Traditional Marriage @ MindSay

Okay, the debate as to whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry is one that often gets convoluted into many different smaller debates such as: what constitutes "traditional" marriage?  Is it a relationship based upon love?  A relationship based upon creating a family?  A relationship based on sex?  Different people at different times would say different things.  Marriage doesn't belong to the religious... it is an institution that has been around for pretty much ever.  The Bible seems to say that pagan marriages are just as valid as believer's marriages.  But should two men or two women be allowed to marry?  Well, let's see... states have always told us who we can and can't marry.  For a while there, in a few states you could marry your first cousin.  But not anymore.  It's never been allowed for brother and sister to marry.  But why not?  Is this only a case of looking after possible offspring-defect of the incestual relationship?  What about if one sibling was sterile?  They wouldn't be allowed to marry... why? 

What about men who wanted to take multiple wives?  There are still those old-timey Mormons who still take multiple wives... and the government's after them.  Why?  They are presumably all willing parties, willing to share their mate.  Shoot, it's a very traditional form of marriage.  But it's illegal. 

What about if a man wanted to marry his pet?  (I've heard of it done in other countries).  But what if a man truly thought that his deceased wife was reincarnated into this new pet he's gotten?  Shouldn't he be allowed to marry his pet, because after all it is, at least in his belief, his newly reborn wife.  Who is the government to tell him that he can't fulfill his belief? 

Or what if a man wanted to marry his dog, who's shown him loyalty and friendship?  Presumably, the dog loves his master... what's to stop him from marrying the dog?

I know I've gotten more and more ridiculous with my examples.  But they show precedent that the government prevents certain people from marrying other people (and animals/things).  Part of that reason is taxes... but another part is that it is the case that the government legislates morality.  If it had been a Christian tradition to commit human sacrifice and had been practiced in Europe and the settlers here practiced it, it could probably be asserted that, at least for a while, human sacrifice would have been legal in this country.  It is however among Christian tenets, to not steal, to not murder, etc.  Those are moral things that are legislated.  There are also some (many) that are not legislated for, IE: adultery.  Some (as in sodomy laws) are legislated for but are not enforced.

We should ask what should the government be allowed to prevent us from doing.  It's illegal to commit suicide... then again, you can't be punished if you do it.  But why's it illegal?  It's a willing participation in an act that bodily affects only yourself.  But the government tells you that you can't do it.

The government is supposed to be an extension of the people's will.  Largely many of the tenets of law that affects morals are based on Judeo-Christian Scripture (because that's how it was in Europe and that carried over here, not because the Bible is used as a government authority on what's right and wrong).   The morality of the Bible (as it's called) is largely reflected in many aspects of Western culture.  (Some of these aspects are ignored, or misinterpreted in law, which leads to claims of hypocracy against certain religious support of legislation.)  But the culture of the West, which may I remind you was once referred to as "Christendom," has a tradition of proscribing certain activities that they deem inappropriate for societal norms.  Sodomy, fell into this category, and thus there are/were laws against it.  Incestual marriage fell into this category... Murder (which tends to fall into most cultural proscriptive law) also falls here. 

Now the argument between the pro-gay-marriage and the anti-gay-marriage groups fall here: in defining what is and is not appropriate for societal norms.  Those who want to hold to "traditional" values and the "traditional" definition of marriage are not suggesting that we revert to polygymy and arranged marriages, but rather the traditional Western view of Christian marriage, one man, one woman.  Among this group there are differing opinions of marriage, but in general, these want something akin to what I've briefly described.

The pro-gay-marriage group believes that the government, and the religious should not have the right to tell them that two men or two women can't marry.  They believe that society should be inclusive to various differing forms of lifestyles that are not overtly harmful to others around them. 

So where to draw the line?

Many religious would want to enforce the sodomy laws and prosecute the offenders (homosexual and heterosexual).  But personally, I don't think the government has a right in my or anyone else's bedroom... not in this country anyway.  Besides, if these religious proponents of this want to follow Biblical guidelines they need to support legislation that requires capital punishment for proven homosexuals.  Many of these same religious groups are not apt with tactful arguments against homosexual marriage... and are in great part mistaken about Biblical narratives (particularly Sodom and 'Amorrah) where they boldly make Biblical proclaimations that are unjustifiedly out of context.  Much of these groups are the epitome of what many call "homophobic."  There's no doubting that they fear what effect homosexuals will have on the place in which they live, but is that fear justified?  Sure, if they fear living in a land of moral corruption (their morals tell them that homosexuals are indeed corrupt) they have every right to be scared of homosexuals.  They don't fear a physical persecution from this minority, but that's not what they are worried about.  And unfortunately, a homosexual doesn't have to do anything but exist to drive these people mad.  You might fault these groups' idealogy for being "homophobic."  But in this country, they've got that right, correctly or incorrectly placed.

The people of this country are supposed to have the right to rule by election of government.  The government represents (or is supposed to represent) the will of the people.  To avoid the "tyranny of the majority" we have the courts, which uphold (or are supposed to uphold) the constitution of the United States.  People in many states have chosen to ban gay-marriage.  Some proponents of gay-marrage say that these bans violate the constitution and supress the civil rights of a particular group of people.  But is it a right in this country for a man to marry a man or a woman marry a woman?  Is there any precedent for this?  I don't think so.  So first, there must be a redefinition of marriage as far as the government is concerned, and then we still have the slippery slope of marriage legislation.  If two men can marry, then polygymy should likewise be in, as well as cousins marrying and brother and sister, and father-daughter combos.  Then, after all of those are found constitutional, we can move on to those rare, rare, cases where folks want to marry their pets.

The argument might seem ridiculous... and in a way it is.  And sadly, I've hardly touched on any of the meat of the controversy.  But the government has always told us who we can and can't marry.  Sure, the government can be fought... but it is supposed to be an extension of the people's will... and by votes, it appears that gay-marriage is not in favor.  The courts can overturn that if they find the constitution has been violated, but nevertheless, society has spoken overwhelmingly against gay-marriage in many places.  Whose right is it to set the societal norms anyway?  Is it the majority or the minority?  I'm not arguing that the societal norms are necessarily correct and moral... but that is a secular idea anyway.  I thought these secular types decided everything by popular vote.  And whatever popular vote decided was truth...

I guess not.

 

 

P.S.  I suppose I'll have to discuss more of my own views in the replies as I'm too lazy to worry about them here.  Because most of us know I oppose things religiously before politically.

**Updated ** AGAIN
(Scroll down to find the updated portion)

I am having a discussion back and forth with another blogger that I think others should be able the weigh in on.  I am going to post that discussion here as my entry tonight.  It started off discussing the boyscouts and is deep in gay marriage at this point.

The initial post was about obtaining the rank of Eagle Scout.  It was completely innocent, but what follows is my reply.  I guess you could label me the instigator.  My words are in normal font color.  His are in the red I use for quotes.  I will continue to edit this post as long as the discussion continues.  Feel free to reply here or drop in and join the discussion in its original home, here.

SFS
You know, there is a fundamental conflict between Judeo-Christian belief and American Idealism.  The clearest line of demarcation is the fact that the ten-commandments, held in such esteem by so many adherents to the Christian ideology, specifically state that there shall be no other gods before Yaweh and emphasize this point with other commandments.  The Constitution, on the other hand, admonishes our government to make no law respecting a religion nor prohibiting free exercise of any religion.  There is an obvious contradiction between founding American principles and founding Biblical principles. 

 

I know the Scouts celebrate patriotism.  Having participated in scouts when I was much younger, I had always had a deep respect for the institution.  However, their behavior in discriminating against atheists and homosexuals, apparently for arbitrary reasons, both saddened and angered me.  If they are going to emphasize Judeo-Christian principles over American principles, then I see them more as a religious club than a patriotic organization.  You may not share my disappointment in the organization, but be aware that there are many people out there who feel betrayed by the discriminatory actions of an organization we once held in esteem.

jtobler

Just because the constitution forbids congress from legislating christianity does not elevate secularist goverment above God. I see no conflict. The retards at the ACLU do, but they're a bunch of (well-meaning) pricks.

Because religion is their foundation, and because active homosexuality is an attack on the traditional family, which the Scouting program beleives in. I see no reason I can't love my country and uphold my God at the same time.

SFS
In what way is anyone attempting to elevate secularist government above god?  You do understand the difference between a secular government and an atheistic one?  An atheistic principle would actively state that god does not exist.  While this may be the absolute truth in the atheistic worldview, I have met no atheist who believes that view should be promoted or supported by any governmental entity or entities that receive governmental support through public funds.  That is the nature of a secular government.  It takes no stand on the issue of religion.  What you believe or whether you believe is not in the domain of a government established to deal with practical, secular issues.  Jefferson made very clear in his other writings that this was the intent of the framers.

We can disagree or agree about whether adherence to specific religious values is patriotic or not or whether the scouts are a "patriotic" organization.  As a private organization, I support their freedom to hold whatever views they choose.  I am simply voicing an opinion that I disapprove of the policy.  I would not support any coercive effort to change their policy as long as they remain strictly private and receive no revenue from public funds or special privileges not granted equally to all.   And stating that homosexuality is an attack on the traditional family is at best misguided.  I support traditional families.  I have a beautiful daughter.  I am heterosexual.   I can support homosexuals' status as equal citizens without compromising my own values and family.  Being an active christian is more of an attack on the Jewish faith (or Muslim, Hindu, etc....) than homosexuality is an attack upon the traditional family.

Southern Fried Skeptic

jtobler
You're right of course, but that's the ideal world, not the real world. ACLU and other establishments with good intentions but are on a continual vandetta against anybody with religious beleifs, and they're using the government's fear of offending some oversensitive minority faction to accomplish this.

That's fair. The government probably shouldn't be supporting private organizations anyway.

Please don't misunderstand, and it would be my fault if you did, my best friend is homosexually inclined. I don't support gay-bashing or any ultra-conservative bigot movement. Yes, they are equal citezens, that does not mean that the government should be endorsing or even permitting homosexual couples to raise children. It's not right. I feel for them, I really do, I've had my turn on the ostrasize circuit. Traditionalists have been pricks to homosexuals for centuries, sure, but that doesn't mean the government has to legislate immorality.

I don't make it a habit to attack other faiths, but thanks for putting words into my mouth.

SFS
I wasn't putting words in your mouth, just simply making an analogy.  The argument I often hear from traditionalists is that by simply being homosexual, couples are attacking the tradtional family as you stated in your own words, "because active homosexuality is an attack on the traditional family".  Are homosexuals actively lobbying, criticizing, or denouncing traditional marriage as a whole, or is it just not a lifestyle that they feel comfortable with on a personal level?  There are no widely known attempts by homosexuals to have the homosexual family be established as the status quo nor should there be any expectation of such.  Since there are no direct attacks on the institution of marriage by the homosexual community generally speaking, I can only assume that you are referring to some sort of indirect undermining of the concept of family.  It's hard to pin down the substance under all the rhetoric in this argument, but it seems there is some vague idea that family as traditionally known will in some way become less valid if homosexual families are also recognized.  It makes no sense to me unless the important parts of families are genes and genitalia rather than emotional support, love, and all that warm fuzzy stuff.  So the analogy I was making was that while you may not actively lobby against the Jewish faith, or attack and try to ridicule or even try to disenfranchise those who follow such beliefs.  You don't even have to make a comment that you disagree with the validity of their faith.  Simply by being of a different faith, you are undermining the validity of the Jewish religious tenents.  After all, they cannot be correct if you are.  This is the same type of reasoning from which the perception of homosexual couples "actively attacking traditional families" results.  The homosexual couple does not have to make negative comments about traditional families nor in any way seek to undermine the validity of traditional marriage, yet they will be accused of "attacking" it by simply exercising their own discretion in how to live their life. 

And how can you say, "yes they are equal citizens" and then go on to discuss rights that they should not have which are given to heterosexual couples?  That is a strange version of equality.  You can't say it's not right just because your particular view of the sky-fairy happens to tell you it's not right.  There are churches, christian churches, that do endorse it.  Maybe they have a better understanding of god.  Who knows?  But certainly when the government starts amending citizens' rights- particular a right that has no evident effect on anyone else- simply because it is "wrong", they certainly seem to be endorsing not only a particular religious belief, but a particular subset of that religious belief.  Laws cannot be based simply on vague notions of morality in a free nation, but on the effect of those laws to maintain an orderly, equal, and just society.  You don't have to legislate immorality.  The laws were already in place regarding marriage.  As a great nation, it reflects positively upon our character when we embrace progress and, with ever-widening arms, gather in those cast aside and left without the light of acceptance into the embrace of freedom and equality.  As we protect the rights and freedoms of  individuals, no matter how great our disagreement with them or how few there may be, even unto a minority of one, so goes the brightness of Liberty's torch in our nation.

The Southern Fried Skeptic

***UPDATE 11/30/06***

jtobler
I already explained that it's the treating homosexual couples like parents that I worry about. I personally find the lifestyle disgusting, but I find squeezy cheese disgusting to, but I don't want that outlawed. I just don't want to see the day when children are being rased by two mothers or two fathers. It's just wrong. I don't need a man in a funny hat to tell me that.

I beleive that a child has rights to be reared by a loving father and mother. Those are the rights that I fight to protect.

I strongly disagree. There is right and there is wrong. You don't need an edict from God to explain right and wrong.

I suppose we just see progress as something different. Societies disintegrate from the decay of morals and values. History has taught this lesson the hard way again and again. So as acceptance of lower and lower degrees of morality progresses, our society regresses. That's how I see it.

SFS
Here's the difficulty I have.  You make the following statements:

"It's just wrong. I don't need a man in a funny hat to tell me that."
" There is right and there is wrong. You don't need an edict from God to explain right and wrong."

From where do we draw this mysterious knowledge of right and wrong?  Is there any answer that is appropriate in a pluralistic nation which respects all beliefs?  Obviously there are some who disagree with what you "feel" is right and wrong.  Why is your intuition on morality superior to theirs?  The majority of the people felt slavery was morally acceptable at one time.  So I don't think we can use that as a reference.

" I beleive that a child has rights to be reared by a loving father and mother. Those are the rights that I fight to protect."

Would you rather a child not exist than be raised by a same sex couple?  I am sure many people believe a child has the right to be raised by people of faith.  Should atheists be denied parental rights since they teach their children to not believe in god?  Many children are raised by one parent.  Perhaps divorce should be outlawed.  Since there is far less outcry for the banning of divorce, it seems that some believe it is better to be raised by one parent than have two loving parents who happen to be of the same sex.  And no one is against any child having a loving father and mother.  But I think that a child can benefit from having two loving mothers or fathers.  Too many kids have no loving environment at home.  More people in loving relationships wanting to have children could also lead to more adoptions and more children being taken out of state care and into a good home.

"Societies disintegrate from the decay of morals and values. History has taught this lesson the hard way again and again."

Could you give more specific references to support this?  I believe it is more accurate to say that sometimes morals and values evolve as societies change.  To say society disintegrates is to view it as a solid, static structure while I believe more accurately it is analgous to a fluid, a dynamic organism constantly changing and reforming itself.  I mentioned slavery earlier.  There is no admonition concerning slavery that can be drawn from Biblical sources.  And certainly at some point it was morally acceptable to most of society.  Still, as societies change, the values and morals- which seem so rigid in a narrow view- can change also.  I cannot see acceptance as a negative or ascribe to a view that says unless I deny to others their right to happiness under the arrogant auspices that I possess infallible knowledge about what is best for them, for children, and for society, that our society will collapse.  Rather, accepting humbly that though I may live a different life, I cannot with certainty say that their life together is of less value or that their love and the love they may have for a child is any less noble than a traditional family.

***UPDATE 2 ***

jtobler
It's not the way I beleive, all people are capable of distinguishing right and wrong no matter their beleif, their culture, their upbringing. It's a light given to all human beings. It can be ignored, it can be supressed, it can be misconstrewed, but it's there, and I feel that every human being should be responsible for it.

Now, I certainly think there are worse things than being raised in a homosexual home. Of course a loving environment is important for the growth of a child. Boken homes are scarring too. But I feel so strongly about family that I beleive that we should not have to choose the lesser of two evils. Yes, I said evil. Crucify me.

You're right of course, societies must change, must adapt. I just have problems with ignoring basic concepts of right and wrong. Because of the uber scar America has because of racial bigotry, and because Homosexuals have been wrongly treated in much the same way, they play the guilt card into manipulating good people to get what they want, in this case parenting rights. Call me narrow-minded, but I will forever beleive that a child has the right to be reared by a loving father and a loving mother.

SFS
There are many who would disagree on right and wrong not only in this example, but in many other situations.  How do know which perspective is superior?  We leave behind the metaphysical sources that may divide and conflict between individuals and use reason to search for truths that we share.  The idea of a round earth or a heliocentric solar system met with resistance at first, but now are almost universally accepted.  Far more universally accepted and agreed upon (even in details) than any particular religious view or moral perspective.  This is because it is based in reason.  If scientific, well-executed, unbiased sociological and psychological studies showed that children would suffer severe or lasting emotional damage from being raised by a same-sex couple, then I would most likely support a ban on such a situation as well.  As of now, all serious studies show there is no real difference between those raised by same gender and different gender parents.  I am just not willing to restrict freedom on the basis of personal whim. 

I wasn't trying to use the slavery issue as a guilt issue.  I was using more as an example of changing morals and value in society.  Manifest destiny is another changing value.  The divine right of kings is a value that has changed.  We need to watch for real harm, not simply those trends that harm our particular sense of propriety.

I am far more concerned about a lack of compassion and apathy concerning the world beyond their backyard in America.  I am also more concerned about our unrealistic approach to education reform.  I am not going to call you narrow-minded.  I just hope that you'll reflect upon some of my points and I will reflect upon yours.  I think we are both well-meaning, and it is good that this was a pleasant debate.

 

Six out of seven States voted AGAINST homosexuals to have the ability of marriage.

 

Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia and Wisconsin are the States in which its citizens took a stand for normal and traditional marital morality. Only Arizona went down to defeat with 51% acknowledging homosexual marriage.

 

In 2004 eleven States officially took a legislative stand to validate the sanctity of Marriage between a man and a woman. This means in a two year period seventeen States made normal and traditional Marriage the law of the land.

 

The ONLY States that have legalized homosexual marriage are those States in which Liberal/Left Judges legislated from the Bench. Not one State has had its legislature or its citizens (Initiative process) to validate homosexual abomination nuptials.

 

The Democratic Party may have regained Congress; however Americans still view Judeo/Christian morality as the norm above the moral relativity of Secular Humanism. Beware Democrats.

 

Even Liberal slanted California supports the traditional marriage of male to a female rather than the homosexual freak show of male to male or female to female.

 

***************************************

 

Victory for Traditional Marriage in California

by News Staff/AH : Oct 6, 2006 : CBS5, AP
Breaking Christian News

 

"It is rational for the Legislature to preserve the opposite-sex definition of marriage, which has existed throughout history. . ."

 

According to an AP report, a state appeals court on Thursday, upheld California's ban on same-sex marriage. The 1st District Court of Appeal's decision reversed a ruling made in March of 2005, by a San Francisco trial judge.

 

The District Court agreed with the state's attorney general who stated that "it is up to the California Legislature, not the courts, to change the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman."

 

Justice William McGuiness wrote on behalf of himself and Associate Justice Joanne Parrilli, "It is rational for the Legislature to preserve the opposite-sex definition of marriage, which has existed throughout history. The state may legitimately support these parallel institutions while also acknowledging their differences."

 

Gay marriage advocates have vowed to appeal the decision.

 

The homosexual agenda has been seriously derailed in recent months. Praise the Name of Jesus Christ!