In my mind (an awkward place, to be sure) TV shows like The Bachelor, My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance, and Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire cause more damage to the sanctity of marriage (you define what that means) than any gay couples could do. Marrying for looks, money, and publicity (and marginalizing it all in the name of good TV) seems a much more troubling message than marrying for love (regardless of gender).
>“It’s not for you to judge, judgement is reserved for God.”
I’m totally fucked, then. What if one doesn’t believe in God, or believes in a different God? You know, the wrong one. I’m going to show up at Judgement Day with Him looking at me like I caught the wrong bus.
It’s possible to still have a well-functioning moral compass (even sharing the same true North as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, et cetera) and to believe in the sanctity of commiting your life to another person, whether it’s called Marriage or Legal Partnership. Jeez, call it Horseshit if you like. My wife and our marriage will still be just as precious to heathens like us (5 years in exactly one month - woohoo!).
Probably not my best subject but everyone seems to miss the point on this. I’m not a very religious guy, I don’t care if two men want to live together. I think it’s morally reprehensible that a gay man dying of aids can’t have his partner visit him in the hospital. But this marriage question has nothing to do with that.
The point isn’t if anyone likes or dis-likes gay marriage right now. It’s about what we leave behind with our little American experiment to the next couple of generations. What will our society look like in two or three generations from now with gay marriage? I ran across a children’s picture book in the library two weeks ago where the prince didn’t want to marry the princess, he wanted to marry another prince. It ended with the prince holding hands and kissing another prince in the sunset. What do you say to your 5 year old son when he says “Daddy I want to marry my best friend Fred. “ Ultimately there are only two options. It’s an either or proposition. Either it’s important (to us the society) to have men and women together, or it doesn’t really matter all that much. Either “No son you really don’t want to marry Fred, because someday your kids will need a mommy too.” or “Well that’s no problem son, women are irrelevant anyway and have nothing to offer to your kids that Fred can’t offer.” Embracing homosexual marriage says just that. It says “The other sex?? Who needs ‘em? We the state of Mass. believe that you do not need a woman in your family, and further that Fred is a perfectly good substitute for Jane. You may substitute a man for a woman or woman for a man in all applicable marriage situations.” I think ultimately that creates a weaker society, and one that’s less likely to survive generations from now.
Yes, it is, and for so many reasons. Personally, I am a heretic, raised Catholic and far too jaded to attend an organized church. There is much wisdom in the Bible, as it contains more or less the total history of the world from the creation of Babylon to when the oral tradition was put to papyrus. What is tells us is what worked to keep civilization rolling up to that point. It tells us what worked, and what most civilizations practiced. We do not have to believe in God, and we can strip away the multiple translations, and you know what? We are left with a largely verifiable history of early human civilization. The people in the Bible existed, and lived largely the ways we are told.
That said, the covenant of marriage is more than just an idea that we thought up when our constitution was written. It is part of the bedrock of human civilization, just as the nuclear family is. As such, what marriage is, and what people expect it to be, is deeply ingrained in every aspect of human interaction. You cannot fundamentally change that and expect every other person to simply accept it.
Because of our drive not to discriminate against gay people, who make up less than 1% of the population, we are willing to overturn the beliefs of more than 85% of all Americans. There have always been gay people, and couples, living in our communities. The issue of gay marriage was raised as a way to allow domestic partner benefits to be provided by workplaces. Many people were not opposed to that. But once domestic partnership laws were passed, the push for gay marriage continued, with a very small, very vocal minority trampling on the beliefs, mores, and value system of basically every religious person on Earth(I’m naively assuming that they believe the teachings of their religion), as well as those people who believe that marriage serves largely to legitimize your family(meaning children) within the community.
But there is much more to it than that. I believe that the massive decline of our culture and our civilization stems largely from the secularization of America. We treat all religion-based societal artifacts as distainful these days, and we are accepting of everything. I do not suggest that we reinstitute church rule, but strong moral values do make for tight-knit communitites.
Almost every single person that I meet is a good, decent person. What I see on TV and read in newspapers does not in any remote way represent the beliefs and values of most of the people I know. The agendas that are playing out in our courts and in our media are those of the very few, not the majority.
You are right, though. We are far too accepting of many sick people because of our liberal ideals that argue that a child molester needs help, not a bullet, that it is plausible that a child might want to have sexual relations with an adult, and so on. In our desire not to discriminate against anyone, or repress anyone, we have created a world where NAMBLA gets repesented by the ACLU.
We may find that there are things that are unfair about Democracy, but it exists that we may preserve the core values that the majority of us hold, not cater to each individual’s desire. It is the acceptance of every behavior that deviates from the norm that weakens the fabric of society.
<<>“It’s not for you to judge, judgement is reserved for God.”
<<I’m totally fucked, then. What if one doesn’t believe in God, or believes in a different God? You know, the wrong one. I’m going to show up at Judgement Day with Him looking at me like I caught the wrong bus.
It’s possible to still have a well-functioning moral compass (even sharing the same true North as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, et cetera) and to believe in the sanctity of commiting your life to another person, whether it’s called Marriage or Legal Partnership. Jeez, call it Horseshit if you like. My wife and our marriage will still be just as precious to heathens like us (5 years in exactly one month - woohoo!). >>
Woha, my friend, I ain’t passing no judgement on anybody. TripleThreat mentioned he was confused about his views on homosexuality, I attempted to offer a way of looking at it in a matter that might ease that confusion. So, what I was trying to say was something along the lines of “If you have gay friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc., cool, hang with 'em and don’t sweat it. If homosexuality really is a sin, then the man upstairs will deal with it.”
I’m not all that religious in an organized, church going way. I’m just as confused as any free-thinking individual who ponders life’s mysteries.
We now return to our regulary scheduled programming…
Brett
I understand. I was more thinking out loud than I was responding to your post (or any other post in particular). Thanks for the reply.
Cheers,
Jason
Okay, I gotcha. The word “judge” can be used many ways (not all of them are accurate). An opinion, to find one guilty and punish, to think of it being wrong, but not necessaarily seek to punish, etc. I basically treat people like mirrors. If I smile, they smile. If I reach out a hand, so do they. If they say hi, I say hi. If they wanna get mean and nasty, we can get mean and nasty. I’m working on the last one.
I find jmorrisey’s comments interesting. I find that TV programming does not represent the values/morals/likes of most of the people I know. But, then again, the folks I know that are about family, exercise, etc … aren’t watching that much TV. An overwhelming number of people I know (and man do I seem to attract all types), are good, decent folks. I think we have moved from TV reflecting the people to TV deciiding for the people.
Back to gay marriage. Obviously, your opinion on it will stem from your definition and the intention of marriage. My views on marriage/divorce is certainly different than most folks I know (except for fellow Christians). Marriage for quite a few seems to be something “to try and see if it works out”. I won’t get into it, but you can likely gather I do not share that opinion.
It all comes down to how you view “marriage”, and where the practice came from. Perhaps this is a situation where America proves it is not a democracy (it is not). If the majority of the people want something that goes against what is deemed to be a right of every citizen, then that act cannot be witheld. Having something be legal, and having something be congruent with the original intention are not one in the same.
<<I find jmorrisey’s comments interesting. I find that TV programming does not represent the values/morals/likes of most of the people I know. But, then again, the folks I know that are about family, exercise, etc … aren’t watching that much TV.>>
I really enjoy the shot “10-8” with Ernie Hudson and Danny Nucci. I think it is some of the better programming on the airwaves right now. I hope it survives. Nucci’s character (Trainee Amante) struggles with comming to grips with his own beliefs and “reality” as it exists for a L.A. County Sherriff deputy working the streets. I just love that show. Ernie Hudson is 58 years old and buff as all get-out!
Brett
Excellent take on the issue Adam, however, the same rationalizations were made when mixed marriages were legalized in southern states. “What do I tell my daughter if she wants to marry a black man?” In the present, your argument seems valid, but as we evolve as a society, we have to come to grip with the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. If Johnny thinks he wants to marry Fred, let him think that, in the end, he will most likely realize he is genetically predispositioned to like girls. But if Johnny was BORN a homosexual, he has been taught that it is okay for him to have those feelings and will in all likelihood be at least partially spared the depression and self-doubt that accompanies so many teen homosexuals. When I was a kid, I wanted to marry Suzie and be an army man, or a space man. Well, I never married Suzie and I’m neither an army man or a space man. And guess what? I bear no emotional scars for thinking those thoughts as a child.
Gay marriage doesn’t tell our children that the opposite sex is irrelevant (unless that’s what you teach them) just as racial tolerance doesn’t teach children that their heritage is irrelevant. Rather, it should teach children that the world is a place filled with all kinds of people. And that one’s sexuality is but one facet of who they are. Rather than stigmatizing someone as “that faggot” Johnny might come to think of that person as “my gay friend, Fred.”
Just to add a different aspect to the discussion, there are two aspects to the question of gay marriage which are getting incorrectly lumped together. A “standard” marriage is really two things, it is a religious ceremony and a legal joining. The question of legalizing gay marriage applies only to the legal aspect. The government cannot and should not tell religious groups which unions they should and should not recognize. However by the flip side the legal union must be open to all or it is a legalized form of governmental discrimination.
Basically a “justice of the peace wedding” would be available to all, but only those religious groups which allowed gay marriage would perform the religious ceremony.
I believe that the massive decline of our culture and our civilization stems largely from the secularization of America
I don’t know how you define “culture”, but your statement that our civilization has declined is horribly misguided: the western rationalistic civilization has been rising steadily for the past 2,500 years, and has now reached an awe-inspiring level. Unless you pine for the days when our species was living in caves and superstitions were what we had for knowledge, I suggest you try and understand what modern science tells us about this world, and ponder how far we have come.
John
adam 12 wrote: "Embracing homosexual marriage says just that. It says “The other sex?? Who needs ‘em? We the state of Mass. believe that you do not need a woman in your family, and further that Fred is a perfectly good substitute for Jane. You may substitute a man for a woman or woman for a man in all applicable marriage situations.” I think ultimately that creates a weaker society, and one that’s less likely to survive generations from now. "
What seems implicit in your statement is an assumption that if gay marriage were legalized, then most Americans would start thinking, “Hmm, now, should I marry a man or a woman?” While I suppose there could be a small number of folks who might make that decision on factors other than sexual attraction, I think most people would marry a person of the opposite sex…since most people are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. Legalizing it wouldn’t change a person’s fundamental sexual orientation.
TripleThreat wrote: “I’m taught it’s wrong, but I’m not suppossed to act like it is?”
I’ve been taught all sorts of things that turn out to be wrong (e.g., Santa Claus will come down the chimney on Christmas eve, people from the South are inbred and slow, Iraq has tons of WMD). Get over it.
And about the “sanctity” of marriage? What a joke that someone like Brittney Spears has the right to get married on a whim (and then claim she didn’t comprehend the full implications of what she was doing?!?!?), while two committed, loving partners of the same sex who’ve been together for years do not have the same privilege.
Richard R …Good points… and you have hit on the basic issues that cause the debate. How can you defend the constitutional rights of an individual and (sometimes) not conflict with concepts that void certain social/religious norms? And, to add to the ironic conclusion… the very same laws that would protect the religious beliefs are those same laws that would defend the right to equal protection under the law. Is it a form bigotry or protection of “fundamental moral” issues?
I feel overtime that equal protection under the law will gain a more substantial foothold… I for one will be flexible enough to realize that understanding that “being different” is a product of being a part of a diverse society. It doesn’t always feel good… but, diversity is good… it teaches tolerance and acceptance… which is a much better trait to have than one that is bigotted in purpose and meaning.
“Bigotry murders religion to frighten fools with their ghosts.” C. Colton
FWIW Joe Moya
TripleThreat wrote: “I’m taught it’s wrong, but I’m not suppossed to act like it is?”
I’ve been taught all sorts of things that turn out to be wrong (e.g., Santa Claus will come down the chimney on Christmas eve, people from the South are inbred and slow, Iraq has tons of WMD). Get over it.
C’mon Bro, when I say I’ve been taught, and in conjunction with everything I’ve said in this thread … "I’ve been taught … " means “at church I’ve been taught XXXX because it says YYYYY in the Bible”. Maybe that wasn’t as obvious as I thought. I tried minimizing the amount of “repeat points” in every post. Comparing that (I’ve been taught) to Santa and WMD is goofy.
I’ve said it before … gays are citizens that are allowed any right that anyone esle is (constitutionally), BUT don’t expect religions to open their arms to something that their foundation text views as “wrong”.
Gay marriages will be legal, but don’t go demanding they be performed in Christian churches. That has been the basic idea all throughout the thread.
The sanctity of marriage has been (IMO) desecrated by many types. At least Brittany and whoever did it at a JOP type church and not had a religious ceremony. To me, the biggest slap to the sanctity of marriage is made by those that get married and are not prepared to see it through “till death do us part” and “for better or for worse”. If you don’t mean the words … don’t say them.
If you don’t know your partner well enough to know that … then keep dating for a while longer. Simple. It’s not just words … it’s an oath … a promise made with God as a witness. AIn other words a promise made to your spouse, the families, and God. I’m not saying don’t get married … I’m saying don’t have a religious ceremony if you don’t mean every word you say.
A couple of points going back to the early days of this thread:
1-Government and morality: Smell the toast burning - All legislation (and judicial rulings) are SOMEONE’S morality. Most of these judges are appointed, most for life. Who elected them? Who are they answerable to? Too often, no one.
One’s morality, good and bad, stems from one’s world view. Everyone has a world view, whether they know it or not, or whether they know where they got it from (parents, MTV, etc.)
Some have a Christian world view, some an atheist (antitheist), some a “me-me-me-Capt.-of-my ship-master-of-my soul-me-me-me”…
2-Marriage: Once marriage, the bedrock of civilization, loses the definition it’s carried for the last 6000 years of recorded human history (ie-between a man and a woman), all bets are off. Why not between three men? A father and a daughter? A father and a son? A mother and all her sons, and a couple of daughters thrown in for good measure? Where does the slope get too slippery that some fool won’t leap down it?
The twisted options of possible ways this ruling will go rotten are legion.
One example:
What a convenient way to circumvent inheritence taxes (feh), just have the father marry a child (or children), thus the estate passes untaxed to a spouse (or spouses). In two minutes the brighter of you can probably think of a dozen more ways this whole thing can blow up.
I wish fools wouldn’t monkey with such things.
b
I look at the question of ‘gay marriage’ as being at least two separate questions. First, there’s the question of religious marriage, and whether or not you think that your religion or somone else’s can deal with gay people redefining some of the conventions. This first question seems to be getting much of the action in this topic.
I think the second question gets overlooked. That relates to the civil rights and priviledges that have come to be attached to the religious institution of marriage. From where I sit, it’s unfair for the U.S. to continue to deny those civil rights and priviledges to any two people of consenting age who want to unite. I just don’t see how the gov’ment here in the U.S. can continue to allow the civil rights and priviledges on the basis of religious law regarding what constitutes a valid marriage. There are many simple examples that demonstrate this point: if you were gay and in critical condition in the hospital, your registered domestic partner of 20 years might not be able to get in to see you as they are not legally defined as ‘next of kin’. However, if you weren’t gay, and married a hooker in Vegas last night, and she’s got the wedding license, she waltzes (sashays?) right into your room. What’s fair in this case? To me, it’s fair to allow either to enter the room, based on the actions taken by the person in the bed. That person has entered into an agreement that should be recognized as valid by the state. That agreement confers on the partners (20-year duration/gay, or 1-day/straight) certain rights. One could also mention rights of survivorship, and putting partners on health benefit insurance.
I think that the U.S. and other governments can successfully deal with the second question, and neatly sidestep the first one. Just because the government chooses to recognize a legal transaction (a domestic union) doesn’t mean that the question of whether it’s a ‘marriage’ is answered.
“Perhaps, if marriage is a religious event, they could have “Legal Partnerships” or whatever, for those that are not “religious” (includes more than just gays).”
Isn’t it what a civil marriage is?
jmorrissey…
you said, “Because of our drive not to discriminate against gay people, who make up less than 1% of the population, we are willing to overturn the beliefs of more than 85% of all Americans.” I don’t believe a belief can be simply overturn by acceptance of 1% of the population. I am very secure in my beliefs and no minority (or majority) group is going to change that… so, basicly I don’t see an issue.
Also, when you say… “It is the acceptance of every behavior that deviates from the norm that weakens the fabric of society.”, I don’t see it in that negative light. I find that it strengthens a society. Deviations from the norm may not be always a negative attribute. In fact, it can cause more good than harm. It can help re-define the fabric of life… afterall, this is precisely what the philosophies and teachings surrounding the life of Jesus seem to have done. Few can doubt that the ideas presented through the Bible were not radical for their time. Without deviants such as the JC himself (And, I use that phrase only to make a point), perhaps Judism would not be what it has become - good or bad.
I guess you could say, I’m not a traditionalist. I prefer to see what new ideas and directions can provide. I prefer to grow. I don’t want to be a traditionalist who finds it acceptable to be pessimistic about the future and an optimist about the past. Nope… I prefer to be a realist who understands the value of freedoms that define personal beliefs as just that… personal. And if those beliefs are shaken by the acceptance of new idea(s)… then, they were not very strong beliefs in the first place and deserve the change.
In short, (IMHO) these statements of yours make for a weak aurgument for your position. And, whether we like it or not… whether we see it as good or bad, it seems seculization is only the by-product of change… nothing more…nothing less. Flexibility is what makes for a strong societal fabric… inflexible and tyranical beliefs provides the breading ground for revolt and oppression. I for one do not want this society to evolve into the direction that smells of Taliban like definitions of social order based on “tradition”.
FWIW Joe Moya
Essentially what we have is a country that allows for things that our religion does not.
Personally, I don’t see how the gay marriage thing has taken so long to get passed. We already know my stance on it, so it doesn’t need repeated, but I really thought this first time this was presented, it would get passed through. IMO, it is certainly an easier decision than Abortion.
I don’t see, by looking at our constitution, etc how this is not a violation of civil rights.
Someone mentioned judges seemingly doing what they want based on their own view.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9611/articles/eodmaster.html
A friend posted this link one day during a discussion. It’s about Judicial Arrogance. There are quite a few articles on the one page … You can click on the link at the top “A Culture Corrupted”, to find an article about Judges and gay marriage, if you’re interested. If not, don’t click. Simple.
I haven’t read all of these articles yet. I added it to my favorites, and forgot about it for a short while.
But there is much more to it than that. I believe that the massive decline of our culture and our civilization stems largely from the secularization of America. I disagree with this. I see no decline of our culture(well, there are those reality shows). I think that many people yearn for the good 'ol days when things were simpler…I don’t. I can’t wait for the future. I think things are actually going in the right direction. We treat all religion-based societal artifacts as distainful these days, and we are accepting of everything. I do not suggest that we reinstitute church rule, but strong moral values do make for tight-knit communitites. Dangerous. I get really uncomfortable when I hear someone start talking about strong moral values because that generally means their moral values which probably don’t jibe with mine.
Almost every single person that I meet is a good, decent person. What I see on TV and read in newspapers does not in any remote way represent the beliefs and values of most of the people I know. How diverse is the group with whom you surround yourself? I’m really not trying to be an asshole, here. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I remember right you’ve mentioned the homogeneity of the people in your area.The agendas that are playing out in our courts and in our media are those of the very few, not the majority. I think that sometimes we think that we are in the majority when ofttimes we aren’t. Take the aforementioned reality shows: I would guess that the majority of the people on this forum don’t watch them, but we are obviously in the minority.