting pain and humiliation on the girls. For anal intercourse is intrinsically a sadomasochistic act: it always involves doing harm to another, whether the person learns to masochistically enjoy the harm or not.
4.7.2012 | 7:13pm
Gil says:
Jan N,
My sister, Leonce, was in a lesbian relationship with a woman for 15 years, and at some point my sister decided as a poet to pursue who she was as a person, and that entailed the ending of their sexual relatedness, but my sister wanted to keep intact all that they had as a person to person relationship, what my sister called friendship. Her mate would not only not have any of it; she was so angry that she took a course of driving my sister to commit suicide.
Because of the Fall all off Creation entered a state of futility. Your sister no doubt suffers from this Fall. All I can say is that regardless how the Fall has affected your sister, in Christ she will find great joy, and she will not, nor any of us, find it anywhere else. And this is also true of all those persons out there who are "normal". They, like your sister, have nowhere to go but to Jesus to have life more abundantly. And it is guaranteed that in Christ we will all find everything that completes us as human persons, regardless what the affliction is.
My sister, Leonce, was in a lesbian relationship with a woman for 15 years, and at some point my sister decided as a poet to pursue who she was as a person, and that entailed the ending of their sexual relatedness, but my sister wanted to keep intact all that they had as a person to person relationship, what my sister called friendship. Her mate would not only not have any of it; she was so angry that she took a course of driving my sister to commit suicide.
Because of the Fall all off Creation entered a state of futility. Your sister no doubt suffers from this Fall. All I can say is that regardless how the Fall has affected your sister, in Christ she will find great joy, and she will not, nor any of us, find it anywhere else. And this is also true of all those persons out there who are "normal". They, like your sister, have nowhere to go but to Jesus to have life more abundantly. And it is guaranteed that in Christ we will all find everything that completes us as human persons, regardless what the affliction is.
4.28.2012 | 12:33pm
Doug Robinson says:
Communication is a two way street. Sometimes answers seem bad, but more often the questions are bad questions based on false premises--dishonest questions. "When did you stop molesting your altar boy"? should not be asked of every priest. Dishonest questions are rampant in the dialogue desired by LGBT activists confronting the Church. Ie. "So when will God stop being righteous?" Thankfully God is true to his own orientation! (I spent 20 years in San Francisco studying and observing the gay movement first hand --often having discussions in the homes of gay couples, as a bible-believing, homeschooling, married father of 5, and I write and lecture on the subject of gay theology vis-a'-vis historic Christianity)
5.4.2012 | 9:39pm
Rourke says:
Gil wrote:
"And this lying to children about anal intercourse is precisely to accommodate gays and no other reason, and precisely why sadistic heterosexually oriented boys con their teen girlfriends into having anal intercourse, to enjoy sexually inflicting pain and humiliation on the girls. For anal intercourse is intrinsically a sadomasochistic act: it always involves doing harm to another, whether the person learns to masochistically enjoy the harm or not."
Frankly, as a heterosexual male in an unusually happy, healthy marriage (we have been told by multiple people that we are the happiest family they have ever seen), I find this bizarre statement to say far more about your own sexual insecurities and latent predilections than it does about the characteristics of anal sex or those who who advocate for it. That you would find it to be an intrinsically sadomasochistic act is nothing short of a sweeping indictment on your own warped attitudes toward God's gift of sexuality. I pity the person who has the misfortune of being sexually involved with you, sir, and I pity as well any child unfortunate enough to endure the predations of your sexual conditioning.
"And this lying to children about anal intercourse is precisely to accommodate gays and no other reason, and precisely why sadistic heterosexually oriented boys con their teen girlfriends into having anal intercourse, to enjoy sexually inflicting pain and humiliation on the girls. For anal intercourse is intrinsically a sadomasochistic act: it always involves doing harm to another, whether the person learns to masochistically enjoy the harm or not."
Frankly, as a heterosexual male in an unusually happy, healthy marriage (we have been told by multiple people that we are the happiest family they have ever seen), I find this bizarre statement to say far more about your own sexual insecurities and latent predilections than it does about the characteristics of anal sex or those who who advocate for it. That you would find it to be an intrinsically sadomasochistic act is nothing short of a sweeping indictment on your own warped attitudes toward God's gift of sexuality. I pity the person who has the misfortune of being sexually involved with you, sir, and I pity as well any child unfortunate enough to endure the predations of your sexual conditioning.
5.9.2012 | 3:37pm
Tony says:
I feel the entire point of the article predicates itself on a single point:
"To the extent that a society becomes “modern,” then, it will be packed with people who hold to widely divergent beliefs and values, any of which may be questioned. And the glue of this system is not that we all agree with one another but that we make a commitment to not always equate disagreement, or even disapproval, with bigotry."
However, as we've seen in North Carolina yesterday, it's not enough for the anti-gay marriage crowd to simply disagree; instead, they find it necessary to to take their disagreements to the government, to attempt to legislate against a class of people solely because of their disagreements, which oftentimes are motivated by nothing more than religious belief.
In an everyday discussion, there can be an agreement to not equate disapproval with bigotry. But you can't hide behind that agreement when you take the issue to the next level and attempt to legislate discrimination because of that disagreement - there's simply no way to interpret such blatant hostility with "simple disagreement."
Such laws are the act of those who feel such disdain that they feel the need to codify in their state's or nation's laws that said group is unworthy of equality or protection. In a word, such laws only arise from bigotry.
"To the extent that a society becomes “modern,” then, it will be packed with people who hold to widely divergent beliefs and values, any of which may be questioned. And the glue of this system is not that we all agree with one another but that we make a commitment to not always equate disagreement, or even disapproval, with bigotry."
However, as we've seen in North Carolina yesterday, it's not enough for the anti-gay marriage crowd to simply disagree; instead, they find it necessary to to take their disagreements to the government, to attempt to legislate against a class of people solely because of their disagreements, which oftentimes are motivated by nothing more than religious belief.
In an everyday discussion, there can be an agreement to not equate disapproval with bigotry. But you can't hide behind that agreement when you take the issue to the next level and attempt to legislate discrimination because of that disagreement - there's simply no way to interpret such blatant hostility with "simple disagreement."
Such laws are the act of those who feel such disdain that they feel the need to codify in their state's or nation's laws that said group is unworthy of equality or protection. In a word, such laws only arise from bigotry.
5.9.2012 | 4:37pm
Roger says:
Don Roberto, let's take your advice and do a thought experiment, but let me rephrase the parameters a little:
"Do the thought experiement: what if you were trained from early childhood that pleasure X was obtained via religion Y? Many Christians' behavior is questionable. All sorts of negative consequences arise from it.
As always, hate the religion, love the believer."
What do you think? Does it still apply?
"Do the thought experiement: what if you were trained from early childhood that pleasure X was obtained via religion Y? Many Christians' behavior is questionable. All sorts of negative consequences arise from it.
As always, hate the religion, love the believer."
What do you think? Does it still apply?
But at the same time I wonder what room Christians have to actually protest, especially Protestants, for failing to articulate a vision for social, economic, and political life that is an alternate to the liberal, individualistic, statist, and capitalistic status quo. This arrangement is, after all, a descendant of the Enlightenment and the 19th century, which is a project actively engaged in overturning traditional social arrangements to "emancipate" individuals from them. On what grounds do Christians have to proclaim, "Stop! Go no further!" in this process when they have accepted it as legitimate?
Marriage itself changed dramatically from an institution that engenders and supports kinship networks and is intimately tied child rearing to one concerned with economic production, consumption, and the therapeutic satisfaction of the individual due to the proliferation of consumerism and the emergence of wage-labor in the 19th century, which overturned the traditional family. What marriage is today is the result of subverting moral ends to the instrumental reason of modern life through market processes in order to prioritize a mode of life based on a philosophical anthropology, metaphysics, and cosmology that is contrary to those of traditional Christianity. It's quite unfair to accept the political and economic arrangement--democratic capitalism--that transformed marriage into an institution for the satisfaction of "emancipated" individuals and then deny the rights and privileges of that institution to LGBT persons, especially as child rearing is really a peripheral element of that institution.
Christians act duplicitously when they argue with a foot in each of two traditions that contradict one another, shifting weight from a liberal leg to a traditionalist one when it suits their needs, as in this case, or vice versa. What are we? Moderns who chase economic growth, seek therapy, and find freedom in the sheer expression of an arbitrary and nihilistic will in a social reality where faith in Christ merely becomes a private concern of beliefs? Or are we to practice Christ by living in community with the Church as the center of our lives?
At least the LGBT crowd has some consistency on this matter. Perhaps they are right to criticize Christians and other traditionalists for insisting upon what appears to them to be outdated conventions that Christians themselves long ago abandoned in taking up the liberal creed.