The issue of abortion has long been one of the most contentious policy discussions in our nation, but perhaps gay marriage will (or already has) replaced it as the hot button culture issue. A simple reason for this may be that abortion survivors are few and far between, so no one is confronted with the personal side of the issue. That is not the case for gay marriage.
Because the issue of marriage is so contentious and yet vital to the existence of our nation, are there ways in which both sides can compromise or at least engage in the matter in a much more civil tone?
Louis, regular commenter here, sent me several links as an olive branch of sorts on this issue. He, as a gay man, is very passionate and personally invested in the idea of gay marriage. He has also been in the middle of a very divisive vote on the issue in California and feels as if religious voters are using a "tyranny of the majority" to limit his freedom, which should be automatic as an American citizen. He has a vastly different perspective on it than do I.
I grew up in the rural South. Racism and homophobia were prevalent. I saw people who I respected a lot as Christians espouse some very unChristian ideas about those that were different from them. Despite my abhorance of those sins, I still hold (and believe it to be consistent to hold) that God intentionally created man and woman, sanctioning and blessing the union of marriage as beneficial and necessary for societal order and sustainability.
So where does that leave us? I think both sides have to recognize past (and present) faults in their approach to this issue.
Christians have done a horrible, horrific, dreadful and shameful job at showing love to the gay community. We have no credibility with them after so many of our leaders rejoiced at the onslaught of AIDS among them. That caused the reputation of the Church and of Christ to take a huge hit.
No wonder so many people have the perception that Christianity is all about rules instead of grace. We have attempted to force Christian standards of behavior on the culture at large. That will not work. Needless to say, I do believe that Christians should play a role in the formation of our government and the policies which flow from it. I believe that if perfectly interpreted and perfectly applied the Biblical principles would lead to a better society. However, we continually fail to recognize that we as Christians do not perfectly interpret or apply those principles. How can we expect it to be any different for those outside of Christ?
Christians have been legalistic and arrogant in this discussion. I've been on both sides of this particular vice. I am sure that I have displayed both of those characteristics in many comments. I have also had a church refuse to hire me partly because someone searched through the archives of this blog and found a sentence in one post that didn't sound strong enough against gay marriage for their pleasure. We have to recognize that while the Biblical principle is always clear, the application to our society is not.
Those on the other side have also made mistakes in this debate. I can't speak as much to theirs as my own, but there have been some that have negated movement on this issue.
Just as too many Christians relied on stereotypes for gay people they had never met, gays did the same with conservative Christians. After having successfully established those straw men, they went and attacked.
Gays have also repeatedly assumed the worst possible motivation for actions that they can not understand – "you hate gays" or "you want to take away our rights." Neither of which is true for the vast majority of Christians, particularly those who are intelligent and serious about this issue. It is reckless and irresponsible to ascribe motives to someone when you do not know them. For most Christians, their desire is to simply "protect marriage and the family." That drive may manifest itself for a suburban stay-at-home Christian mom in Georgia in a manner that seems totally foreign to a gay Buddhist actor in San Francisco (and vice versa).
To move beyond the impasse both sides have to recognize these facts and adjust accordingly, particularly the idea of not having a shared background and assuming the worst for the other side because of it.
There are two ways in which Christians (I'll stick with my side) can move forward toward some type of compromise. They can change their application or they can change their doctrine. The two stories Louis sent me fit these two categories.
In the New York Times, two authors, coming from completely different vantage points, prescribed a way in which both sides could adjust to achieve or maintain some of what they want.
civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the
state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal
benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition:
Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with
robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious
organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will.
The federal government would also enact religious-conscience
protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the
same bill.
…
Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a
natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value
while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict.
Many on both sides would not support the compromise. They are entrenched in their current line of thinking. I haven't thought through the proposal and all of the consequences, intended and unintended, to formulate and express my own opinion of it.
However, I am grateful for the exercise of attempted to forge ahead in a compromise in the way Christians and other traditionalist would apply the principles they seek to protect, without abandoning them completely.
On the other side is this press release from gay evangelical groups in England, calling on American evangelicals to do more to condemn the rhetoric and acts of hate groups, such as Westboro Baptist Church.
While I agree that true Christians should be vocal and repeated in their condemnations of the Westboro cult, these groups seemed to use that issue of agreement as a bait-and-switch.
their own failings by pointing to the failings of others – even if they are
much larger. Westboro Baptist Church operates as a hate group and is an easy
target. The real challenge to evangelicals is to face the need for change
themselves.
In particular, this means: engaging more fully and openly
with lesbian and gay Christians and accepting them as equal under God;
examining the way prejudice against gay people has distorted biblical
understanding; prayerfully re-thinking church policies of exclusion and
acknowledging the harm they cause; and recognizing the growing number of
evangelicals who have had a heart-change and now affirm faithful gay
relationships.
That is not so much calling for a compromise as it is calling for evangelicals to change the way the Bible has been interpreted for almost 2,000 years because of a current culture issue. There is no give and take in this plea, it is an expectation that others change to suit their understanding.
That is not a compromise of application. That is a compromise of principles and doctrine. Therefore, it will be extremely difficult to move forward if that is the path that either side decides to hold to completely.
Any suggestions on ways that both sides can adapt the way they apply their principles in order that some type of satisfactory solution may succeed?
I would agree to this compromise, but I assume that those like Louis will never go for anything less than full marriage declarations, and the ability to persecute those who refuse to marry gays and condemn homosexuality as sinful.
Funny you say that. Louis sent me the link and basically said the same of you. You guys really could agree on more than you think. Issues wise there is room for contact, but with the rhetoric I'm not sure.
I haven't thought through the proposal and all of the consequences, intended and unintended, to formulate and express my own opinion of it.
So you sidestep the issue? You report it, but have no position. Oh, that's right:
I have also had a church refuse to hire me partly because someone searched through the archives of this blog and found a sentence in one post that didn't sound strong enough against gay marriage for their pleasure.
No wonder you can't express an honest opinion: you are afraid of retribution from the very people you seek to serve. This speaks volumes to me about your brand of xianity.
I have nothing to say to seeker on this topic anymore.
Louis, did you even read the post at all. Did you consider areas where you may be wrong or at least approaching the issue in a wrong way?
Attacking me and assigning a motivation of cowardice is not a good way to go about changing my mind or influencing me toward a compromise position.
I honestly want to put something up because I know you were waiting on it. I didn't want to keep you waiting forever.
But as I said, I did see good things in the compromise expressed in the NYT. I just haven't had the time to go through all the angles of it.
I would hope that it shows you that I take the issue seriously because that is the case. I don't want to jump to any conclusion that may not give any one what they want. One of the worst things we can do on these issues is to simply "do something" when that "something" may hurt both sides with unintended consequences.
Geez, even seeker can accept the compromise. I appreciate that you think your church has treated gays badly, but I don't see anything new above. Just saying that Christians could treat gays better doesn't really say much at all, especially if you continue to advocate anti-gay policies. Just taking a gentler, kinder tone while maintaining discriminatory positions doesn't do much for me. I prefer to meet my enemy (like seeker) without prevarication.
If you don't want to answer, don't.
btw: The compromise, for me, is but the first step towards full equality.
Just taking a gentler, kinder tone while maintaining discriminatory positions doesn't do much for me. I prefer to meet my enemy (like seeker) without prevarication.
If you don't want to answer, don't.
Couple of things: While a "gentler, kinder tone" does not change policies, rhetoric that is not highly charged enables a much more civil discussion, which in turns makes it easier to move forward.
Second, I don't view you as my enemy. We have a disagreement over a policy issue, one which is very personal to you. You may view me as such, but I want to make it clear that the feelings are not mutual.
Lastly, again it is not that I don't want to answer. It is that I recognize the seriousness of the issue and prefer we make the best possible decision. As I said, I think this is a step in the right general direction. These are the type of compromises I could support.
But then your last comment almost negates all of that – you ask others to do what you are not willing. You are not seeking a compromise, but incrementalism.
What I meant by the last comment was that, once the compromise is established and gay civil unions become common, the heterosexual majority will see that we are not a threat to their marriages or families. We will demonstrate that our commitments to each other and our families, and our contributions to society, strengthen marriage. Eventually, it will seem absurd to deny us the word “marriage” and full equality. In fact, it will be recognized that “civil marriage” and a “separate but (not)equal” policy is untenable. Then, marriage will be extended to all.
"…the heterosexual majority will see that we are not a threat to their marriages or families."
I don't think it's possible to convince conservatives that way, Louis. Gays could be a model of fidelity and contribute greatly to society but it won't make a difference. It's just ingrained in their heads from an early age that being gay is a choice and it's wrong. Because being gay is something that is by definition filthy and immoral in the conservative Christian mindset, it would forever taint the institution of marriage.
Another compromise: abolish secular marriage altogether, government only registers civil unions. Marriage would be a religious matter, each religion being free to marry whoever they want. Legally there'd be no distinctions between gay and straight unions, but religions would not have to go against their beliefs. Down with the Constantinian union of church and state! :-)
your friend
Keith
I like Keith's compromise!
Legally there'd be no distinctions between gay and straight unions…
But that's precisely what scares the religious right. You have to place guarantees in the law that they can make just that distinction for them to go along. Otherwise, they fear that they will be subject to civil and criminal penalty for refusing to accept gay unions.
I'm aware that there will always be a diehard anti-gay faction among the religious right. After all, they worship the Bible (or, their version of the Bible) with all its incidental absurdities and misunderstandings, so those handful of texts condemning gays will trump everything else (including faith, hope, and charity). So what? Let them pound sand. They will be a tiny minority; the moderate majority is what we want. A reasonable, incrementalist approach makes more sense. Justice will not be denied.
Taking Keith’s ideas a little further, why not get government out of recognising any unions of any type, between any number of people, animals plants or inanimate objects. To me, this is not only silly but also social and moral suicide. To others, it may be considered a desirable goal.
Hi William:
Is it my proposal you consider moral suicide, or your extension of it?
keith
Hi Louis:
Incrementalism is definitely a good idea, since it involves movement in the right direction.
your friend
Keith
I don't think we need to establish incrementalism as a conscious policy. Rather, I think acceptance of full gay equality will occur on its own, incrementally, for the natural arc of the human project is toward justice (at least that's what the Christians teach).
There will always be rejectionists, but they can be safely relegated to the fringes.
Actually, I think that my extension of Keith's proposal just cuts through the incrementalism, conscious or otherwise.
"…why not get government out of recognising any unions of any type, between any number of people, animals plants or inanimate objects."
This sounds like the same slippery slope argument used against interracial marriages. It makes no sense. Mixed marriages were only legalized in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia).
Cineaste said: "It makes no sense" This is assertion with no argument. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with government staying out of civil unions, however they may be defined? Are you suggesting there is something inapproprate about unions of any number of people, animals, plants or inanimate objects?
I'm suggesting that it's the same slippery slope type of argument that was made against the legalization of interracial marriages. I.E. interracial marriages will lead to inappropriate unions of any number of people, animals, plants or inanimate objects. Interracial marriages will lead to social and moral suicide! That makes no sense. Why would interracial marriage lead to that? Why would gay civil unions? If it makes sense to you, please enlighten me.
"…is something inappropriate about unions of any number of people, animals, plants or inanimate objects?"
It doesn't affect me if some crazy women wants to have a civil union with the Eiffel Tower. It's not really my cup of tea but I'm not going to play the role of morality police.
I'm not going to play the role of morality police.
Except for when you do so to chastise those that disagree with you on this issue (or others).
You see it as immoral to be intolerant of gay marriage or to "interfere with science." You have a morality that you impose on others. It just happens to be different from mine.
Everyone has a version of morality that they want to impose on the rest of society. Just as with Louis comment about those that disagree can be "safely relegated to the fringes."
I can only imagine the outrage if Daniel had said that in regard to gay people or if I have said that when discussing those in favor of ESCR. It would be assumed that we wanted to round people up into concentration camps.
Let's ignore the issue of who is right and who is wrong on this – we can and have debated on this forever. You have your idea of morality and you want to use the government to enforce that. How is that different from "evil conservatives?"
"You see it as immoral to be intolerant of gay marriage or to "interfere with science." You have a morality that you impose on others."
It's not a case of, "it's okay when Aaron's ox is gored but a different story when it's Cineaste's ox." Give me a break. You are comparing apples and oranges as if they are equal. The examples you cite, ESCR (still awaiting a response from you, BTW) and "interfering with science," by which I think you mean religious stances toward science (creationism, global warming, ESCR, etc) are harmful. The evangelical stance on ESCR prevents potential cures and alleviation of human suffering. The conservative religious stance on science promotes widespread, sometimes lethal ignorance. For example, Jehovah's witnesses not allowing their children to receive life saving blood transfusions. The right wing evangelical stance on global warming, to deny it, could spell the destruction of human life, forever.
So you have that on one hand and on the other you have Louis in a civil union with someone he loves. How in the world does that harm you? There is no comparison.
Everyone has a version of morality that they want to impose on the rest of society. Just as with Louis' comment about those that disagree can be "safely relegated to the fringes."
I can only imagine the outrage if Daniel had said that in regard to gay people or if I have said that when discussing those in favor of ESCR. It would be assumed that we wanted to round people up into concentration camps.
Oh, boo-hoo! As if that could ever happen to Christians in this country! Gays amount to about 2% and you guys 80%. Give me a break with your special pleading.
I'm not imposing anything on you. You don't have to accept me as equal if you don't want to, but our society as a whole will. You'll just be relegated to the fringes as racial bigots and anti-semites are now.
Cineaste said: "If it makes sense to you, please enlighten me." You still assert without argument. In fact, I never proposed any argument against civil unions of any type. You have not supplied an argument for or against but apparently would approve of any such relationships including you, me a gerbil and the Eiffel tower. Considering that you propose radical changes in this social institution I think that you are obligated to provide some reasonable case for why these changes should be made.
Cineaste also said: "The evangelical stance on ESCR prevents potential cures and alleviation of human suffering. The conservative religious stance on science promotes widespread, sometimes lethal ignorance."
I had no idea that there was such unanimity :) I would be interested in what you think the "evangelical stance" and the "conservative religious stance" are. The examples you cite are inadequate for your broad claim. They certainly are not enlightening concerning any argument for a position on either of these issues even if they were applicable and accurate.
Louis said: "Give me a break with your special pleading." Perhaps you are not watching trends in Europe, Canada and elsewhere as well as the U.S.
Louis also said: "You don't have to accept me as equal"
I certainly do, in the sense of value and I think that Christianity has important things to say on this. I don't know how you get from there to same sex marriage, if that is what you are speaking about.
Louis said: "You'll just be relegated to the fringes as racial bigots and anti-semites are now." This is, in my opinion, inappropriate name calling, ad hominem if you will. It should be noted that just because society accepts something doesn't make it right. I hope that we can agree on that point.
Well, yes, society accepts evangelicals and fundamentalists of all stripes, but I don't think that's right at all. In fact, I feel they are a definite danger to a free society, for, to answer your second question, they are the primary force behind denying gays equal protection under the law. I don't give a cockroach's fart about their claims to "love" gays – all irrelevant prevarications or outright lies. In fact, I don't give a shit whether they love or hate me; I just want them to keep their long noses out of my civil rights. Clear?
Arguing with religious fanatics is pointless.
“In fact, I never proposed any argument against civil unions of any type.”
Oh, good! So, does this mean we agree?
“You have not supplied an argument for or against [civil unions]”
Then in the next sentence…
“Considering that you propose radical changes in this social institution [civil unions]”
Make up your mind.
“The examples you cite are inadequate for your broad claim.”
How so? The conservative religious stances toward evolution, global warming, ESCR, etc promotes widespread, sometimes lethal ignorance. You mean you don’t agree with that?
Give me a break with your special pleading.
No special pleading. No victimization. No whining. Just pointing out the double standard that exists, particularly in the allowed language (or actions) for either side of the debate.
It does not matter what I say or do, my motivations are hatred or irrationality if I disagree with you. Simply because I do not agree that marriage should be changed depending on the cultural mood means that I must hate gay people, be irrational and incapable of a discussion.
So you have that on one hand and on the other you have Louis in a civil union with someone he loves. How in the world does that harm you? There is no comparison.
From your perspective, which is not the only one out there.
Again, I merely pointed out that you say you don’t want to play the morality police, yet you constantly draw upon a type of morality when discussing gay marriage, ESCR, global warming, etc.
You do want to play morality police, you simply want to be able to define the terms on which on can claim that status.
You don’t see a comparison because conveniently it only fits your view of the issues. You keep claiming that your stances flow from evidence and not your worldview, but somehow someway every controversial issue keeps lining up exactly with your perspective.
It is moral or scientific only when you say it is. Who was the one trying to dictate to everyone else what is morality or science?
The conservative religious stances toward evolution, global warming, ESCR, etc promotes widespread, sometimes lethal ignorance.
Please provide actual evidence for this claim. Projections and possibilities do not count, since that would at best qualify as "potentially lethal ignorance."
Your claim here is that people have died already because of a certain stance on evolution, global warming and ESCR. Please demonstrate that factually, which non-biased evidence from neutral sources.
"How in the world does that harm you?"
You need to answer this.
"Please demonstrate that factually, which non-biased evidence from neutral sources."
Such as?
Try this on for size:
Simply because I do not agree that slavery should be changed depending on the cultural mood means that I must hate black people, be irrational and incapable of a discussion.
***
But be that as it may, remember I'm not basing my comment on this particular exchange (such as it is), but on years of encounters with evangelicals and other religious conservatives. It's pointless, for they never – never – give an inch. Why bother treating you guys like reasonable human beings capable of changing your minds when your opinions are based on an absolutist view of reality? God wrote his opinions down in the Bible (or Torah or Koran), therefore that's it, the end, no discussion allowed. There's no appeal, no rational argument which can defeat this insane level of certainty. So, why bother? After a while, hitting myself on the head with a hammer just gets too painful. When one confronts a relentless enemy for years who will not change, no matter what, one eventually comes to the conclusion that it's pointless to continue. That's why I've given up and turned to rancor: frustration, mixed with disappointment and emotional angst.
You need to answer this.
Does something have to personally harm me for me to be against it? I don't see the reasoning behind this. To use an extreme issue, is murder wrong if it does not harm me? That seems very selfish.
I believe redefining marriage will further weaken the institution. Studies and anecdotal evidence from countries and states bare this out, including many of the leading gay couples who fought for marriage already have divorced. Yes, "straights" have done a horrible job of keeping it strong, but it was not the conservatives who were arguing for looser divorce laws, etc.
Regardless of whether Louis is ever giving a state-sponsored marriage certificate, I will love my wife and stay married to her until death. But that does not change the impact the shift and redefinition will have on society and future generations.
Such as?
Oh, no. You made the accusation that people have died because of certain views about evolution, global warming and ESCR. You made the claim. You back it up.
You can't make such a huge attack without stating any evidence and then when asked for any factual support for it, you ask me to guide your search for the evidence.
If you did not have unbiased evidence at the ready, you should not have made that claim. If you cannot provide it, would it be too much to ask you to apologize for making slanderous assertions without factual evidence.
Again, projections do not count, because you did not say potentially lethal. Your claim was that what you call a conservative Christian view of ESCR, global warming and evolution was lethal. Defend it.
Louis, can I make the same appeal to slavery for the unborn?
But be that as it may, remember I'm not basing my comment on this particular exchange (such as it is), but on years of encounters with evangelicals and other religious conservatives. It's pointless, for they never – never – give an inch.
So, in essence, I'm being judged for the sins of those I have never met and in some sense condemned in this post.
Also, who said we would never, never give an inch? Daniel said he would accept the compromise which you shared. You were the one who followed that up, by admitting that you didn't want the compromise, you merely wanted to use it to get all that you wanted.
Who is the one who is uncompromising and rigid in their beliefs about policy and the other side of this discussion?
" To use an extreme issue, is murder wrong if it does not harm me?"
Isn't it true though that murder harms the one who is murdered? How does Louis in a civil union harm anyone?
"Oh, no. You made the accusation that people have died because of certain views about evolution, global warming and ESCR. You made the claim. You back it up."
I'm happy to. But you said with, "non-biased evidence from neutral sources." So, you need to answer this first, right? Heaven forbid I pick a source like a scientist or newspaper that you don't like.
Cineaste said: "Make up your mind."
There is a difference between making an assertion and making an argument. So far, all I have seen from you are assertions. I am surprised that you seem to not understand the difference.
As Aaron suggests, provide evidence (and also an argument) to support your assertions if you expect to change minds. (Louis take note).
Cineaste said: "How does Louis in a civil union harm anyone?"
To be fair to those with which you disagree on this issue, try and answer your own question. Let us know what you come up with. I think Aaron has given good answers that can be developed further but I am curious if you care if civil unions harm anyone and, if so, why do you care?
I do agree that finding "non-biased evidence from neutral sources." is a difficult, if not impossible, standard to meet.
Cineaste also said: "It's not really my cup of tea but I'm not going to play the role of morality police."
So then everything is permitted! Use your imagination. Can you imagine people getting hurt?
"So then everything is permitted!"
That's an assertion with no evidence. Kindly find some non biased sources to support your assertion.
As Aaron suggests, provide evidence (and also an argument) to support your assertions if you expect to change minds. (Louis take note).
We've been arguing this (and other) points for years and you drop in over the last few days and have the gall to appoint yourself as judge of the proceedings? Who do you think you are anyway? You obviously haven't been here when I provided arguments, evidence, links to sources, challenges to false and biased assertions by the christianists who inhabit this site, or you wouldn't be so glib with your demands. I've just given up because reasonable arguments (replete with evidence) won't move religious fundamentalists; they have a different standard of proof (ie, "God" and the Bible which are unquestionable).
Since you apparently agree with them, you can start: provide evidence that your "God" exists and that the Bible is true in every part.
As to Aaron: Never fear. You've provided potential employers with enough anti gay marriage bona fides. Happy job hunting.
Hi William
You wrote: I certainly do, in the sense of value and I think that Christianity has important things to say on this. I don't know how you get from there to same sex marriage, if that is what you are speaking about.
You don't see how Louis gets from "equal value" to "same sex marriage"? I suggest this would be one way:
1. Lifelong monogamous unions are the deepest expressions of love/sex possible.
2. American Civil society facilitates these unions by marriage laws.
3. Homosexuals cannot take advantage of those marriage laws.
Clearly a person who believes that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality could infer that a society that denies them this most basic right considers them of less value, the same as a slave might conclude that a slaveholding society considers slaves to be of less value than free men.
You’ve provided potential employers with enough anti gay marriage bona fides. Happy job hunting.
Again, assuming negative motivations for those on the opposing side. And you wonder why people get so entrenched in one position and refuse to budge. I understand that you feel as if you shouldn’t have to make an appeal, but you do. The majority of people in this country do not want gay marriage, the majority in California do not want gay marriage. Simply making yourself feel better by assuming everyone hates you or is trying to appeal to some outside viewer does you no good.
To your assertion, if that was my goal, I wouldn’t have posted this story. Honestly, many would probably have a problem with the compromise approach. I do not. I recognize the need for a separation between church and state. It does not help either side. But I do not accept the state making policy without the influence of those within the church (whatever side they come in on – me and Keith).
Again to go back to the top of this thread, because I did not whole heartedly endorse the compromise presented immediately you assume negative motivations of me. Yet, your motivation was not entire on the up and up. You didn’t want the compromise for compromise sake, you wanted it in order to make progress toward complete acceptance of your goal.
How does Louis in a civil union harm anyone?
You are bringing up two separate issues – civil union and marriages. They have two different answers, so what is the question: marriage or civil union?
Heaven forbid I pick a source like a scientist or newspaper that you don’t like.
It wouldn’t be choosing one I didn’t like, it would be choosing one that comes to the data with a left leaning bias. Just provide the evidence and we can discuss the neutrality of it. As of now you are making an assertion that what you perceive as the Christian conservative viewpoint on evolution, ESCR and global warming has specifically led to the deaths of people, provide the grounds for that claim.
Clearly a person who believes that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality could infer that a society that denies them this most basic right considers them of less value, the same as a slave might conclude that a slaveholding society considers slaves to be of less value than free men.
While you make a good point, you miss a larger one. Slaves were denied all freedoms and considered by law less of a person. That does not exist with gay people today. There have all rights and privileges of every other person.
The only issue we are debating is that whether the government should (or even has the authority to) redefine marriage so as to include gay couples. That is very distinct from slavery or regarding them as having less value.
As I said with Cin, there is a distinction to be made with civil unions and marriage. There is also a distinction to be made with granting rights such as visitation, wills, etc and the status of marriage.
We must be specific in what we are discussing.
[Gay people] have all rights and privileges of every other person.
Factually untrue. Let us ignore the civil union/marriage issue for the moment. We may not serve in the armed forces, whether we are closeted or not. DADT does not work: I have read of several cases where gay servicemen and women have been forcibly outed and kicked out of the service, even though they were discrete and/or celibate. The mere fact of their sexual orientation disqualified them for service. In many states, gays cannot adopt nor serve as foster parents. In most religious denominations, we may not serve as clergy. Without marriage protections, we may not visit our mates in hospital nor exercise decisions regarding their care. Often, distant family members take over and exclude the mate from even visiting. If our mate is of foreign origin, we may not bring him or her to this country, even if their lives are in danger in their country of origin. Often, we are not safe in our jobs nor in our homes from legal discrimination. And what about the "privilege" of emotional fulfillment and security that having a legally recognized relationship? Or from being free from harassment or rejection?
You are either ignorant or cruelly indifferent to the facts. True, things are better than, say, when I was a teenager. But not everywhere in this country, nor in every family or community. Nor has discrimination and the damage it does to the psyche disappeared. Many young gay people today still are subject to cruel harassment, discrimination, rejection, and forcible removal to mental institutions (usually religious) or the street. Discrimination, often religiously fed, is still rampant.
You like to portray yourself as loving and enlightened because you deplore the more overt forms of persecution and discrimination. However, you still believe that hx is not a real and acceptable form of human sexuality or emotional orientation. For, you see, it isn't just about sex and lust, but also (and, perhaps, more importantly) involves an emotional life which you can't see on the surface. You still think the hx orientation is something which is a deviance or sickness or result of sin – why else would you champion "reversion therapy"? You really think gays can be "cured" or "converted" or something. I've seen your comments.
You can't even compromise because you fear it will be but a first step to abandoning your beliefs and surrendering to the "other side." This would also mean abandoning your "faith," I guess. To me, you look like just another Pharisee, concerned more with the rules and the laws and self-righteous perfectionism while ignoring the wounded person at your feet. You cross over to the other side of the road to avoid the pain and suffering you have had a part in causing and continuing. Your "love" is merely the self-delusion of the person who refuses to face the truth of his existence: that his dogmas are more important than real, flesh and blood human beings.
Of course, this will mean nothing to you because your faith has inoculated you from hearing truth from me. For my words must be tainted by my "sin" and therefore can be safely ignored or explained away. So why bother to continue?
Finis.
Time ran out before I could add this:
I wonder what will happen should either of your sons turn out to be gay. I pity them.
A gloss on what I wrote above (not that you'll give a damn):
Lesbian Mother Handcuffed, Torn from Two Sons, Partner of 23 Years. Why? Because the U.S. Government does not see LGBT people as equal citizens:
Money quote:
"If Jay Mercado, [Shirley] Tan's partner of 23 years and the mother of her sons, were a different gender, it's highly unlikely that [authorities] ever would have come. As a U.S. citizen, Mercado could have sponsored a wedded spouse for legal permanent residency. But although Mercado and Tan (above) married in San Francisco in 2004, federal law limits the definition of marriage to a man and a woman, and same-sex partners of U.S. citizens don't have a route to legal permanent residence extended to straight married couples…Mercado and Tan, who first appealed for political asylum for Tan in 1995 and thought their case was still pending, said they were completely unaware a deportation order had been issued in 2002. If Tan is deported this week, they will have to decide between separating two sons from one of their mothers, or moving the family to a country they have never known."
Hi aaron:
I wrote: Clearly a person who believes that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality could infer that a society that denies them this most basic right considers them of less value, the same as a slave might conclude that a slaveholding society considers slaves to be of less value than free men.
to which you replied: While you make a good point, you miss a larger one. Slaves were denied all freedoms and considered by law less of a person. That does not exist with gay people today. There have all rights and privileges of every other person…
In places with civil unions, yes, except for the right to marry. You call this "redefining marriage"; I'll comment on that below.
…The only issue we are debating is that whether the government should (or even has the authority to) redefine marriage so as to include gay couples. That is very distinct from slavery or regarding them as having less value.
I think the concept of "redefining" marriage is something of a red herring. In one sense a definition is just a report of what label you are going to put on something. If "marriage" means a union between one man and one woman, the phrase "gay marriage" is a logical contradiction, a meaningless combination of words, which means you could no more oppose gay marriage than you could oppose "flkhdhdhsr". But in fact we DO know what the phrase means. Marriage as an institution means a certain set of rights and responsibilities and for Christians it is a certain kind of spiritual union. Opponents of gay marriage either want to deny gays access to marriage rights OR they do not want the government to recognize gay unions as being as worthy as heterosexual marriages. And if you are right about how God feels about gay unions then gay unions are NOT as worthy as hetero marriages (not that this implies that Christians ought to support secular government policies that prohibiting gay marriage–that's a separate question from the "sin" question). IMO it's this "not as worthy" part that explains Louis' feeling opponents of gay marriage do not consider gays to be equally value. And it's not unreasonable for him to feel that way. I'm not sure he is right about that–I think it is possible that some people who think homosexuality is a sin STILL consider homosexuals to be of equal worth to heteros. But it seems to me you can see where Louis is coming from, and possibly the love that Christian opponents of gay unions have for gays is a flawed love.
your friend
keith
Cineaste said: ""So then everything is permitted!" That's an assertion with no evidence."
Well, yes it is an assertion. The evidence was your own previous statements. Now you can explain that I am mistaken and you believe that not everything is permitted. Unless you do actually believe that everything is permitted and my assertion is correct. Are there any other alternatives?
Keith said: "You don't see how Louis gets from "equal value" to "same sex marriage"? "
Louis has pointed out that he has participated on this issue in other posts on this blog and that I am a newcomer. This is true. He has also judged me as a religious fundamentalist as well as admitted that he has given up on reasonable argument (with someone that he has never interacted with before!!) This is no way to establish a respectful relationship conducive to reasonable exchange of ideas. Since I didn't see anything from him in this thread that amounted to an argument, my observation is, I think, still true.
Concerning your specific comment I note that Louis did not use the term equal value but simply equal. I think there is a significant difference, wouldn't you agree?
Your first proposition combines love and sex and suggests that monagamous unions are the deepest expression of these two separate things. A mother can provide deep expression of love to her three children. Is this a monogamous union? Is this love relationship also sexual? I think your first proposition tries to say too much and is not accurate.
Your second proposition maintains that American society facilitates life long monogamous unions through marriage laws. This may be true if the laws do in fact promote life long monogamous marriages. If so, it could be that this is intentional or simply a side effect. This is one of the big questions. What is marriage and why does it exist in society? I think your first proposition does not do enough to clear up this question.
Your third proposition is clearly false. Homosexuals have always been able to get married. They may not have been allowed to marry someone of the same sex but all people have been subject to that same restriction.
Do you consider marriage a "basic right"? If it is, where do you think these rights come from? From man or from God?
Louis said: "For, you see, it isn't just about sex and lust, but also (and, perhaps, more importantly) involves an emotional life which you can't see on the surface. You still think the hx orientation is something which is a deviance or sickness or result of sin"
I think that this is a true statement but instead of "emotional" I would say "spiritual".
Louis also said: "You can't even compromise because you fear it will be but a first step to abandoning your beliefs "
If Christians believe that God has set before us the way, the truth and the life, His commandments and will for us are not open to compromise, you are right. However it is not right that this is out of fear that we will be abandoning our beliefs, it is out of the knowledge that we would be abandoning God. This is the God from whom all blessings, including what rights we can be said to have, flow.
Louis, I hear you appeal to the Christian sense of love, mercy, truth and justice. I think these things come only through God. Here is what God commands:
Mark 12:29-31
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'There is no commandment greater than these."
This is why I should participate in these discussions. It is not to condemn or to be the judge of a person, but out of love to convince them that because of their sin (which can be judged), without Christ, they are perishing. God forbid that this be about ego or winning an argument.
This is a Christian site perhaps you and others would be interested in:
http://www.purepassion.us/Home.asp
"Well, yes it ["So then everything is permitted!" ] is an assertion. The evidence was your own previous statements."
That's not my assertion, bro. It's yours. William, there is a difference between making an assertion and making an argument. So far, all I have seen from you are assertions. I am surprised that you seem to not understand the difference.
I noticed you quoted scripture. Talk about assertions with no evidence!
I'm still waiting to see your evidence for the existence of your "God" or that your holy book is little more than a collection of superstitions and folklore. Evidence. Proof.
If you still think that the Bible is little more then folklore, than you have already abandoned reason. There is no proof that will satisfy your mind. Go your way, you are absolved of being a Christian. For you, no proof exists.
You can choose one of the gods that suits your fancy, perhaps the one that thinks homosexuality is fabulous.
Or, you can look at all the evil in the world, and tell yourself there is no God, no heaven, no hell, no salvation, no forgiveness, nor need for forgiveness. We are alone in the universe, and there is no good, no bad, no meaning, and certainly no justice. Just human goodness, and science.
Be a good person, and don't worry about it. You are probably right. No need to bother yourself. Nothing more to see here.
But I'm betting that Pascal was making more than an idle conjecture or threat.
To me, you look like just another Pharisee, concerned more with the rules and the laws and self-righteous perfectionism while ignoring the wounded person at your feet.
I'm sorry you feel that way and I do not take lightly your words and your feelings, but they cannot be my ultimate priority. Neither are my words and feelings yours – as you have called me unloving, a pharisee, etc.
You completely misunderstand me if you believe I am promoting some type of perfectionism at all. The Gospel and the Government are two separate, but related topics. The Gospel is open to all who will receive. The Government is established to protect and encourage society and civilization.
Perfectionism is not a requirement for the Gospel – Jesus took care of that. The Government should have high standards for the law and the values it reinforces.
I wonder what will happen should either of your sons turn out to be gay. I pity them.
Again, I'm sorry you feel that way. As to what would happen, I would love them just like I love them now. Obviously, they would know that I disapprove, but just as I do now – I love them regardless. I love them because they are my sons. Nothing they can do will change that. But that does not mean I have to approve of every choice they make. I don't know any parent that would argue that.
I see that in every relationship I'm in or every person I meet and talk with. I do not have to agree with them on everything to love them. My wife and I don't agree on everything, I still love her.
You say you find my "love" (your scare quotes) to be self-delusional, but it is as it is with every other relationship (more importantly as it is with God) – love not based on actions, but the presence of the relationship.
IMO it's this "not as worthy" part that explains Louis' feeling opponents of gay marriage do not consider gays to be equally value. And it's not unreasonable for him to feel that way.
Keith, no I understand this and I have said repeatedly that I understand the personal passion that Louis has for this issue. I can also understand why he views me (and others the way he does). However, as I said in the post, it is the attribution of motives that causes the most problems in this debate.
That idea is one of the reasons why many have such problems with hate crime laws. You are judging based on mental motivations that cannot be known for sure. That is especially true is discussions like this.
While I completely understand Louis feeling that I do not value him as I should, it cannot be accepted that he ascribes motivations of "hate" to me, when I have given no indications of those except that I disagree with him about an issue that is deeply personal to him.
Abortion is very personal to me, partly because of issues with my first son. That does not give me the right to say that people hate me or my son if they disagree with me. I don't think even those who have survived an abortion have the right to say those who agree with abortion hate them personally.
I'm still waiting to see your evidence for the existence of your "God" or that your holy book is little more than a collection of superstitions and folklore. Evidence. Proof.
I'm still waiting for proof there is no God. There is evidence (on both sides) to be sure, but there is no proof either way.
We have and will discuss the issues of evidences for God and the Bible in other places. There is plenty there, but there will never be proof – at least not enough for you.
I'm sure you will claim that if God wants to show Himself He should do a better job at it, etc., but that would defeat a lot of His purposes – having people choose Him, not be forced to follow Him.
Even if you do not believe in God, you can acknowledge that if the all-powerful Christian God exists and He shows up with proof, there is no question left. There is no choice. He no longer has followers based on a choice, based on love. He has followers based on duty and a reluctant acknowledgment.
I should also add, Murder is not my cup of tea bit it's not permissible.
Hi Aaron:
About deep disagreement on important issues, hate etc. I agree with you. I am against war (being a pacifist Quaker and all) even if in the short term this allows one government to get away with murder. But that doesn't mean I APPROVE of murder. The right wing accused opponents of McCarthyism of being "objectively pro-communist" and they were wrong about that. Some pro-choicers say that anti-abortioners don't care if women die; they are also wrong. There are times when people just disagree even on very deep issues. I think it is important–very important–that we all remember this.
your friend
keith
Hi William:
Thanks for your response. My response follows:
Concerning your specific comment I note that Louis did not use the term equal value but simply equal. I think there is a significant difference, wouldn't you agree?
Equal is an ambiguous term. IMO Louis was saying that gays would eventually be treated by society as people of equal worth to straights.
Your first proposition combines love and sex and suggests that monagamous unions are the deepest expression of these two separate things. A mother can provide deep expression of love to her three children. Is this a monogamous union? Is this love relationship also sexual? I think your first proposition tries to say too much and is not accurate.
A parents love for a child is neither monogamous nor sexual. It is a different thing entirely from the kind of love spouses can share. Spousal love includes as an essential part sexual feelings I'd say.
Your second proposition maintains that American society facilitates life long monogamous unions through marriage laws. This may be true if the laws do in fact promote life long monogamous marriages. If so, it could be that this is intentional or simply a side effect. This is one of the big questions. What is marriage and why does it exist in society? I think your first proposition does not do enough to clear up this question.
Whether or not marriage laws were designed by society TO promote life long monogamy, I'd say that the laws do have that effect. But even if that's wrong, it's a reasonable position IMO and a gay person who felt that way could quite properly feel that society was denying them something very important to their lives.
Your third proposition is clearly false. Homosexuals have always been able to get married. They may not have been allowed to marry someone of the same sex but all people have been subject to that same restriction.
Not to be contentious but I think you are just trying to score a debating point here. Straights have the legal right to marry the one they love, gays cannot at least not in most places.
Do you consider marriage a "basic right"? If it is, where do you think these rights come from? From man or from God?
I really am not sure the whole concept of "rights' is a useful way to understand the moral framework of the universe, a framework that I believe is grounded in God and God's nature. But I do not believe that government should discriminate between gay unions and straight unions, I believe that such discrimination is an offense to God. But I agree with Aaron that those who disagree with me on the issue might be well meaning–I do not assume that they are all haters.
your friend
Keith
"DES MOINES, Iowa – The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where gay marriage is legal."
Cineaste said: "Just because it's not my cup of tea does not mean it's permitted."
So you will play the morality police?
Why not? You do.
Keith, thanks much for your reply. I think that you supplied a possible explanation of how someone like Louis might end up feeling as he does. His feelings are quite evident and I certainly can understand that someone might feel that they are not considered “equal” because they are not allowed to marry or enter into a civil union with whoever they want. The reason though could also be as simple as just feeling that they are entitled to do what they want instead of the more complex narrative you provided.
What I was looking for originally was a reasoned argument that proceeds from some grounded principle of “equality” to civil unions or same sex marriage that transcends feelings (I prefer “equal worth” since it should be evident that people are not even born equal. Some are male, some are female; some are blind, some can see etc.) It hasn’t been provided in this thread. I think that feelings can be justified by circumstances even if they are not appropriate or reasonable to the reality of the circumstances or in what the person feeling, is seeking. In a Star Wars film Obi-wan Kenobi told Luke Skywalker “trust your feelings Luke”. This is not something that Jesus would teach, don’t you agree?
I really don’t disagree with most of your responses because I can see that this could be one of many ways people could come to feel a certain way. In itself it is not a moral issue. I think that we are approaching this from different perspectives. I was seeking a reasoned argument defending a proposition concerning a moral issue and you supplied a plausible path to the feelings Louis expressed.
That said, you did use the term “most basic human right” referring to marriage, that you now seem to want to back away from. The founders of our nation were not shy about rights, as you know, and in the Declaration of Independence acknowledged unalienable rights endowed by the creator. My previous question asking you where rights come from, God or man, is important just because if they come from man, man can take them away. So then really they are not rights at all. You acknowledge a moral framework grounded in God and I don’t think that is much different from the Founders idea.
What I now ask you is how do you get from the God of the Bible and His commandments, to thinking that discrimination by government between homosexual and heterosexual unions is an offense to God. I am not asking for your feelings but for a reasoned argument from the scriptures. That is a lot to ask but you can see we have come almost full circle, similar to my original concern with Louis.
I can also quibble with your statement that “straights have the legal right to marry the one they love”. This is not true. Brother and sister is forbidden isn’t it? Son and mother also. I think that this illustrates that statements like this are inaccurate and insufficient to justify your position.
I hope this makes at least some sense to you. I am afraid that I have not been as clear as I might want because I have to finish this quickly.
"…it should be evident that people are not even born equal. Some are male, some are female; some are blind, some can see etc."
William, I made the very same observation to Keith in another thread regarding Jefferson's "All men are created equal". I can tell you now, he disagreed with me about it.
"So you will play the morality police?"
Not when it comes to gay marriage/civil unions. I feel it's none of my business who someone chooses to marry unless it does harm; like the way certain Mormons practice of polygamy.
"My previous question asking you where rights come from, God or man, is important just because if they come from man, man can take them away. So then really they are not rights at all."
It seems we agree here as well. I made this point to Keith a few weeks ago.
Cut this Gordian knot: gays simply want equality before the law, period. No special rights at all, nor equal outcomes or equal abilities. The Constitution makes this clear. The present state of affairs allows some 97% of the population to tell the other 3% that they are second-class citizens not worthy of being treated equally by the government or the courts (this also applies to serving in the military). If such an unjust condition is to continue, then the government should be consistent and exempt that 3% from taxation, jury duty, support of schools, and other onerous duties citizens are expected to undertake. It’s only fair.
I think Iowa just legalized same sex marriages.
Cineate, didn't you read my post above? The reference here.
Blogger Firedoglake quotes and analizes the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous decision (authored by a Republican):
“Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective. Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.”
And…
“This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities. They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto [“Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”].”
This isn’t some weird form of judicial activism, but the constitutionally mandated role of the courts to protect minorities from the actions of hostile majorities and to insure equal protection under the law. At base, those who agitate against equality are motivated by animus against homosexuality. How is this different from those who would discriminate against people of color or of certain religions? This is why we have laws and legal systems.
Keith,
I thought that I pointed out signficant problems with your premises if we are speaking about morality rather than how someone might feel. Feelings can come from most anywhere so the standard of reasonableness is pretty low.
People of the same sex can love one another without having sexual relations with each other. Once again, I think you are mixing up love and sex. Even if it were legitimate to use the text of John 1 as you propose, what do you do with the rest of the Bible? If it is the Word of God I suggest you can't pick and choose verses based on what you like. It has to make sense as a whole, and as a whole, homosexual practice is everywhere condemned in the Bible, both explicitly and implicitly, Old Testament and New.
Now it should be said that I think if something is condemned in the Bible it does not necessarily mean that there is the need to pass laws prohibiting whatever it might be.
It seems to me that if you don't "know" if something is right or wrong but the Bible says it is wrong your first impulse should be…. not to do it!!! Where else would you go to determine what is right or wrong?
If you suggest an action is not clearly wrong but is prohibited in the Bible you need to examine the context first to determine if it applies before you conclude that it is not wrong. I don't have a problem with that if it is what you mean.
Hi William:
Thanks again for the discussion. You wrote:
I thought that I pointed out signficant problems with your premises if we are speaking about morality rather than how someone might feel. Feelings can come from most anywhere so the standard of reasonableness is pretty low.
I knew you didn't agree with the premises of the argument. I don't agree with your assessment of those premises. And I do want to reiterate that I personally do not endorse the argument because it depends on a concept of rights that I question.
People of the same sex can love one another without having sexual relations with each other. Once again, I think you are mixing up love and sex.
I can also love my wife without having sexual relations with her, but I do not believe that would be a healthy way for us to live. It seems to me that your are improperly separating sex from the kind of love spouses have.
Even if it were legitimate to use the text of John 1 as you propose, what do you do with the rest of the Bible? If it is the Word of God I suggest you can't pick and choose verses based on what you like. It has to make sense as a whole, and as a whole, homosexual practice is everywhere condemned in the Bible, both explicitly and implicitly, Old Testament and New.
I think the whole pick and choose thing is a red herring, but we can talk about that later. Taking the whole Bible as the word of God, it cannot be that a proper interpretation conflicts with 1st John where God is described as BEING love. It doesn't merely say that love is something God DOES, it says love is what God IS. I'd say that the anti-gay dogma of conservative Christianity conflicts with God as presented in 1st John (and with God as seen through Christ as portrayed in the Gospel for that matter). So if the Bible is inerrant then it cannot properly be interpreted to support a general prohibition of homosexual marriage like unions.
Now it should be said that I think if something is condemned in the Bible it does not necessarily mean that there is the need to pass laws prohibiting whatever it might be.
It seems to me that if you don't "know" if something is right or wrong but the Bible says it is wrong your first impulse should be…. not to do it!!! Where else would you go to determine what is right or wrong?
I would say you have to depend on your conscience because if you go against your conscience you are by definition doing something you believe to be wrong which is to say you are sinning. I don't believe the Bible is supposed to be read as a moral fact checker. I think God inspired the Bible but his inspiration was filtered through fallible humanity, thus it is very possible that it contains errors as well as the deep truth. When we read it, the Bible can remind us of what our consciences are trying to tell us, but if our consciences didn't tell us what's right from wrong then we'd not be able to actually make morally significant choices and nothing we did would have any moral significance at all.
your friend
Keith
Keith siad: "I personally do not endorse the argument".
O.K. then I don't think we need to discuss it further.
Keith have you read C.S. Lewis "The Four Loves"?
What is the word for love used in John in the original language? Is this the same word that would be used for sexual love?
Keith also said: "It seems to me that your are improperly separating sex from the kind of love spouses have."
No, I was speaking of same sex love which nowhere in the Bible is considered spousal. Love does occur though between same sex (or opposite sex) friends but it is not the same as sexual love between a man and a woman. In todays world it is very difficult for close friends to escape the hint that sex may be involved.
What do you think about the omnipresence of God? Do you recognise other attributes of God besides love? How do you understand the holiness of God?
Keith said: "anti-gay dogma of conservative Christianity conflicts with God as presented in 1st John"
I am not sure what you mean by anti-gay dogma. This is really a question of the authority of the Biblical text in my opinion. What specifically do you mean by anti-gay dogma?
Keith said: "So if the Bible is inerrant then it cannot properly be interpreted to support a general prohibition of homosexual marriage like unions."
Except of course that the Bible explicitly condemns such relationships. We don't need to interpret, it is clear. Christ definitively sets the marital relationship in the creation order of God. This is all through the Bible. Sexual immorality is everywhere condemned in the Bible. Homosexual practice is always condemned in the Bible.
Keith said: "I think God inspired the Bible but his inspiration was filtered through fallible humanity, thus it is very possible that it contains errors as well as the deep truth."
Here is the crux. You want to choose what you like or dislike in the Bible rather than giving it the final authority as the Word of God. If you approach the Bible this way it doesn't have to make sense as a whole. You just throw out what you don't like or don't understand. I think it is safe to say Jesus did not take this approach to scripture, (I would be interested if you can support an argument to the contrary from the Bible) so if you follow Christ, why would you?
This is from St. Augustine: "Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion."
Contra Faustum, Book XI
Fascinating. The Bible, being inerrant and literally accurate in all respects, must be received as infallibly true when said by "even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist"? And, if not, not even a single page can be left for guidance?! Now, this is just plain stupid. I mean, come on! Given this, the following (just one instance) must be taken whole, without quibble or interpretation:
1 Samuel 15
God Commands Amalekite Genocide
15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
(15:2-3) "Thus saith the LORD of hosts … slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
*
15:7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. (15:7-26)
15:8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
Of course, this wasn't enough because Saul spared "all that was good and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly." For this, the prophet Samuel and God condemned Saul, forcing him to destroy "all that was good" as well.
Thus, God, through His prophet Samuel, orders genocide in revenge for what occurred hundreds of years before – including the murder of infants and sucklings. But we are not allowed to condemn or even criticize this because the Bible must be taken as a whole, nothing excepted, or else whatever other wisdom it might hold will fall as well. Apparently, this would also include God's command that gays be killed, excusing the murderer of the crime for "their blood shall be upon them."
Yes, the whole Bible – the book of terror and hate – condemns same-sex relations, even to the point of demanding the deaths of gay people. Why not? "God" commanded genocide elsewhere, so what's the big deal?
If the Bible must be taken literally as inerrant, then it is truly a work of incredible evil.
No wonder I'm "godless."
If the Bible must be taken literally as inerrant, then it is truly a work of incredible evil.
If by "literally as inerrant," you mean that every action mentioned in it is to be repeated by those who claim to follow it, then yes I would agree. Or even if it means that the actions of ancient Israel were to be repeated by all those who claim to follow God, then perhaps you would have a point.
But that is not the case and since the time of Christ, those who follow God do so under a new covenant that applies to individuals not nations. There is no command or instruction to destroy kingdoms any more.
Also, there is are literary considerations that must be taken into consideration when reading ancient documents. You cannot simply read them from your own perspective because unless you understand the situations and customs of the day, you will not grasp what is being said.
The point of this narrative, the principle behind the story, is that those who follow God are to completely put away all the sinful things in their life. They are not to pick and choose the things that can stay. You are either obedient to God or not. There is no middle ground.
To this I answer: we were given a quote by Augustine defending the notion that every utterance, command, story, etc., by every prophet, apostle, or evangelist must be followed otherwise it would all fail. This position is literalist and absolutist. Biblical scripture is "sacred" and not to be questioned or interpreted and understood by the situation and customs of the day. And, this position was summoned up to justify biblical condemnation of homosexuality and disallow any historical interpretation or understanding thereof.
In addition, what does the Book of Samuel have to say about the nature of "God" no matter how you interpret the matter? He commanded the destruction of innocents in an orgy of revenge. We are asked by you fundamentalists and evangelicals to view the Bible as sacred and inerrant when it comes to gay people, but not to so view it when it comes to hx. It seems that conservative xians want to have their cake and eat it too. They pick and choose which bits of scripture to enforce (anti-gay, anti-feminist) while downplaying or interpreting away bits they dislike (anti-divorce, pro-genocide). Viewing the genocidal stories in the Bible as mere fables pointing to inner, personal struggle ala Muslim jihad is just nonsense when one demands strict and absolute adherence in other contexts. Is "God" a pro-genocidal, anti-gay tyrant or not? The scripture indicates that he is. I consider it imperative not to be obedient to such a concept.
Let's calm down a little on the "you fundamentalist and evangelicals," shall we?
Here's my contention, if you read and interpreted that passage of the Scripture as well as you read and interpreted my comment, then no wonder you do not understand it.
I never said anything about it being a fable and I certainly did not say we can pick and choose what parts to adhere to and what parts to ignore.
I did say that we have to interpret wisely how and when we should apply the principles mentioned in Scripture. If you do not want to take the time to interpret it wisely or appropriately that's not my fault, God's or the Bible.
There are many passages and others that are easy to figure out and easy to see the application. There are others that are a bit more troublesome like Old Testament passages about destroying whole cities.
However, I feel certain that when making your judgment on the passage in question, you did not work to understand the text from the perspective of the writer and seek to ascertain the situation that it describes. Did you research the Amalekite people to see how vicious and cruel they were to all of their neighbors. Did you see how they were essentially nomadic marauders, who wandering around the area attacking and pillaging cities and people. They often would capture people and sell them into slavery. To leave any of them, would be to invite them to come back and kill you or sell you as a slave. They were the jihadist of their day.
From what can be pieced together from other biblical accounts and other historical documents and findings, it appears that the object was not to kill off all of them, but merely the one group that was trying to control their land. Other groups with the same name appear later doing more bad stuff.
You also display the same type of arrogance that you accuse Christians of when you assume that your culture and your way of dealing with things is better than the culture and ways of that time period. Years from now, people will laugh or recoil in horror at some of the things we did. Our culture is not perfect, therefore it is a bit hard to pass judgment on all cultures before us, especially without working to understand the circumstances surrounding the actions we judge to be immoral.
Yes, the mental images we have of Amalekite children being slaughtered in their mother's arms is extremely disturbing. I believe it was disturbing for God and for the people of Israel. But the images of children and women being raped and sold into slavery by the same Amalekite people should disturb us just as much. In some ways, it's like someone trying to debate the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. Yes, innocent people died and that is tragic. But innocent people were also saved and that is just. The situation is much more complicated than the simplistic rendering you allowed for.
There is also a consistent example through out the OT of God reaching out to people outside of Israel and allowing them to become part of His people. Two people in Jesus' family tree where from other nations – Ruth and the prostitute Rahab, who was in a city that was conquered by Israel. She sought God and was rescued. The whole book of Jonah is about God sending a missionary to a people that was hostile toward him, but at that point, only because of ignorance.
At this point, I want to clarify something since I jumped into the middle of a discussion of two other people. I do not use the Bible as a justification for why non-Christians should do certain things or why the government pass certain laws. You don't accept it as authority, so it does no good. I believe its principles to be applicable and beneficial to all areas of life, but I do not use it as justification when discussing it with non-Christians.
Christians have done a poor job of understanding, applying and living the whole Bible. We have been hypocritical when it comes to marriage – saying it is sacred while getting divorce at least as much as everyone else. Those things are not right, but that does not mean that altering marriage itself is either. Christians, however, should be faithful and consistent in their application of the Bible.
If you are speaking about picking and choosing what parts to apply, that would be more directed toward people like our friend Keith and other liberal Christians who believe some parts, but not others – as he indicated earlier.
I believe the entire thing is inspired and able to help teach us, but we cannot come to it lazy and not do the work to understand what is going on. I can pull numerous verses out of context (both literary and historical) and force a meaning on them that has nothing to do with the original. Therefore, I do not use it in discussions of this type. I don't defend traditional marriage in our society because the Bible says so. I defend it because I believe it to be the best way for our society to function. I also believe that gay couples should be extended many rights that are now denied to them – that sense of fairness and love comes from the Bible as well. Although, I do not use that in defending those actions in a secular environment.
My comment was directed towards the use of Augustine and his absolutist notions of biblical literalism and its use against gay people today. If, as you maintain, the Bible must be understood in the context of its time, the conditions of its creation, and the issues of its day, then I have no quarrel. However, that was not what was being asserted. It was described as "sacred" and thus required being taken as a whole to address the issues of today, no interpretation or historical context allowed. Since, as Mr. Wilcox maintains, the whole book condemns homosexuality, both implicitly and explicitly, and that this condemnation must be taken into account when formulating modern-day political policy, the Bible is then open to criticism and hostile analysis by opponents of religionists. I, personally, think there is much of value in the book, but I do not take it literally, nor do I think it is inerrant. For instance, I think it errs grievously when it addresses same-sex attraction, being a product of its time and culture, heavily influenced by patriarchalism. I also think approaching it as Mr. Wilcox and others (you?) do does it harm.
The question of whether same-sex marriage does harm to the institution or society as a whole should be separate, as you maintain. I agree with the Iowa Supreme Court when it says (unanimously) that there is no evidence for either, and I believe that this position is gaining ground in the West. It's a shame that religionists refuse to see this, for they are harming both themselves and their religion by their rigid refusal to face facts (I suggest you read this Newsweek article for more info.).
btw: I use the pen name (is it a pen name if I type this?) "godless" for two reasons: rejection of traditional, safe notions of "god" and the feeling of being rejected by that "god." Your tactics and opinions do plenty to turn off people from religion. So, when you upbraid me for "arrogance," think on that and call to mind the humility of your savior!
Happy Easter.
MONTPELIER, Vt.– Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature’s vote.
The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote — the minimum needed — to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.
Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.
godless said: “No wonder I’m “godless.”
From what you say you must be of the opinion that God did something wrong and that evil exists. Setting aside for the moment that you apparently don’t believe any of this happened, just where do discover wrong? If you think there is good and evil what is your trancendent source? If it is just your personal opinion of right and wrong it will not hold any authority with me. Why should I care what you think or what the Vermont legislature or the Iowa Supreme court says? Is this just a matter of power?
If what the bible said happened then you should believe it. If you don’t believe the Bible accounts then why are you so stirred up? Just because you don’t like something in the Bible does not constitute proof that it isn’t true.
I my opinion you don’t understand Augustine nor do you understand the point I was making to Keith. Here is one example, you said: “quote by Augustine defending the notion that every utterance, command, story, etc., by every prophet, apostle, or evangelist must be followed otherwise it would all fail.” Augustine was making a point about the authority of scripture. It is true or we have no way to distinguish between what is inspired and what is not. This is the point I was making to Keith. Even as a non-Christian you should be able to understand this principle. Do you disagree?
You also said: “My comment was directed towards the use of Augustine and his absolutist notions of biblical literalism and its use against gay people today.”
There is nothing here against gay people. You don’t understand that this is about behavior which is important because the person engaged in the behaviour is in danger of their immortal soul! It is because they are made in the image of God that they have this value. It has nothing to do with what I personaly like or dislike.
godless also said: “He commanded the destruction of innocents”.
Do you think Christianity teaches that anyone is innocent before God? I don’t know how much you have actually studied the Bible but I think that you do have some serious misconceptions. You may not be so rejected as you think now.
godless said: “Your tactics and opinions do plenty to turn off people from religion. So, when you upbraid me for “arrogance,” think on that and call to mind the humility of your savior!”
If you are speaking about Aaron in particular I think you couldn’t be more wrong from what I have seen so far on this blog. He has refrained from ad hominems and responds with what I see as restraint and graciousness.
I said to Keith: “If you suggest an action is not clearly wrong but is prohibited in the Bible you need to examine the context first to determine if it applies before you conclude that it is not wrong. I don’t have a problem with that if it is what you mean.”
godless sadi to Aaron: “If, as you maintain, the Bible must be understood in the context of its time, the conditions of its creation, and the issues of its day, then I have no quarrel.”
Interesting similarity don’t you think? It makes me think that you misunderstand me.
Perhaps this addition from Augustine to Faustus the Manichaean will help: “If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, the author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.”
godless also said referring to fundamentalist and evangelical Christians: “They pick and choose which bits of scripture to enforce (anti-gay, anti-feminist) while downplaying or interpreting away bits they dislike (anti-divorce, pro-genocide).”
This was just my argument with Keith as Aaron pointed out. I suggested that was what Keith was doing! Did you miss that or just misunderstand?
godless saisd: “I believe that this position is gaining ground in the West. It’s a shame that religionists refuse to see this, for they are harming both themselves and their religion by their rigid refusal to face facts”
godless I just can’t imagine how you can know anything about Christianity and say something like this. Jesus kingdom is not of this world.
Hi William:
Continuing the discussion:
Keith have you read C.S. Lewis “The Four Loves”?
What is the word for love used in John in the original language? Is this the same word that would be used for sexual love?
I have not read this work of Lewis’ and I do not know Greek. I presume you are suggesting that the “love” referred to in 1st John did not include sexual love. Even so, I’d say that I am applying the so-called “agape” love when I see that my gay friends’ registered domestic partnership is as loving and healthy as any hetero marriages I know. I see no reason to reject their union based on what I would suggest is a questionable interpretation of the Bible.
Keith also said: “It seems to me that your are improperly separating sex from the kind of love spouses have.”
No, I was speaking of same sex love which nowhere in the Bible is considered spousal. Love does occur though between same sex (or opposite sex) friends but it is not the same as sexual love between a man and a woman. In todays world it is very difficult for close friends to escape the hint that sex may be involved.
I agree the Bible doesn’t say that same sex spousal unions can exist. But IMO it is either wrong to take what the Bible DOES say about same sex behavior as a blanket rejection of same sex spousal relations OR the Bible doesn’t report God’s attitude wrt those unions.
What do you think about the omnipresence of God? Do you recognise other attributes of God besides love? How do you understand the holiness of God?
I tend to think that there is no place where God isn’t, but that doesn’t say that God IS omnipresence. I’d say God IS Holy–being love might just BE being holy.
Keith said: “anti-gay dogma of conservative Christianity conflicts with God as presented in 1st John”
I am not sure what you mean by anti-gay dogma. This is really a question of the authority of the Biblical text in my opinion. What specifically do you mean by anti-gay dogma?
The dogma I am referring to is the dogma that says that God doesn’t support gay marriage. I do not believe that God has a problem with my gay friends’ union.
Keith said: “So if the Bible is inerrant then it cannot properly be interpreted to support a general prohibition of homosexual marriage like unions.”
Except of course that the Bible explicitly condemns such relationships. We don’t need to interpret, it is clear.
Of course you have to interpret it. The Bible in its original languages never used the word “homosexual”, what with that word being an English word. You assume that the activities referred to in those passages include homosexual marriage like relationships, but the Bible doesn’t say so. If it DID, then I’d say that’s evidence against the inerrancy of the Bible.
Christ definitively sets the marital relationship in the creation order of God. This is all through the Bible. Sexual immorality is everywhere condemned in the Bible. Homosexual practice is always condemned in the Bible.
Christ never said “no gay marriages allowed”. When he spoke of marriages he was only referring to heterosexual marriages. The Bible doesn’t say what jesus would have thought about gay marriage.
[the Bible was, according to me] filtered through fallible humanity, thus it is very possible that it contains errors as well as the deep truth.”
Here is the crux. You want to choose what you like or dislike in the Bible rather than giving it the final authority as the Word of God….
This is a very common complaint conservatives make, but it is a red herring IMO. I do not choose what I LIKE in the Bible, I believe what I think is true the same as everybody. I could say that YOU pick and choose between the sacred texts in the world, choosing the parts that YOU like (the Bible) and rejecting the others. What is wrong with rejecting stuff you don’t believe?
If you approach the Bible this way it doesn’t have to make sense as a whole. You just throw out what you don’t like or don’t understand. I think it is safe to say Jesus did not take this approach to scripture, (I would be interested if you can support an argument to the contrary from the Bible) so if you follow Christ, why would you?
I don’t think it’s clear at all that Jesus believed that all of the books that would eventually be compiled as the Bible are inerrant.
I DO have an argument that the Bible isn’t a moral “fact checker” in that it doesn’t tell us anything that our consciences couldn’t tell us. the 6th Commandment which most conservatives claim says “Thou shalt not murder”. But what does “murder” mean? It means “unlawful killing”. So the 6th commandment can be paraphrased as: rule #6: no killing against the rules”. To understand the commandment you have to already KNOW the rules for killing–the commandment doesn’t provide any new moral information. But if we read the commandment as God reminding us what we know already, what we might want to forget because we want to do what we in our hearts no is wrong, THEN the passage makes sense. I see no reason not to apply this principle generally.
Would this be the inerrant Augustine you are talking about? :-) Seriously though, why should I take Augustine’s claims as more authoritative than yours?
your friend
Keith
Keith said: "I see no reason to reject their union based on what I would suggest is a questionable interpretation of the Bible."
You have to justify this statement with an argument from the Bible. You try to do this by equating agape with sexual relations. I maintain that they are not used synonymously in the Bible, they are not even synonymous today!!
Keith said: "it is either wrong to take what the Bible DOES say about same sex behavior as a blanket rejection of same sex spousal relations OR the Bible doesn't report God's attitude wrt those unions."
Keith also said: "You assume that the activities referred to in those passages include homosexual marriage like relationships, but the Bible doesn't say so. If it DID, then I'd say that's evidence against the inerrancy of the Bible."
These statements are simply wrong! God provides the grounds for marriage in the creation order in Genesis. Jesus reinforces it in Mt. 19.
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Keith said: "Of course you have to interpret it. The Bible in its original languages never used the word "homosexual", what with that word being an English word."
Are you being serious or intentionally misunderstanding me? Try this:
Leviticus 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
No need to use the word homosexual here. Look what Paul says: "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones"!!! Keith I recommend you study what comes before "Because of this". In my opinion you risk doing exactly what Paul is warning against.
Keith said: "Christ never said "no gay marriages allowed". When he spoke of marriages he was only referring to heterosexual marriages. The Bible doesn't say what jesus would have thought about gay marriage."
Of course he was, and of course he did, and I have quoted him on marriage and the Bible on homosexual practice. Homosexual practice was totally out of bounds. No exceptions are provided. What do you think Jesus said about beastiality? Nothing! Are you going to suggest that Christ would approve of you and your dog, married or not? Or how about you and your sister? Do you maintain that Jesus did or would approve? Justify it from the text if you can and I will consider it.
Keith said: "I don't think it's clear at all that Jesus believed that all of the books that would eventually be compiled as the Bible are inerrant."
I think it would be better if you found some verses of the Bible that illustrated Christ's attitude toward the Bible He had. Then maybe we can discuss it.
Keith said: " I could say that YOU pick and choose between the sacred texts in the world, choosing the parts that YOU like (the Bible) and rejecting the others."
You are mixing things again. You want to believe the Bible is true except where you don't want to believe the Bible. You don't use the Bible to make your case because you maintain that it is not reliable. I believe the Bible on its own terms. Other worldviews are rejected on the grounds that they do not reflect the way the world actuallu is. I examine ideas that come to me and test them. Actually if I wanted to pick from other alternatives, I would pick atheism because then I could do whatever I like and I wouldn't have to worry about anything except getting what I want. Christianity won't do that for me.
Keith said: "Seriously though, why should I take Augustine's claims as more authoritative than yours?"
You can answer this for yourself. I have respect for him. If you study him perhaps you will as well.
[yawn] Louis is right: arguing with fundamentalists (or whatever label you prefer) is pointless, for they just don't function on the same plane as the rest of us. They declare the Bible is literally true, and any problems lie with us not it. Of course, there's no proof for this at all: they just assert it. Contrary to what Mr. Wilcox believes, I do know quite a bit about Christianity, enough to know that much, if not all, of it was manufactured by fallible, politically motivated humans centuries ago. Look it up if you don't believe me.
One thing I don't understand is the fundamentalist mind. I admit that. Fine. If that's how you want to live you have every right so to do, just don't inflict it on me.
'nuff said.