Wednesday, November 03, 2004

same sex marriage on the rocks


CNN has projected that voters in at least more 10 states will approve constitutional amendments codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.

Which of course it should be.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh those wickedly confused right wing fundamentalist Christians.
How could they?

Don't they know this goes against all the civilised nations of the world, even the august UNITED NATIONS recommendations?

Silly, silly, silly.

Ban the Book, it's infectious!
10 states today what tomorrow?

Mike

jarrod said...

I still don't understand why marriage "should" be between a man and a woman.

I don't begrudge anyone's right to their personal religious beliefs. But by the same token, no-one should expect me to share their religious beliefs.

If you are anti gay marriage for religious reasons then you don't have to allow it in your church. The same would go for any religion. But if someone else's faith (which could include agnoticism or atheism) does allow it, then what gives you the moral authority to tell them it shouldn't be allowed?

There are some religious practices which anyone should rightly reject. But those practices are ones which cause obvious harm to a typically unwilling participant - female genital mutilation, for example. Gay marriage hardly fits into that category.

If, on the other hand, your objection to gay marriage is not a religious one, I would be very interested to hear it.

Anonymous said...

Jarrod have you ever read the bible and especially the book of Romans?
Your statement has no logic.

The thread right through the Bible that Marriage is between Men and Women and Homosexual references are in the negative.

You are naive in the extreme if you think that one can exclude same gender marriage in some churches and not others.
One, if one part of the church can allow same gender marriage and another not then the church is defunct.
Some think it is anyway.

Two, either they all follow the thread in the religion or they aren't communed together.
From that perspective if the book really is written by God then He isn't going to get it wrong is He?

On the one side it is said the Bible is for another time and culture, we have evolved and on the other side that the other is calling God a liar.

As for the moral authority to tell them it isn't allowed.
From the Judeo/Christian perpsective Marriage is a covenent (the giving of yourself) not a contract and it is done before God as it is a type of the relationship He wants with us (and always has).
Genesis 2.24, 25.

The whole bible is a telling of the persuing of us by God and that's why you can see the threads of marriage through it and the many references to Him and us in relationship.

matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 and 6 clearly give the disciplinary procedures that should have been followed up to now in the church against those who deliberately choose to ignore or debase scripture.
This applies only to those in the church as those outside the church can't be judged by those in it.

You make a declaration on genital mutilation which is a discrimination based on your framework of belief and worldview or social construct, it isn't necesarily religious.
Though some might argue that point if you were a secular humanist, who cannot have a theistic worldview.

NAMBLA in USA have a belief and values which has been followed by many cultures in the past, the Greeks, Arabs, Indians and others.
They obviously thought it ok then, many Greek philosophers were of the opinion that pederasty helped the education and uptake of information.

Why not now?

As for my arguement against same gender or Homosexual marriage it's just that.
Same gender.

I've posted already elswhere on this blog on our design and do have to agree that it starts from a theistic belief and worldview which you may not have.

If you don't have a theistic worldview then we will never connect in discussion as we will be like parallel tracks.
If you do have a thestic worldview then we need to tease out what type of God?
a force or a personality?
Distant or personaly interested in it's creation?

and then we will ultimately come to Jehovah who instituted the Jewish nation.
Hope this helps.
best
Mike

jarrod said...

Mike,

You'd be correct in saying that I don't have a theistic world view (and that I have never read that particular passage of the Bible - at least not as far as I recall).

As I've already stated, however, that doesn't mean that I begrudge you your world view. You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs and to your faith (not that you need to be told this).

However I don't believe that this entitlement extends to forcing your beliefs on others. The same goes for my beliefs - I don't expect you to share them.

Ideally, I think that the state should have no legislative power over marriage. As a joining of two people, it doesn't require legal recognition to have enduring meaning. It is the ceremony and the committment to each other that is important. It does however, currently have certain contractual importance in the eyes of the law, and it is this aspect of marriage that I think is particularly important to gay people.

If you believe that Christian marriage should only be between a man and a woman - then that's fine by me. Bear in mind though that there are numerous Christian sects, who may or may not agree with you.

But Christian marriage isn't the only kind. Secular marriage has been around for quite some time now. And your reference to Biblical tracts does not explain where you get the moral authority to dictate to non-Christians what they should and should not do.

Let's be clear. There are certain activities practiced by certain groups that cause clear harm to unwilling participants. Some of these are religious activities (like my FGM example) and some are not (your NAMBLA example). Discriminating against these groups or individuals is just as necessary as discriminating against robbers or murderers or rapists. The correct moral position on these issues should be obvious.

If no-one is harmed by an activity, on the other hand, however distasteful we might find it, I don't think we can demand that people refrain from practising it. I'm not gay. If given the opportunity, I won't be marrying a man any time soon. But I can't see what the harm would be with allowing gay marriage - I just can't see that it hurts anyone. It doesn't damage or devalue heterosexual marriage - gay people are going to remain gay, whether they can marry or not (despite what you think about deprogramming or retraining). And it doesn't prevent you from continuing to think that homosexuality is wrong or sinful, or from preventing gay marriages from happening in your church.