Ten years of "gay marriage"

[TAO]

And what's the sin of Sodom? I'd argue that it was lack of charity.

It means Sodomy... aka homosexuality.

I know it refers to this sin because of Jude 1:7.

It is also listed under that subject Topical Guide, which though not doctrine, is a very accurate source as to what it is interpreted by the church to mean.

[Mordecai]

Since this is the only "gay marriage" thread left, let me just tack on some things from the shut-down thread:

@jaybear

With regard to my claim that a gay union is not the same as or "significantly different from" a real marriage: By gay union, I mean the thing in itself, as in, two people of the same sex living together "as husband and wife," regardless of how the gov't recognizes them.

To answer another question, marriage is in the state's jurisdiction, because it is the primary means by which society procreates, because it is a good for children to have their biological parents present, because there are parental rights involved, because all of civilization was built on marriage. If you take these away, why is the state involved at all? Should it play Cupid and promote romantic love? When you start talking about "gay marriage," legally, you have a cascade effect, essentially rewriting past laws. If you can do that, there is something very wrong, legally. Are judges supposed to be rewriting past laws? Not legally. Point being, a gay union and a marriage are so fundamentally different from the standpoint of what is good, necessary and rational and profoundly so, how is it remotely rational, legal or just to now pretend a gay union and a marriage are the same?

To answer another question, the gov't giving something profoundly different the same label and the exact same treatment is irrational and suggests the gov't is just living in a fantasy world or "pretending." This should be self-evident, or if it's not, we ought to consider that integral to justice is treating different things differently. To stop doing so might be described as "pretending different things are the same."

As far as people insisting that gay unions be treated equally, people have no right to be treated equally unless their behavior is essentially the same, much less do things have a right to be treated equally. A gay union, being a thing, certainly should not be treated the same as something significantly different, since treating different behaviors as if they are the same is the opposite of justice. Should our justice system officially endorse injustice?

@Darin

Your post obviously took some work, so I will at least briefly respond. You are asking how my criterion would apply to mixed race couples, elderly couples, infertile couples, etc. Well, if you go through the discussion about the government's role in protecting free speech, would it muddle free speech to refer to elderly couples as "married?" No, it wouldn't. Nor would it muddle speech to refer to any other types of couples that are comprised of a man and a woman, living together as husband and wife.

When we're debating the difference between a gay union and a marriage, it's largely about the principle and not so much the details. While an infertile couple is definitely significantly different, will it create any confusion or will it be unjust in any way to label them as married? How so? When the gov't officially recognizes a man and a woman as married, whether they are infertile or not, there is no delusion involved. An infertile couple, in principle, is the same as a fertile couple. The ends and results are not even necessarily different, because miracles can occur. The "infertile" may actually have children.

With elderly couples, again, there is no attack on the principle of marriage by labeling them as "married." Since the whole debate is about how the gov't labels people, the principle is what matters, i.e. the definition of the thing should match the label and vice versa. Otherwise, we get into all sorts of confusion and chaos on several levels.

[california boy]

I never got a response from you on this post. Maybe you missed it. I would like to hear your thoughts on this since you seem to be so consumed by the fear of being confused about marriage when gays are allowed to marry.

Mordecai, on 01 April 2011 - 03:10 AM, said:

People who didn't know first-hand would think we're the same in every respect, if we had the same name, our addresses were listed as if they were the same, and we had the same social security number. Similarly, people will think a gay union and a marriage are the same (or more accurately, think their differences are meaningless), if they don't each have a unique label to set them apart from being mere union. I explained this before, too. Giving them the same label will create confusion, just like it would create confusion to give us the same name and social security number.

Since you have conceded that what people have considered marriage in the past is not what it is today. You have also conceded that it is not the definition of marriage that concerns you. From what I can tell of your opposition to gay marriage, it for you comes down to your feeling that people will become confused about what marriage is.

So when a heterosexual couple tells you they are married, what do you assume that to mean?

When a gay couple tells you they are married, what do you assume that to mean?

We have many words in the English language that is the exact same word but have two completely different meanings. Are you confused by them as well?

For example bow, can mean a tied ribbon or it can mean a weapon. Do you get confused about what someone is saying when they say I shot a deer with my bow?

Just yesterday, a friend that I have known for a number of years called me to tell me that his partner of 48 years passed away. They have not only been a couple for 48 years, they were in business together for a number of those years. Together they ran a successful manufacturing business and employed others in the process. They both put into the social security system in this country all during their working years. They both paid taxes like everyone else. However, because the person he loved and shared most of his life with happened to be a man, the government will cut off all of his partners social security benefits.

This isn't about some abstract, hard to defend definition of marriage that causes you to confuse gold with lead. This, for Ralph who is now in his 70's, is about the fairness of our government allowing one surviving spouse to continue to collect social security and denying another spouse the benefits for the sole reason that they were attracted to the "wrong" gender. How is that equality in America???

[california boy]

Iduplicate post

[semlogo]

It means Sodomy... aka homosexuality.

I know it refers to this sin because of Jude 1:7.

It is also listed under that subject Topical Guide, which though not doctrine, is a very accurate source as to what it is interpreted by the church to mean.

Read the actual account in the Old Testament and learn for yourself.

[Questing Beast]

Sodomy is a much later-applied definition of the sin of Sodom. It has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality as the specific reason for Sodom's destruction. Sexual predation was the sin; along with (we learn this from the Book of Jasher) a stinginess that was so entrenched that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah even put nets over their fruit trees to deny birds the upper fruit. The people lay in wait for traveling strangers; murdering them in the night when they had stopped in the cities for hospitality, etc. It was this entrenched, unrepentant predation (which only included sexual assault and exploitation) which was the sin of Sodom....

[USU78]

And what's the sin of Sodom? I'd argue that it was lack of charity.

A useful and self-serving fiction that is picked up by useful idiots who support the self-servers.

[USU78]

Sodomy is a much later-applied definition of the sin of Sodom. It has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality as the specific reason for Sodom's destruction. Sexual predation was the sin; along with (we learn this from the Book of Jasher) a stinginess that was so entrenched that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah even put nets over their fruit trees to deny birds the upper fruit. The people lay in wait for traveling strangers; murdering them in the night when they had stopped in the cities for hospitality, etc. It was this entrenched, unrepentant predation (which only included sexual assault and exploitation) which was the sin of Sodom....

What's "malekos" mean, QB?

[Jeff K.]

A useful and self-serving fiction that is picked up by useful idiots who support the self-servers.

Some people build layers upon layers of self serving fiction and will deny all kinds of realities. And then wonder how it is the church left them, when in fact they had long since left the church, and removed the vestiges of truth in order to make their own reality more comfortable.

[Mordecai]

I would like to hear your thoughts on this since you seem to be so consumed by the fear of being confused about marriage when gays are allowed to marry.

I'm afraid, huh? Actually, I'm inferring that impressionable people, unlike myself, particularly children, will get confused. I'm thinking about the future, really. But apparently, your concern is not primarily children nor the future health of the United States but adult homosexuals whose contribution to future civilization will likely be minimal.

Since you have conceded that what people have considered marriage in the past is not what it is today. You have also conceded that it is not the definition of marriage that concerns you.

I never said the definition of marriage concerns me, exactly. Of course, I dealt with this pretty thoroughly in the other thread anyway, so I have no reason to revisit it.

For example bow, can mean a tied ribbon or it can mean a weapon. Do you get confused about what someone is saying when they say I shot a deer with my bow?

Really? Do I need to explain why this is a false analogy? You can't anticipate how easily I could illustrate how false this analogy is? This demonstrates very poor critical thinking ability. Either that, or you are trying to trick me, and doing a poor job of it.

...continue to collect social security and denying another spouse the benefits for the sole reason that they were attracted to the "wrong" gender. How is that equality in America???...

Oh, so this is about collecting more tax money. I see. The Bush administration offered a solution to this problem, actually. Not really relevant to the debate, since I have never argued within this thread that gay unions can't be treated the same. My big concern is the gov't mislabeling them.

Also, it doesn't represent equality in America. Then again, there is no right to equal treatment, when your behavior is significantly different. Not saying I wouldn't be upset if I were in your friend's position. Perhaps we ought to end all of these policies where the gov't acts as our dad, so people won't feel like they're not the favorite son.

[USU78]

I remember taking a Bible as Literature course in my undergrad days. The issue of "What is a dog" came up in the discussion/reading on 1 Kings 21-22. The Prof claimed (I've never double-checked it) that the "dogs" referred to here were not canis familiaris, but something else relevant to this thread.

How someone, given the above and other instances where a certain demographic is called "dogs" in the OT, can claim that homosexual behavior is in any way permissible or okay with Israel's G-d, I cannot account for.

[elguanteloko]

it's kind of interesting (and sad), also, that many of the most ardent opponents of SSM I've seen are the ones that supposedly support a free-market, small government type of socioeconomic structure while not having a problem with imposing their views on marriage on others under the pretense that society would crumble by allowing homosexuals to choose for themselves if they want to marry or not and (if it is the case that the social value of marriage would decline) not allowing others to choose freely the value they want to give to marriage.

[Mordecai]

...allowing homosexuals to choose for themselves if they want to marry or not...

No one is stopping them. None of us have been proponents of stopping them. What gay-marriage dogma opponents want is for the gov't to not recognize gay unions as if they are the same as real marriages. Do you oppose the gov't recognizing different things differently? Because if they don't do that, there is no justice. Will we recognize murder as if it's the same as littering? Will we recognize rich people like they're poor or vice versa, taxing them as if they're identical? Can I drop kick a police officer and then receive a Congressional Medal of Honor for that, treating me as if I'm a war hero? Or maybe war heroes will go to prison, like their behavior is the same as assaulting an officer.

...allow others to choose freely the value they want to give to marriage...

I forgot that we're forcing people to value marriage in a certain way. Wait... how in the world would we be doing that?

[elguanteloko]

I remember taking a Bible as Literature course in my undergrad days. The issue of "What is a dog" came up in the discussion/reading on 1 Kings 21-22. The Prof claimed (I've never double-checked it) that the "dogs" referred to here were not canis familiaris, but something else relevant to this thread.

How someone, given the above and other instances where a certain demographic is called "dogs" in the OT, can claim that homosexual behavior is in any way permissible or okay with Israel's G-d, I cannot account for.

Fortunately, this is irrelevant. That God condemns something does not tell you what legal actions you should take. It is a mistake in part of the VAST majority of anti-SSM Christians to believe that "God said it's wrong" is in any way a justification for some type of legal action assuming God indeed exists and indeed thinks it is wrong.

[elguanteloko]

No one is stopping them. None of us have been proponents of stopping them.

so, do you think homosexual couples should be allowed to legally MARRY if they so choose?

What gay-marriage dogma opponents want is for the gov't to not recognize gay unions as if they are the same as real marriages.

in other words, leave a segment of people out of a socio-legal institution and prevent them from entering in it. That's my point, Mordecai.

Do you oppose the gov't recognizing different things differently? Because if they don't do that, there is no justice. Will we recognize murder as if it's the same as littering? Will we recognize rich people like they're poor or vice versa, taxing them as if they're identical? Can I drop kick a police officer and then receive a Congressional Medal of Honor for that, treating me as if I'm a war hero?

You love to strawman others, don't you? I am NOT saying everyone at all times should be treated equally. That statement, first of all, is quite meaningless. Secondly, I'm talking about a specific case here and the principle under which I'm working is not that we should treat everyone equally at all times but that there is no relevant reason to prevent same-sex couples from getting legally married and entering into this social structure in this way.

I forgot that we're forcing people to value marriage in a certain way. Wait... how in the world would we be doing that?

It is one common theme among those against SSM to say that allowing homosexuals to marry would cause this institution to devalue. Thus, instead of letting future generations evaluate the worth of marriage for themselves, some want to prevent a segment of the population from entering into a legal institution (without good reasons for it) for fear that those generations might view marriage as less important than those against SSM think it is.

[Chris Smith]

MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

Read the full article here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

By all indicators, the Scandinavian countries are extremely successful and healthy societies. If they have built this success on a different principle of social organization than the "traditional marriage" religious people seem so hell bent on defending, then it would seem "traditional marriage" is not the indispensable foundation of civilization it is purported to be.

I offer two other thoughts for your consideration:

1) There is little reason to think gay marriage has caused the decline of heterosexual marriage. Rather, the two developments are likely both caused by other factors, such as secularization, education, female employment, and so forth.

2) Experimentation with different forms of social organization is part of the legitimate cultural pluralism that makes this country great. If "traditional marriage" can't compete against other social and religious principles in the free market, then it doesn't deserve to be artificially sustained by government support. It should be allowed to quietly die just like any other failed socio-religious institution.

[USU78]

Fortunately, this is irrelevant.

Except it's not irrelevant, since the homophiles inside and outside faiths make the silly argument that the Sin of Sodom is not feeding the little birdies.

USU "Is thinking of a Yiddish word just now" 78

[LeSellers]

many of the most ardent opponents of SSM I've seen are the ones that supposedly support a free-market, small government type of socioeconomic structure while not having a problem with imposing their views on marriage on others

No one is advocating imposing our will on others. Quite the contrary, it is those others who are actively imposing theirs on us.

We who oppose the radical change to the very meaning of the word "marriage" do so because it is radical, and, as you dismissively note below, it would fundamentally alter the structure of our culture.

Further, it is demonstrable that the primary reason homosexuals desire "marriage" is not, as they disingenuously proclaim, for the cachet of the institution of marriage, but to get the government goodies that go with the word, including the supposed "marriage tax benefit". So those of us who really do want to see a smaller, less intrusive government, naturally oppose enlarging the population of the dependent. We also oppose the use of taxation to promote any act or other entity that adversely affects our families and culture.

One should not radically change institutions that have served humanity for millennia for reasons other than the most pressing.

under the pretense that society would crumble by allowing homosexuals to choose for themselves if they want to marry or not and (if it is the case that the social value of marriage would decline) not allowing others to choose freely the value they want to give to marriage.

Since it is not "marriage", per se, that they want. They want the trappings. Since they do not commit to the fundamentals that marriage requires, their attempting to radically change the institution itself by reducing the requirements it has traditionally imposed on those entering therein, their desire would, in fact and in deed, cause "the social value of marriage [to] decline".

People who want to see same-sex "marriage" imposed on us refuse to recognize the historical value marriage has bestowed on humanity. The do not understand that every society throughout history has had marriage in almost exactly the same form. A man and a woman pledge to each other their loyalty for the purpose of raising children. the man further pledges to support his wife (or wives) that he will support them financially in their old age because they, the women, will not have been able to have worked and saved to support themselves later due the extra exertions rearing their children will have required.

Homosexuals, by the nature of their desires, cannot have children. No such commitment is needed and none is required.

It has been said that, rather than focus on homosexual "marriage", we should fight divorce, ensure that children are always raised by their parents, and so on. Perhaps we should. However, doing this does not mean we should ignore the disaster homosexual "marriage" would inflict on us. One fights all threats, not just the least popular, and it makes sense to focus on this newest, since it will be the most devastating should it prove successful. The straw that broke the camel's back did not do so alone, but it was a factor.

Any one homosexual "marriage" would not affect mine. No number of them would. However, they will affect the marriages of my grandchildren and those of their children. Marriage is far too critical to allow people to toy with it, to twist it, to undermine its meaning.

If homosexuals want to live together as "gamiens" (or whatever term they choose, obviously "husband" or "wife" would not serve well), soit, but they have no right to weaken the very foundation of society. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Lehi

[elguanteloko]

Except it's not irrelevant, since the homophiles inside and outside faiths make the silly argument that the Sin of Sodom is not feeding the little birdies.

USU "Is thinking of a Yiddish word just now" 78

Please forgive but I don't understand this. Care to explain a little bit more for me, please?

[Chris Smith]

USU,

I agree that to call the sin of Sodom a "lack of charity" seems pretty silly, but the suggestion on the previous page that it was "sexual predation" seems far more apropos than calling it "homosexuality".

Peace,

-Chris

[USU78]

Please forgive but I don't understand this. Care to explain a little bit more for me, please?

In the apocrypha it's explained that one of the terrible things the Sodomites committed was to place nets above their orchards to keep the birds out.

You may or may not be aware of the Torah prohibitions against cultivating the corners and edges of agricultural land in order to let the birdies and other critters have a place to hang out . . . it's related to the "one gleaning only" rule for grain harvest. If you don't leave some of the grain in the field and permit the poor to harvest the leavings, they'll starve and their misery is on your head.

To me, the apocryphal tale of the Sodomites not complying with Torah is not about Sodom at all, but about Israel's avarice. The problem is, homophile advocates (the earliest I ever heard arguing this were members of the Lavender Mob) have seized on this and substituted it for the actual Torah message.

A people so depraved that they'd pass up a perfectly good virgin girl and insist on the guys is pretty wicked indeed.

Perhaps you've not encountered the argument before?

[USU78]

I agree that to call the sin of Sodom a "lack of charity" seems pretty silly, but the suggestion on the previous page that it was "sexual predation" seems far more apropos than calling it "homosexuality".

And your argument would be sufficient if all we're looking at is Genesis.

Problem is, we've got all that stuff in Leviticus and Peter and Romans and 1 Corinthians and elsewhere that has to color the Christian's views on these things.

I don't care if somebody chooses not to believe that this is what G-d wants. I draw the line with people trying to wrest square scriptural writings and cram them into into a round hole.

[elguanteloko]

No one is advocating imposing our will on others. Quite the contrary, it is those others who are actively imposing theirs on us.

You know, you are going to have to put a little bit more effort than this.

We who oppose the radical change to the very meaning of the word "marriage" do so because it is radical, and, as you dismissively note below, it would fundamentally alter the structure of our culture.

And?

Further, it is demonstrable that the primary reason homosexuals desire "marriage" is not, as they disingenuously proclaim, for the cachet of the institution of marriage, but to get the government goodies that go with the word, including the supposed "marriage tax benefit".

And? Ad hominem attacks aren't going to fly here.

So those of us who really do want to see a smaller, less intrusive government, naturally oppose enlarging the population of the dependent. We also oppose the use of taxation to promote any act or other entity that adversely affects our families and culture.

Now, this seems silly. If you are against taxation then fight against that. Is that the problem? You say you oppose a larger government but, don't you think it would be better to fight for less restrictions EVEN IN MARRIAGE than for more? Doesn't make much sense to me.

One should not radically change institutions that have served humanity for millennia for reasons other than the most pressing.

"change" means very little. Arguments from tradition aren't going to work here. Plus, the only change is going to be letting other people enter into it. If country A is full of heterosexuals that marry and country B's population is largely homosexual and they marry, how is the population of country B getting married affecting country A's freedom to marry or forcefully affecting them in a bad way?

Since it is not "marriage", per se, that they want. They want the trappings. Since they do not commit to the fundamentals that marriage requires, their attempting to radically change the institution itself by reducing the requirements it has traditionally imposed on those entering therein, their desire would, in fact and in deed, cause "the social value of marriage [to] decline"

with all due respect, if you can't see how this is a ludicrous generalization you need more help than I can give. That or you need to go out more often.

People who want to see same-sex "marriage" imposed on us [...]

you seem to me as someone who has taken little to no time to compare the best arguments from both sides of this issue. I want to focus on this part of your post also. How is allowing a new segment of the population (that is by definition not the segment that is already getting married, i.e. heterosexuals) imposing something on heterosexual couples? Probably we want to impose some freedom, if such a thing is possible, but that's pretty much it. Now, please notice also that even if you take this to be an imposition that also doesn't say much. There are a bunch of things we should have no problem with imposing. Examples include: freedom to marry the consenting adult person of your choice, the right to being considered legally innocent of charges pressed against you until proven otherwise, free to travel from state to state, etc. We believe everyone should be free unless shown that otherwise ought to be the case. To show that the freedom we want to "impose" on you is wrong, then YOU have to show why such a thing is the case. I don't have to prove that I'm innocent or that I am free to travel from state to state. The burden of proof is one those who want the restrictions.

[Mordecai]

so, do you think homosexual couples should be allowed to legally MARRY if they so choose?

They already are allowed. They simply aren't recognized as if they are married, when they choose the same sex instead.

...in other words, leave a segment of people out of a socio-legal institution and prevent them from entering in it. That's my point, Mordecai...

Single people are also a "group of people" left out of marriage. You aren't fighting for their right to be "married," though, because they are not being discriminated against either.

It is one common theme among those against SSM to say that allowing homosexuals to marry would cause this institution to devalue.

That's not the argument. The argument is that if the gov't conflates real marriage with something profoundly different, the result is that the differences are asserted to be irrelevant. It's very comparable to the gov't officially recognizing lead as if it were gold. This would create the same type of confusion, altering the value of gold, as would conflating real marriage with gay unions, altering the value of marriage.

[TAO]

Read the actual account in the Old Testament and learn for yourself.

You mean Genesis 19? and Ezekiel 16:50?

They say the same thing.

And if we look at the many account in the New Testament, it's pretty clear what 'Sodomy' meant.

Why do you think it means something different?