Gay Marriage

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/us...leader.html?hp

Given the demographics of this place, I probably won't get a good answer, but I'll try anyway: what's with the Catholic/Evangelical obsession with gay marriage? The new archbishop of San Fransisco claimed that the only valid reason for marriage is procreation. So why don't Christian churches condemn all marriages between people where one (or both) of the partners are infertile? Should post-menopausal women not marry either? I could understand the argument against abortion, but the gay marriage fights continue to baffle me.

[Hazir]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/us...leader.html?hp

Given the demographics of this place, I probably won't get a good answer, but I'll try anyway: what's with the Catholic/Evangelical obsession with gay marriage? The new archbishop of San Fransisco claimed that the only valid reason for marriage is procreation. So why don't Christian churches condemn all marriages between people where one (or both) of the partners are infertile? Should post-menopausal women not marry either? I could understand the argument against abortion, but the gay marriage fights continue to baffle me.

What is this 'gay marriage' thing ?

[Lewkowski]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/us...leader.html?hp

Given the demographics of this place, I probably won't get a good answer, but I'll try anyway: what's with the Catholic/Evangelical obsession with gay marriage? The new archbishop of San Fransisco claimed that the only valid reason for marriage is procreation. So why don't Christian churches condemn all marriages between people where one (or both) of the partners are infertile? Should post-menopausal women not marry either? I could understand the argument against abortion, but the gay marriage fights continue to baffle me.

To be blunt Catholics are dumb about sex. Its a wonder they haven't erased Song of Solomon from their bibles. Its totally OK for two married people to enjoy having sex with each other even if the goal is not procreation.

As for gay marriage - an easier resolution would be to end the public institution of marriage. Why should people who are married or not married get any benefit or penalty for it in the law? This isn't the 1950's - the whole concept of alimony, spousal SS and other nonsense like that should be done away with.

[Loki]

Except the question isn't whether churches have to perform or recognize marriages. I don't see why the churches view it as their business who the state marries and who it doesn't marry as long as they're not saddled with any additional obligations. It just seems like an entirely cynical exercise by various churches to create wedge issues for their followers to be passionate about.

[Lewkowski]

Except the question isn't whether churches have to perform or recognize marriages. I don't see why the churches view it as their business who the state marries and who it doesn't marry as long as they're not saddled with any additional obligations. It just seems like an entirely cynical exercise by various churches to create wedge issues for their followers to be passionate about.

Many religious groups try to make the law outlaw sins. Think about laws against prostitution for example, these are laws created because folks believe prostitution is morally wrong.

Of course these kinds of moral dictatorship like beliefs are not limited to theological groups. A secularist can be in favor of requiring food stamps to feed the poor because they believe that is right thing for society to do. That type of argument is NO different then theological folks pushing to outlaw prostitution because they believe its right to stop the selling of sex.

[LittleFuzzy]

Except the question isn't whether churches have to perform or recognize marriages. I don't see why the churches view it as their business who the state marries and who it doesn't marry as long as they're not saddled with any additional obligations. It just seems like an entirely cynical exercise by various churches to create wedge issues for their followers to be passionate about.

Well, plenty of them are True Believers, Loki. To them homosexuality is a sin and even if they're "love the sinner, hate the sin" types they're not going to want to see homosexual relationships sanctioned by anyone. I'm sure there are some for whom it is just that sort of cynical exercise, but I'm also sure that's not the case for all of 'em.

[Loki]

Many religious groups try to make the law outlaw sins. Think about laws against prostitution for example, these are laws created because folks believe prostitution is morally wrong.

Of course these kinds of moral dictatorship like beliefs are not limited to theological groups. A secularist can be in favor of requiring food stamps to feed the poor because they believe that is right thing for society to do. That type of argument is NO different then theological folks pushing to outlaw prostitution because they believe its right to stop the selling of sex.

Which might be relevant if the main attack against marriage was because homosexuality was a sin and not because gays can't procreate. If having sex without the intent to procreate is the big sin here, I fail to see the Church isn't against marriage for any groups incapable of bearing children...

Well, plenty of them are True Believers, Loki. To them homosexuality is a sin and even if they're "love the sinner, hate the sin" types they're not going to want to see homosexual relationships sanctioned by anyone. I'm sure there are some for whom it is just that sort of cynical exercise, but I'm also sure that's not the case for all of 'em.

I could accept the homosexuality is a sin argument (after all, there is some evidence for it in the Bible), but I totally can't understand the procreation argument. Any idea how someone can use the latter to justify their opposition to gay marriage?

[LittleFuzzy]

Which might be relevant if the main attack against marriage was because homosexuality was a sin and not because gays can't procreate. If having sex without the intent to procreate is the big sin here, I fail to see the Church isn't against marriage for any groups incapable of bearing children...



I could accept the homosexuality is a sin argument (after all, there is some evidence for it in the Bible), but I totally can't understand the procreation argument. Any idea how someone can use the latter to justify their opposition to gay marriage?

As Lewk said, the Catholic Church is just dumb about sex. It also believes in miracles. Do you get where these intersect with procreation?

[Steely Glint]

The answer, Loki, is that you simply can't take anything they say at face value. Rule 1 of interpreting argument based on religion which isn't about something pertaining to religion, especially by a public figure: the argument they make isn't the real reason they have that position, it's rather a reason they think they the public at large will accept. The real reason they are against allowing gays that they think homosexuality is wrong and see gay marriage and other advances in gay rights as legitimizing it. But they can't come out and say "we're against gay marriage because we hate gay people, they're miserable sinners" because that would not be acceptable secular people, moderate religionists or anyone else uncomfortable with making the law of the land based on religious edicts - rather they come up with other reasons they think might get more broad support - "marriage is between one man and one woman", "marriage is for procreation", "marriage is Christian institution" etc etc. Same reason they're (they being specifically the Catholic Church here) are against contraception - the real reason is the don't like recreational sex but they can't come out and say "God hates sex", so they focus on the no contraception thing. Also, it has the handy affect of keeping people in third world countries poor and backward and woman in the home. Bonus!

Think I'm being paranoid or just my usual anti-religious bias? It's all right there in the wedge document. Intelligent design is a way of saying "God did it" in a way which has the pretense of academic plausibility.

Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.

A lot of what comes out the mouths of religious figures on these social, moral or scientific issues is best understood in the same light, because as you point out they make little sense when seen as genuinely held positions.

[Loki]

Surely they know that any sane person realizes that the Church doesn't really have a problem with marriages that don't involve procreation, since it's clearly not against marriage between old or disabled people?

Historically, the Abrahamaic Churches hated homosexuality, but did little to prevent people from engaging in it. As long as people didn't do anything in public, the religious leader focused on more pressing issues. It's still the case for many ultra-orthodox Jews by the way. At some point hating "the fags" became a vote-getter I suppose. Any ideas about the why and when?

[Steely Glint]

It's obviously not good enough to withstand even a moments scrutiny, but I think it serves as a fig leaf that lets them push their real agenda without seeming overtly bigoted. It's not like a bunch of people don't share those views anyway, and are just as reluctant to come out and say them openly. For the rest of us, I do think there are certain ingrained mental habits that sometimes causes us to accept things coming from religion a priori that we wouldn't from anywhere else. I do this myself, and have to stop and say to myself "No, think about it from first principles and see how ridiculous it actually is". If you've ever witness and agnostic or atheist arguing about whether the bible does or does not condemn homosexuality, you'll have seen it. If you're an atheist/agnostic then why the hell does it matter what a book written by a bunch of bronze age savages about a God with multiple counts of mass murder to its name says about any moral issue whatsoever? And yet many of us (us being the whole secular/skeptic crowd) sort of take for granted this intrinsic authority of the bible which make us think certain interpretations of it have to be proven/disproven to advance our cause.

As for when religions started going on about homosexuality all the time, well I assume that was when gays decided they'd like some rights?

[GGT]

Many religious groups try to make the law outlaw sins. Think about laws against prostitution for example, these are laws created because folks believe prostitution is morally wrong.

Of course these kinds of moral dictatorship like beliefs are not limited to theological groups. A secularist can be in favor of requiring food stamps to feed the poor because they believe that is right thing for society to do. That type of argument is NO different then theological folks pushing to outlaw prostitution because they believe its right to stop the selling of sex.

You've made too many blanket statements, beginning with your first sentence, and conflated too many "ideologies". Coming from the guy who wants to use The Rule of Law to support school prayer, teach Creationism, deny sex-ed and birth control in favor of abstinence-only programs....in public schools....plus overturn Roe v Wade and ban all abortions, it should come as no surprise. What's surprising is that you think your "ideology" is any better, because you learned it from your church.




Loki, it seems to me that's what's different now, comes from political groups/factions trying to exploit religious dogma, for their own purposes, and getting away with it. Times of strife and turmoil can work that way. You may as well have asked about "Free Speech" that's also offensive to certain religious groups, and how Constitutions are written, and what Thing they want to protect.

[RandBlade]

The answer is inertia.

Getting the Catholic Church (and not just them) to accept any changes is difficult, just ask Copernicus. In the future people will no doubt look back with amazement at the idea that gay marriage and abortion were remotely controversial just as we find the controversy over heliocentric beliefs bizarre. Abortion is only recently legal and gay marriage still isn't. Neither will be controversial once bedded down.

[GGT]

The answer is inertia.

Maybe that answer addresses the wrong question.

[RandBlade]

No it doesn't.

Existing and established rules permit post-menopausal marriages.

[Loki]

Loki, it seems to me that's what's different now, comes from political groups/factions trying to exploit religious dogma, for their own purposes, and getting away with it. Times of strife and turmoil can work that way. You may as well have asked about "Free Speech" that's also offensive to certain religious groups, and how Constitutions are written, and what Thing they want to protect.

It's not just politicians though. You have the Pope, pastors, imams, and rabbis all making a big deal out of this nonsense. Society was far more conservative a century ago, and yet there wasn't this much obsession with gays (though it's obviously much safer to be an out-gay now than it was back then).

[GGT]

Existing and established rules permit post-menopausal marriages.

Then you need to define "inertia" in more specific terms. It can't mean resistance to change, since Vatican I and Vatican II made some rather big changes. It just took them a while.

[GGT]

It's not just politicians though. You have the Pope, pastors, imams, and rabbis all making a big deal out of this nonsense. Society was far more conservative a century ago, and yet there wasn't this much obsession with gays (though it's obviously much safer to be an out-gay now than it was back then).

Religious and political leaders have been using this "nonsense" for centuries. Religious texts are either set in stone (rigid orthodoxy) or they're living, dynamic documents with contextual and interpretive powers (reformist fluidity). The same holds true for government Constitutions that can represent a tiny moment in time, or try to give credence and power to the future of people, in their future, regardless of how hard that sounds.

The foolishness comes when men try to make laws surrounding gods or prophets. They come and go, but mankind and human affairs remain. That's the constant.

[Loki]

Most religious leaders of the last two centuries tended to attack some major moral failing of the time, be it slavery, alcoholism, poverty, or premarital sex. The attacks were more frequently against sins than against sinners. If any group was attacked, it would be members of other religious groups (heretics!).

I wonder if Steely is right and the attack against gays as a group started when gays started asking for rights.

[GGT]

From my perspective, the last two centuries in American history weren't trying to solve "major moral failings of the time", despite our history of wanting to find freedom FROM religion....but was spent, quite ironically, trying to convince the populace that religious-based legislation was the paragon of "morality".

[Lebanese Dragon]

Most religious leaders of the last two centuries tended to attack some major moral failing of the time, be it slavery, alcoholism, poverty, or premarital sex. The attacks were more frequently against sins than against sinners. If any group was attacked, it would be members of other religious groups (heretics!).

I wonder if Steely is right and the attack against gays as a group started when gays started asking for rights.

Many people take passages in the Bible for example Sodom and Gamorra as condemning sodomizing eachother, as in gay sex. Or the person who was killed for spilling his seed. That's a large part of why the Catholic Church has the stance it does. My contention is two-fold. First it's one thing to tell your followers to not partake in it (Even if they were born gay); however, it's another thing to say we can't see it being legal under the American legal system. It's absurd to want those types of sins (by their definitions) to be illegal. There stance should be that there should be no law that co-erces us into sinning. The law that say you can be gay is okay, the law that say you must be gay is what they need to rally against. If our society wanted to say it's okay to lie no matter the situation (while people should push to change that on practical grounds) on moral grounds we must be concerned with a law that says you must lie. For example, what I would be getting it, is as a Christian it'd be immoral to support the laws that will mandate people to sin, such as it would be a sin to kill people for stealing. So it'd be immoral to support a law that said, if you're caught stealing, the police legally must kill you. Or to support any law that would violate another's rights, it'd be immoral to support a law that gave the police the option of killing you in such circumstances, as i've painted. Support the legalization of laws that takes no rights from others, and let's people sin against themselves. (as an example support the law that allows you to believe in non-Christian religions, and don't support a law that says you must do so).

Secondly, the catholic church is dynamic, but it's very much structured like a government, and is slow-changing.


On the note of why have government know if you're married are not: Firstly, the social sanctioning of marriage helps create social stability (i'm willing to make this claim, some sort of research would be nice, but it seems very logical, for reasons i won't explain unless questioned). Secondly, it's useful for the government to know whose together and whose not (As far as seeing what percentage of people are planning to stick together for a long haul, helps them gauge different things. I'm sure if you're married you're statistically likely to have more kids. So they can have some birthrate expectations). Thirdly, it helps settle divorce cases proving they've been together for X yeas, and presumably sharing the responsiblity of paying for things (in various ways).

[Loki]

As I emphasized from the very first post, I'm confused about the "no marriage unless it's for procreation" reasoning, not the "homosexuality is forbidden by the Bible" aspect.

[GGT]

As I emphasized from the very first post, I'm confused about the "no marriage unless it's for procreation" reasoning, not the "homosexuality is forbidden by the Bible" aspect.

Marriage for procreational purposes is a religious construct, not a social construct. US laws strive, or at least "ideally" strive, to make laws that support unions and families, regardless of religious dogma. That means marriage can be construed as property contracts....

[Lebanese Dragon]

They believe it's a sin to use a condom, because you're wasting your seed. So i guess the logic is something like this: If you're getting married it's to have sex (which is to them the only moral time to have sex), if you're having sex it must be to procreate because it's a sin to waste your seed. I think the line of reasoning does fail in that it's not clear you have to have sex if you're married (unless he believe because God said, "go forth and multiply" it's a sin to avoid sex while married).

[Loki]

Then why not ban marriages for people who can't have children...

[GGT]

Regarding the Catholic church and its doctrines, in modern times --- their male-only priest mandates, and celibacy for any "true" priest/monk/nun have exposed some dirty big secrets. The kind of thing that questions an entire religion, its leadership and hierarchy, its politics and dogma. It doesn't take a leap of faith to wonder how the Catholic church could have been hiding millions of sexual abuse cases, mostly man on boy, or why a parish or diocese, or the Vatican itself, would have tried to bury those horrible secrets. For. Decades.

[GGT]

Then why not ban marriages for people who can't have children...

Well, far be if from their human ability to determine that. Only God knows for sure, right? Forget the fact that any couple can "have children", regardless of gender or what's considered "fertility" these days. The Catholic church will even annul marriages that DID produce children, in order to consecrate a second marriage, bypassing divorce or whatever the hell. Go figure.

[GGT]

Also, Steely is spot-on when deciphering where our moral compass originates. And that it can be difficult to separate religion from humanism, when religion has had the tightest grasp for centuries, exploiting peoples' ignorance and fears.

Among modern religious Christian groups, there's a lot of debate about Roman Catholicism, American Catholicism, Protestantism, and "Reformation" in general. We also have the non-denominational and mega-churches too....doing a new type of bible thumping fundamentalism. My hometown's defunct Saturn car dealership (on a prime piece of real estate, a juncture between state roads and bypasses) is now a dotcom fundamental megachurch. With plenty of parking, that gets filled every Sunday.

[Lewkowski]

Then why not ban marriages for people who can't have children...

Because miracles happen just look at Abraham and his super old wife. At least that would be the closest answer I can get to other than "the Catholic church is stupid about sex."

[Lewkowski]

You've made too many blanket statements, beginning with your first sentence, and conflated too many "ideologies". Coming from the guy who wants to use The Rule of Law to support school prayer, teach Creationism, deny sex-ed and birth control in favor of abstinence-only programs....in public schools....plus overturn Roe v Wade and ban all abortions, it should come as no surprise. What's surprising is that you think your "ideology" is any better, because you learned it from your church.

You must have me confused with a caricature of a conservative. I don't think I've even discussed school prayer on the forum. And teaching intelligent design as an opposing theory is far different than teaching Genesis. More over as someone who is in favor of school choice the entire problem solves itself by parents choosing which school (be it secular or religious) they want to attend.