There is No Gay Marriage in the Bible

"There is No Gay Marriage in the Bible"

There are also no automobiles in the Bible. Should we therefore do without them?

Paganplace wrote: "Well, actually the Constitutional case *for* gay marriage does *not* rely on the fact people's sexual orientation is innate. The religious argument *against* gay marriage, however, entirely depends on the insistence that we're people who 'choose to sin' and otherwise don't exist. (Despite all the nasty things they have to say about this minority that 'doesn't exist.')"

The question of innateness has no bearing on the Christian view of homosexuality as sin. In the Christian view every man is born under the curse of sin. We are all fallen. This leads some to be proud, conniving, dishonest and sexually promiscuous. If a person is truly innately oriented toward homosexual lust, he is in no different position than the man prone to lie or steal.

Christ offers redemption for our sin, and begins the process of changing us into the creatures he intended us to be. For the thief that means he will stop stealing, and for the homosexual that means he will stop seeking sexual gratification from men. For both the thief and the homosexual this will involve some struggle and learning to rely on God.

Before you start attacking me understand that I am a homosexual man, but God is renewing me in His image.

Whoever these 'Neo-atheists' are, they don't excuse any behavior by Christians against me. I'm not an atheist of any stripe.

Do try and find the topic.

THE NEO-ATHEISTS and their “innocent” quest for religious knowledge

The neo-atheist which is a new “religion” is a form of “militant atheism” which is against all the religions. There questions to you on this forum are not as innocent and they seem to be. They come here with a mission to create doubts about all religions may it be Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

Before you answer their questions about your religion is it not befitting to have the introduction of the person i.e. what he himself believes in. Internet do not mean you hide a dagger to attack other religions while you hide yourself.

Atheism is a rejection of all religion, or at least of all theistic religion, and since Islam is usually considered a theistic religion, atheism is in principle opposed to it. However, as a phenomenon with its roots in Europe, atheism has concentrated its opposition to religion on Christianity. The new atheism, by contrast, emphasizes Islam as a particularly virulent form of religion that must be opposed. Often, the new atheists claim that because of the events of 9/11, they feel compelled to take a strong stand against religion in general and Islam in particular. Because of this, atheists who focus primarily on Islam, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, may also be considered to be a part of, or at least allied with, the neo-atheists.

Atheists do not have anything new to offer. The neo atheists tend to show no interest in professional philosophy, religion, or theology and target the mass market. The arguments against the existence of God are generally versions of scientism, the view that all of life's problems may be solved by appeal to the natural sciences, and the moral argument against religion, that religion brings out the worst in people. They hide under humanism and pretend to be kinder species. There aim is just to confuse those who have faith in God and religion.

Well, actually the Constitutional case *for* gay marriage does *not* rely on the fact people's sexual orientation is innate. The religious argument *against* gay marriage, however, entirely depends on the insistence that we're people who 'choose to sin' and otherwise don't exist. (Despite all the nasty things they have to say about this minority that 'doesn't exist.')

The Constitutional difference is that the government cannot deprive people of their civil rights and equal protection under the law without proving 'compelling state interest.'

Gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody or the state: in fact, it's a benefit. More social and economic stability is a good thing: people that can help support each other are more resilient, productive, and less likely to end up dependent on state services.

Incest is generally abusive and brings in all the inherent inequalities that occur within family structures: also, it tends to further stratify economics with an inbred aristocracy that wants to 'keep it in the family.'

Polygamy, where one man effectively owns a bunch of women, has similar problems: it's an inherently unequal relationship the government can't condone or enforce. It would be possible to arrange an equitable form of poly marriage, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

There's no 'slippery slope' there: the Constitution simply isn't based on what's a 'sin' according to certain branches of certain religions, even if the anti-gay argument is used to undermine people's understanding of the law in general. Religions may tell you that marrying my partner is the same thing as having sex with livestock, but thankfully, the Constitution has something different to say about my legal standing.

THE NEO-ATHEISTS and their “innocent” quest for religious knowledge

The neo-atheist which is a new “religion” is a form of “militant atheism” which is against all the religions. There questions to you on this forum are not as innocent and they seem to be. They come here with a mission to create doubts about all religions may it be Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

Before you answer their questions about your religion is it not befitting to have the introduction of the person i.e. what he himself believes in. Internet do not mean you hide a dagger to attack other religions while you hide yourself.

Atheism is a rejection of all religion, or at least of all theistic religion, and since Islam is usually considered a theistic religion, atheism is in principle opposed to it. However, as a phenomenon with its roots in Europe, atheism has concentrated its opposition to religion on Christianity. The new atheism, by contrast, emphasizes Islam as a particularly virulent form of religion that must be opposed. Often, the new atheists claim that because of the events of 9/11, they feel compelled to take a strong stand against religion in general and Islam in particular. Because of this, atheists who focus primarily on Islam, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, may also be considered to be a part of, or at least allied with, the neo-atheists.

Atheists do not have anything new to offer. The neo atheists tend to show no interest in professional philosophy, religion, or theology and target the mass market. The arguments against the existence of God are generally versions of scientism, the view that all of life's problems may be solved by appeal to the natural sciences, and the moral argument against religion, that religion brings out the worst in people. They hide under humanism and pretend to be kinder species. There aim is just to confuse those who have faith in God and religion.

Peace and regards.

The reason that gay marriage is different (under the constitution) than polygamy or incestuous relationships, is that people are born gay and cannot do anything about it.

The constitution doesn't guarantee that everyone is free to do whatever the hell he wants, but it does guarantee that all citizens will be treated equally under the law.

This has no effect on church marriages. If they choose not to marry gays, that's their business, but it doesn't mean that they can dictate the laws that we all live under. Civil marriage (it's just a word - I don't care what you call it as long as it's the same for everyone - remember, please, that the bible wasn't written in English)should be available for all citizens.

Polygamy and incest are not "rights" that are granted to some and denied others, so there just isn't any real comparison. Both have been outlawed because they involve men having sexual and other kinds of power over women who are often underage and living in terror of their lives or the loss of their children. And what about polyandry? I don't hear you worrying about the "right" of women to have multiple husbands.

Polygamy and incest are just the fulfullment of male sexual fantasies - they will never be widely acceptable - they aren't anywhere in the world. They're found only in cults, hidden away from society, or in very primitive cultures in isolated places.

So sorry, Globalone, but this is a red herring.

There's no Internet in the Bible, either. That must mean that it's evil. There is, however, slavery, genocide, capital punishment, mass slaughter of children, and mistreatment of women. I guess that's okay, then.

Ken16,

When "Christian Latter Day Saints" strap a sensor around your penis, illegally show you homosexual pornography, perversely watch if you get aroused to shock you when you do, or put so much religious pressure on your gay 16 year-old friend that he blows his brains out in front of you, then you can tell us about "brown shirts" and "stormtroopers"

In Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Massachusetts and Connecticut, two consenting adults, whether they are M/F, M/M or F/F, can enter in a marriage contract (see Wikipedia). In Netherlands this has been happening since 2001, others more recently.

I’m not aware of any good or bad impact of the SSM in the traditional M/F marriage institution or in the society at large in any of those places. Can anybody with better information comment about this? Any reliable statistic?

Best wishes to all,

"There is No Gay Marriage in the Bible"

There is no Leith Anderson, either, nothing remotely like it.

I mean, I dunno, is it me, or are most of these people threatened by a lil ol lezbeen like me kind of *drama queens* about a matter of probate courts?

I mean, if you're all that keen on yer masculine procreative ideals, maybe you could start by growing a pair.

"No, no such right is granted in the Constitution. Actually the Constitution grants no rights, it limits government from infringing on some, enumerated in the bill of rights. The "right to marry" is nowhere mentioned in the constitution."

Actually, the Constitution guarantees that no one, including you Christians, can abridge *any* rights to equal protection for *anyone* without demonstrable compelling state interest.

Even if a majority can be convinced to vote to hurt an unpopular minority. These rights are *unalienable.* Even if you don't like them.

" the same process California's storm troopers trample on when they take to the streets to protest its deliberation."

Oh, dry up. When someone tries to curbstomp *you* at age twelve over your sexual orientation, *then* you can whine about 'stormtroopers,' tough guy.

Gods.

"Shouldn't adults, on the basis of the U.S. Constitution, decide whom they should marry? Isn't this a right granted to us by the Constitution?"

No, no such right is granted in the Constitution. Actually the Constitution grants no rights, it limits government from infringing on some, enumerated in the bill of rights. The "right to marry" is nowhere mentioned in the constitution.

The right to determine for ourselves what way we want to live is enshrined in the democratic process and protected by hte Constitution, the same process California's storm troopers trample on when they take to the streets to protest its deliberation.

"...from your religious beliefs, then those beliefs cannot form the basis of public policy. The 1st amendment clearly forbids that."

Since my religious beliefs oppose murder, theft, perjury, while promoting charity, describe an appellate court system (see Jethro's counsel to Moses), and recognize the moral authority of government, any laws relating to these, and the very Constitution itself, is forbidden by the 1st Amendment, according to your ludicrous formulation. The first amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a national church, period, and is enjoined from prohibiting the free exercise of religious faith.

This plainly stupid misunderstanding of constitutional law is as rife as the ignorance of the contents of the actual constitution by adherents of a putative "right to gay marriage."

The defense of "gay marriage rights" depends on a descending series of dubious propositions. First, that engaging in certain behaviors creates a class of people with a standing to claim minority status, and subsequently to legitimize those behaviors on the basis of the minority status of those who behave thusly, a breathtaking act of bootstrapping. Secondly, that a word "marriage" can no longer mean what it has always meant, a specially recognized heterosexual bonding. Thirdly, that even though the laws that pertain to marriage apply uniformly, (whether homosexual or heterosexual, too young or of age, already married or single, to marry one must be of age, not already married, not too closely related, and be of complementary sexes), inequality somehow exists because the word marriage is reserved for the relationship it has always described.

A howling madness, bereft of reason, unschooled in the constitution it waves as its banner, unleashes its venom against the democratic process, whose citizens have voted continuously to support the traditional understanding of marriage, and against the churches and organizations that uphold the values of western civilization. Never mind that Hollywood celebrities outspent the supporters of Proposition 8, the curent edition of Mussolini's black shirts have stormed the streets in outrage at what the people have decided.

" wildfyre99

"Sorry, I hadn't heard that 25% figure. That guy is smoking something I don't think the Baptists would approve off."

Got him elected in the runoff, though, didn't it?

Despite the fact that apart from it being a really bad idea especially right now in American history, when the last thing we need is more income stratification and suppression of consumer purchasing since he and the GOP decided to base our entire economy on it.... it's never going to even come under serious consideration in his tenure.

Not just a bad idea, but a complete waste of time to even talk about.

Got him elected, though.

Why?

Some people really think you can trust moralists to make the details work out for them, when, if they had a good plan, they wouldn't have to resort to ideology.

The Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (Leith's open-minded NAE), when asked about same-sex unions, said, "I'm shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. . . . We have become so absorbed in the question of gay rights and the rest that we fail to understand the challenges and threats to marriage itself -- heterosexual marriage. Maybe we need to reevaluate this and look at it a little differently."

But good "Christian" Leith, who is is so insecure in his faith that he fears the even the possibiliy of looking at things differently, was appalled.

Anderson said, "he (Cizik) lost the leadership's confidence as spokesman, and that's hard to regain." and Cizik resigned.

In another display of Christian love and tolerance, Dobson and Perkins said Cizik was "using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time," which they defined as abortion, homosexuality and sexual morality.

When we can no longer breath the air and all die off, these so called "Orthodox Christians" will still deny global warming and cling to their hateful, intolerant and, oh yes, very profitable and popular gay-bashing. Poor Jesus.

paganplace...

Sorry, I hadn't heard that 25% figure. That guy is smoking something I don't think the Baptists would approve off.

"ebleas said: Do they all get to claim each other as tax exemptions? Do they all legally have stake in all the other's properties. Just too complicated, and I would also argue it provides an unfair advantage from a tax perspective."

have the poly people file joint returns and the exemption and other tax issues would be solved. might require re-writing the Internal Revenue Code somewhat ...

"paganplace...

"Who said anything about 25%? "

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Nonsense, of course. Like so many other things.

Eeeh. Make it more like 1990. That notion was out before Rush Limbaugh learned to say it with a stupid voice to mischaracterize 'feminism' though.

Also irrelevant to my civil rights and equal protection under the law in the United States of America. You're allowed to be an idiot. You're just not allowed to *enforce* it with *my* government.

"It's somewhat interesting in light of this comment that some of the more radical feminist groups argue that all traditional (male-female) marriages / relationships are inherently unequal, and the only truly "equal" relationship is between two partners of the same sex."

Check your watch, those types of theorists were being laughed at by yer 'riotgrrl' types since 1992.

paganplace...

Who said anything about 25%? Certainly not me. 10% is sufficient if EVERYONE above the poverty line paid it.

Regardless, we've strayed and for that I am sorry. I return you to the "gay marriage in the Bible" discussion

mightysparrow wrote:

Polygamy is believed to lead inherently to inequality within marriage and unstable family relationships. Whether or not this is true is a question I can't answer with the data I have, but the fact is that a rational argument can be made for outlawing polygamy, based on the legal principles applied in our courts overall.
*****

It's somewhat interesting in light of this comment that some of the more radical feminist groups argue that all traditional (male-female) marriages / relationships are inherently unequal, and the only truly "equal" relationship is between two partners of the same sex.

ebleas...

"Stranger in a Strange Land" naturally, as well as "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" or "Time Enough for Love" to name three. Poly relationships are not the central themes but they provide a social framework.

His novel "Job: A Comedy of Justice" takes a hard look at organized religion.

"I believe the tax code should be simplified to a flat percentage with no BS deductions. This would eliminate the supposed advantage you perceive."

Actually, this is the biggest red herring of this year. A flat tax is the most regressive you can have. People who make big incomes are making that off *public* infrastructures and subsidies... twenty five percent of a billionaire's income still leaves them with a billion. Twenty five percent of the poor or working family that got them there's income? That comes out of food.

That's *feudal.*

"Prohibiting poly marriages on this basis is a sham. The only legal form of marriage in this country is an absolute shambles. Monogamy is hardly stable these days. It's hard for me to see how a poly marriage could be worse. More complicated in some ways naturally, but more stable in others."

You're really right, there. The one common element in all but the richest nuclear families having a baby is *exhaustion.*

If everyone being isolated straight breeding pairs in isolation and competition with no queer siblings around to help is supposed to be part of some 'Intelligent Design,' the design *blows.*

It really does take a village.

Poly things are one way where life can be *more* stable. My health is pretty frail, a lot of the time, for instance. If I should croak, I don't want my dear one to be *alone,* nor do I like it when I'm too ill to really be there for her, and fear if I got *really* sick, that'd ake over *her* life. And if, Gods avert, something were to happen to *her,* I'd be back on the street, as the law stands.

Poly things are more complicated in practice, of course: that many more humans involved. Would it happen? Not holding my breath. We're a couple. I'm not against it, though.

It's a separate issue under the law than queer rights, though.

wildfyre99 wrote:

Btw, people interested in various forms of poly relationships should read some of the books by Robert A. Heinlein . The books are SciFi, but he had a lot of interesting things to say about the various forms of "marriage" that are possible.
*****

Any in particular you recommend? Thanks.

ebleas...

I believe the tax code should be simplified to a flat percentage with no BS deductions. This would eliminate the supposed advantage you perceive.

MightySparrow...

Indeed "the state has an interest in promoting stable marriage relationships for the sake of stable families."

Prohibiting poly marriages on this basis is a sham. The only legal form of marriage in this country is an absolute shambles. Monogamy is hardly stable these days. It's hard for me to see how a poly marriage could be worse. More complicated in some ways naturally, but more stable in others.

Btw, people interested in various forms of poly relationships should read some of the books by Robert A. Heinlein . The books are SciFi, but he had a lot of interesting things to say about the various forms of "marriage" that are possible.

wildfyre99 wrote:

I don't think the "tax" issue should stand in the way of any "poly" form of marriage. A civil marriage should be treated as a unit, much as a corporation is.
*****

My initial thoughts on the matter are that it provides an unfair advantage to the people involved in the "poly" relationship. Do they all get to claim each other as tax exemptions? Do they all legally have stake in all the other's properties. Just too complicated, and I would also argue it provides an unfair advantage from a tax perspective.

"Since I believe this country was founded on the principles of individual freedom (found in the Constitution), a freedom can only be “trumped” when it can be clearly demonstrated that the practice of that freedom carries a harmful effect to the society in which it is practiced. So again, I attempt to be consistent with my use of freedoms and analyzing their negative impacts on society and the individual."

And isn't that a good one, too, the people who try to claim that their religion says some nebulous 'harm' is done by queer people having equal rights under contract law....

Well, also seem to be the ones who want 'freedom' to shoot automatic weapons and dump more mercury into the Great Lakes.

globalone wrote: So you would agree that societal norms and the PERCEIVED welfare of the population trump the U.S. Constitution.
*****

The part about "perceived welfare" I would answer yes to. I respond this way as I feel one of the primary and foremost responsibilities of government should be to protect it’s citizens. Government should be allowed to prevent an activity or freedom it can show has a negative impact on society.

As far as “norms” as concerned I would answer no, as I do not feel the government has the right to enforce norms unless deviating from the norm will cause harm. Notice I specifically used the term “enforce”, as in preventing it by law. Government may have a role to “define” norms, but not (necessarily) the right to prevent someone from deviating from the norm. So, the question becomes what role should the government have in response to deviation from a norm. Since I believe this country was founded on the principles of individual freedom (found in the Constitution), a freedom can only be “trumped” when it can be clearly demonstrated that the practice of that freedom carries a harmful effect to the society in which it is practiced. So again, I attempt to be consistent with my use of freedoms and analyzing their negative impacts on society and the individual.

"For many people, as with abortion, genetic modification, and cloning, it is just incomprehensible that such aberrant behavior and prurient pursuits should hold any sway whatsoever.

It has been said that "man is the highest of the beasts and the lowest of the spirits." There is obviously room in the bestial sphere for those who would look to descend to find new lows."
-----------------------------------------

Who is to say that you do not participate in "prurient pursuits" yourself? If your definition of prurient pursuits comes from your religious beliefs, then those beliefs cannot form the basis of public policy. The 1st amendment clearly forbids that.

I also have to disagree with the sentiment that "man is the highest of the beasts." On what basis are we the "highest?" Other animals have larger brains and can do things we cannot do. We have poisoned the planet and killed other creatures more than other animals. I don't see us humans as higher than any other animal- although we are higher in the food chain than the other animals in the areas in which we have exterminated much of the wildlife that would prey upon us or kill us to protect their young or territory.

And, dammit, incest is not the same thing, either, by the way. Incest is some repressed person using their power within a family group to sexually-dominate another using the legal status of someone within a family to abrogate common rights and decency. This is not the same as a *marriage* between committed adults.

It's also *not* the same as people solemnizing the barnyard shenanigans Christians seem to fear 'Everyone' will get up to to if they aren't allowed to discriminate with the power of government anymore.

Speaking of fixations on sex, get real.

If Ol' Bessie the milch cow can enter into a legal contract of *any* kind, I think my last bacon cheeseburger has some grounds for a class action suit.

These 'slippery slope' arguments are *ridiculous.*

Learn. How. Our. Government. Works.

Or don't call it 'democracy.'

(And, yes, conservative Christians are all fixated on the sex they imagine: the nuts and bolts of the legalities and the real injustices people suffer for their comfort in 'definitions' are far more banal.

"While there is some doubt about the medical welfare of children born from an incestuous relationship (see my post to Wildfyre), I'm not sure I understand the dangers, from a Constitutional point of view, of polygamy. Shouldn't adults, on the basis of the U.S. Constitution, decide whom they should marry? Isn't this a right granted to us by the Constitution?"
--------------------------------------

The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not grant us the right to marry anyone in any situation. What the law says is that such rights (and any fundamental right) can be restricted by the government in cases where there is a compelling state interest in doing so.

In the case of polygamy, the courts have said that the state has an interest in promoting stable marriage relationships for the sake of stable families. Polygamy is believed to lead inherently to inequality within marriage and unstable family relationships. Whether or not this is true is a question I can't answer with the data I have, but the fact is that a rational argument can be made for outlawing polygamy, based on the legal principles applied in our courts overall.

The same cannot be said for outlawing gay/lesbian marriage. There is no compelling state interest served by outlawing such marriages. There are only religious interests served by such laws, and that is forbidden by the 1st amendment's establishment clause, which says that Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion.

"I don't think the "tax" issue should stand in the way of any "poly" form of marriage. A civil marriage should be treated as a unit, much as a corporation is.

Actually, that's a decent way for poly marriages to go about these things: since the legal statutes for poly marriage don't exist, (And poly arrangements tend to get a bit complicated: the marriage isn't entirely dissolved, for instance, if one person should pass on or leave) ...it actually seems to make sense for a lot of such groups to form a corporation.

Not that they should necessarily have to, but the arrangements get complex and bylaws are handy for this.

ebleas...

I don't think the "tax" issue should stand in the way of any "poly" form of marriage. A civil marriage should be treated as a unit, much as a corporation is.

markinirvine
"the more i think about it, the more it seems to me that the "good people" in favor of prohibiting m/m and f/f couples to marry are like the "good germans" who turned a blind eye to the anti-semitism surrounding them in the late 1800's and early 1900's .."

Why not, they use the same playbook the Nazis did when they gassed millions of queers.

Lest we forget.

Globalone...

I've seen some reports similar to those regarding incest/genetics and I believe them to be fairly true on a case by case individual basis. One brother and sister have a kid together and that kid goes off and procreates with someone from a distant local and the flaws are unlikely to become evident. However, genetic flaws tend to build up over time and repetition cycles. If that same couple has a daughter and a son and they in turn have more kids, eventually one or more of the children will be born with severe problems. Again, look at "pure-bred" dogs as the perfect example. Each breed has it's own distinctive issues.

the more i think about it, the more it seems to me that the "good people" in favor of prohibiting m/m and f/f couples to marry are like the "good germans" who turned a blind eye to the anti-semitism surrounding them in the late 1800's and early 1900's ...

globalone wrote:

So with the belief that the Constitution is the "be all, end all" source for personal freedom and liberty, why is it that the Federal government prohibits polygamy? Why is it that state governments prohibit incestuous marriages? Aren't both of those things counter to the protections granted by the Constitution?
*****

To some degree, yes. I think there will always be a balancing act between personal freedoms and their effect on the individual and society as a whole. For example, giving all people the “freedom” to use heroin, cocaine, and other such drugs clearly has a negative impact on the individual and society. So the protection of the individual / society outweighs the freedom in this case. Other areas, such as prostitution, which clearly restrict what two consenting adults may do behind closed doors but also have detrimental and negative impacts on society such as trafficking, are much more complicated in nature.

More to your point, I think the issue of incestuous marriages can be easily dismissed due to the known harmful effects to the couple and their potential offspring. Polygamy is a somewhat trickier issue. I argue against it mainly from a legal or tax status position. It just makes things too complicated.

So, clearly the idea of personal freedoms is not absolute or without boundaries. One will always need to weigh the freedom against the potential harm to society or the individual. My general take on life has always been if the freedom does no significant harm to others or to the society at large, it should be allowed. The debate then will usually center on proving the negative impact the proposed freedom will supposedly generate. And I think this is where the gay marriage debate needs to focus. Prove to us the negative impacts to society (and leave the religious aspects out of it). And then we can have a debate.

Globalone...

That would be my position. Indeed I believe we need to separate the civil components of marriage from the religious components.

Basically, I believe there should be TWO forms of marriage in this country.

Civil marriage... performed and sanctioned by the government. Available to every consenting adult human and restricted only between siblings or biological parent and child. This should permit and take into account various forms of marriage including male-male, male-female, female-female or even polygamy. The laws governing the civil aspects of all forms should be consistent and equatable. Only civil marriage would provide for civil or societal benefits such as inheritence, spousal visitation, medical decisions, taxes, etc. and would be the only form of legal marriage "recognized" by the state.

Religious marriage... performed and sanctioned by the clergy or authorities of the people being married. Unrecognized by the state absent an equivalent civil marriage of the parties involved. The social or physical relationships permitted would be left totally to the specific religious community involved. It would only impose religious requirements upon the parties married and would grant NO civil or social benefits outside of the religious context.

I would place one important limitation on the forms that religous marriage could be extended to where they begin to affect larger societal interests, such as the proscription of incestual marriages. Such relationships have a bearing on society beyond the reach of the religion (in that the fruits of that incest may enter the common gene pool at some point and introduce negative genetic affects).

As I said before in another thread: polygamy under the law is legally a different institution than that between two consenting adults: the laws for things like division of property and such do not exist.

*Biblical* style polygamy is different from civil marriage, because under that type of marriage, one man has rights over a bunch of women who do not enjoy the same rights and protections as regards him or each other. This is inequality, and the government can't sanction or enforce that.

Poly marriages in which everyone enjoys equal rights and protections under the law, (including the right to *leave* ) ...well, there's no reason those shouldn't be. But it's not the same as merely no-longer-discriminating against same-sex couples, for complex legal reasons involving the number of people involved.

Sure, it can and should be done, but it's not related to the ending of discrimination against certain kinds of *coulples* as a 'slippery slope.' To arrange something like that would take a lot of deliberate effort.

That's not about a sense of 'moral command' or what you like imagine people in poly marriages get up to. Just about the structure of the statutes.

ebleas,

Thank you for your post.

So you would agree that societal norms and the PERCEIVED welfare of the population trump the U.S. Constitution.

While there is some doubt about the medical welfare of children born from an incestuous relationship (see my post to Wildfyre), I'm not sure I understand the dangers, from a Constitutional point of view, of polygamy. Shouldn't adults, on the basis of the U.S. Constitution, decide whom they should marry? Isn't this a right granted to us by the Constitution?

Wildfyre,

As an aside, I've read a few research reports whose data seems to indicate that the incidents of birth defects is not materially different between incestuous and non-incestuous relationships. I honestly do not know the validity of these reports, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Wildfyre,

Thank you for your comments. Your views appear to be consistent in that if the Constitution should allow gay marriage, then it also should allow polygamy.

I'm assuming then, that you would also take no issue with ANY other form of marital expression, correct? As long as it did not infringe on the personal freedoms or liberties of the parties involved?

Again, thank you for the dialog.

globalone wrote:

---> So, what do you say to those individuals who are prohibited, BY LAW, from entering into polygamist marriages or marriages of an incestuous nature? Is not the FEDERAL government imposing it's societal preferences on those individuals and, therefore, restricting their liberty and freedom?
*****

I would say that the government sees such marriages as harmful to the individuals involved and to society as a whole. Therefore, the government, which has a primary responsibility to protect it’s citizens, correctly feels the need to establish laws to prevent such unions. For example, there are known biological consequences of inbreeding such as birth defects, in addition to the physiological components and factors. I don’t see it having anything to do with “societal preferences”. The job of government should be to protect people, not to dictate “preferences”. But that’s my opinion; surely some will disagree.

Globalone... (sorry for the dup post but what I wrote fot partially garbled the first time.)

"""So, what do you say to those individuals who are prohibited, BY LAW, from entering into polygamist marriages or marriages of an incestuous nature? Is not the FEDERAL government imposing it's societal preferences on those individuals and, therefore, restricting their liberty and freedom?"""

Polygamy should not in MY opinion be illegal. Sure it has the potential for becoming abusive or harmful if the partners conflict, but so too does monogamy. I would venture to say that there is just as much child abuse among monogamous families as there is amoung the polygamous. The prohibition on polygamy IS rooted in religion at this point because there are simply more religious traditions and opinions that say it is wrong (the whole one man one woman thing... there we go again letting the bible control the civil and social matters of people who hold different views than those in power. Religious opinion has become LAW were polygamy is concerned.

As for incestuous marriages, the prohibbition against this is based on the health and safety of any offspring of the pairing and has, again in MY opinion, a valid justification. I don't care what religion says against it because in this case, the religions pretty well understand the issue. Incest equals inbreding and that damages a species... Just look at the health problems that most "pure-bred" dogs have. Gimme a mutt any day!

To raise another point, if we are to believe your bible then the entire human race is the product of second generational incest. Afterall, who did Cain and Abel procreate with unless it was their sisters? You either believe that or that Adam was the plural MEN rather than the singular MAN. Either way you have issues there.

Globalone...

So, what do you say to those individuals who are prohibited, BY LAW, from entering into polygamist marriages or marriages of an incestuous nature? Is not the FEDERAL government imposing it's societal preferences on those individuals and, therefore, restricting their liberty and freedom?

Polygamy should not in MY opinion be illegal. Sure it has the potential for becoming abusive or harmful if the partners conflict, but so too does monogamy. I would venture to say that there is just as much child abuse among monogamous families as there is amoung the polygamous. The prohibition on polygamy IS rooted in religion at this point because there are simply more religious traditions and opinions that say it is wrong (the whole one man one woman thing... there we go again letting the bible control the civil and social matters of people who hold different vbred" dogs have. Gimme a mutt any day!

To raise another point, if we are to believe your bible then the entire human race is the product of second generational incest. Afterall, who did Cain and Abel procreate with unless it was their sisters? You either believe that or that Adam was the plural MEN rather than the singular MAN. Either way you have issues there.

Wildfyre99,

"Please, [k]eep your religion as you see fit but also remember that it is not your right to impose it upon me no matter what your book says about it being your duty"

---> So, what do you say to those individuals who are prohibited, BY LAW, from entering into polygamist marriages or marriages of an incestuous nature? Is not the FEDERAL government imposing it's societal preferences on those individuals and, therefore, restricting their liberty and freedom?

hyjanks,

Let's assume that you are completely correct and that the Bible is not the last (or first) word on freedom and liberty in the United States. Then what is? The Constitution? Fine. I'm perfectly okay with that.

So with the belief that the Constitution is the "be all, end all" source for personal freedom and liberty, why is it that the Federal government prohibits polygamy? Why is it that state governments prohibit incestuous marriages? Aren't both of those things counter to the protections granted by the Constitution?

Why should non-religious people care what the bible says either for or against gay marriage?

Its not like we believe any of it is true or applies to us. I do not need a religious tome to validate or condemn anything I do.

Please, eep your religion as you see fit but also remember that it is not your right to impose it upon me no matter what your book says about it being your duty. To paraphrase another saying... Your duty to save me ends where my nose begins.

(This is the same reply--slightly revised--I submitted to Chucky's essay and find just as relevant to this one).

That's funny. When I got married I don't remember either of us placing our hand on a Bible and saying "So help me god".
I think what Leith and every other religious person needs to do is read a REALLY "good book"--on comparative religion. With an open mind (a miracle in itself?), they'll have to come to the conclusion that there's is not the only god; not the only religion.
What makes your god so special is the message they should come away with. But I realize after having spent a lifetime around zealots that the reading of this particular material falls on deaf minds.
Which, I think, is the curx (Latin for "cross", excuse me) of the matter in this argument.
Throw in hypocrisy on a grand scale, cherry-picking of the Koran as well as the Bible and one ends up with an opinion about as relevant and appealing as Bush's religiosity.
Your days are numbered, Lieth & Company. There will come a day when the pursuit of happiness includes all of us.
In the meantime, I invite all "Christians" who think that the Bible is the final word to join together in a posse, collect a bag of rocks, march down any street in the country to an abode that houses adulterous females and stone them to death. Oh. And don't forget to stone the contumacious child on your way . . .
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

For many people, as with abortion, genetic modification, and cloning, it is just incomprehensible that such aberrant behavior and prurient pursuits should hold any sway whatsoever.

It has been said that "man is the highest of the beasts and the lowest of the spirits." There is obviously room in the bestial sphere for those who would look to descend to find new lows.

Globalone- here's another "lie." Straight people who obsess about gay people getting married are either closet cases or mental cases. Take your pick.

If the United States is going to use the bible, a poorly written piece of fiction, to make rules about who can or cannot marry, then every single rule about marriage (which includes numerous cases of polygamy) must be followed. No exceptions ever. I think a few stonings for adultery and women being forced to marry their rapists or dead husband's brothers would stop that nonsence in a short time.

Anderson said Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24?? What Bible was Jesus reading??
Boy..I'm I confused. I didn't realize they had a printed Bible back then..

A more relevant observation than the Hebrew Bible does not condone gay marriage is, "so what?" We as a society appear to have gotten over this book's admonission of wearing cloths of mixed fabric, and my guess is that most of us don't honor God through careful animal sacrifice, so why look to the Bible for guidance on gay marriage?

Mr. Anderson, as a secular humanist I tend to agree with you that a traditional reading of the bible would make the case against gay marriage. But since it's largely a work of fiction (the bible that is), it makes no difference to me what it says.

What I have a problem with is not that your church refuses to marry gays and lesbians. That is the right of any church in a society where we have freedom of religion.

What I object to is the idea that religious people seem to feel that their own marriages are only sacred and justified if government approves of them. I don't know about you personally, but my marriage to my wife is special to me because of our public commitment of our love and devotion in front of our friends and family. The piece of paper we received from the state is simply a legal contract.

Gays and lesbians should be free to get that same legal contract as the rest of us. Then, churches can decide on their own if they will choose to bless or not bless those unions.

Any faith that relies on the power of the state for its legitimacy is a faith that will eventually wither and die.

When issues like this one are considered, Christians care what God has to say about them, and those who aren't Christians couldn't care less about what He has to say. It's always been that way, and it will never change. On this particular issue, as well as others, the people have had, and will continue to have, an opportunity to have their voices heard through the political process, and the side that doesn't prevail will just have to deal with it. It ain't ideal, but it beats both civil war and totalitarianism.

Homer,

Believe me, I welcome the discussion. It's a prime example of what makes this country so special. However, intelligent dialog is difficult to generate when people, such as yourself, have nothing more to offer than "Because I said so."

Your posts are filled with factual inconsistencies (and outright lies) and suppositions based on personal feelings. It's as though you were still in high school. (Which you might be for all I know.)

The point of debate is to learn the thoughts and feelings of those who disagree with you and then reassess your position. You would be wise to read the posts of arminius, paganplace, thomas baum, brambleton, and others to see how the whole process works.

Some day when the history of gay rights gets written people will laugh at, mock, and wonder at the ridiculous arguments Christians put forth against gay marriage. How many KKK members get their pictures on stamps? Who do we honor- the people fighting for civil rights or the bigots who want other people to know their place.

Sorry Globalone, the fact that the issue of gay marriage is being so much discussed, along with the overwhelming support of young people, means your side has already lost. You just haven't figured that out yet.

Mark,

"Where does the federal government prohibit polygamy?"

---> July 8, 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law. It was the first basic federal legislation by the Congress of the United States that was designed "to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States". Bigamy was punishable by a $500 fine and imprisonment not exceeding five years.

There's no public education in the bible either, or social security, or vaccination against infectious diseases.

Down with all these things?

"Globalone says: I'm still waiting to hear why the federal government has prohibited polygamy when it is apparent no such restriction exists in the Constitution."

Where does the federal government prohibit polygamy? I though that "family law" was pretty much reserved exclusively to the states.

Both the Bible and the US Constitution are guidelines American use to make decisions.

The Constitution sets forth an approach in which consensus and Constitutional principles become the law in the USA.

Over time, man thinks, and man learns. We often don't agree, but the Constitution gives a guideline on how to disagree effectively. Of course there's a lot of side discussions, exhibited personal insecurity, and rantings. We accept that as part of the free, open discussion.

And, over time, we learn and change our mind, given new information, and new insights. The USA once legally accepted human slavery. Over time we thought, and discussed and learned, and by consensus (and conflict) we changed our mind.

The Constitution does not support the views of any one group over another, including views based on any particular religion. This is as I believe it should be.

The process of thinking and discussing and changing our collective USA mind will continue.

I am encouraged that the trend over 200 years is toward individual freedom, and restrictions based only on supportable facts as they are known at the time.

Over time the babble of the rabble dissipates and the voices of the intelligent and thoughtful remain. Such as:

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
- John Maynard Keynes

Regards, Terry King ..On the South China Sea in Shekou
terry@terryking.us

KT11,

"I believe the door is closed for the 'other marriages' because of laws set up by 'humans' to protect their own societies (not just American, but in almost all others too) and not because of some proclamation in the Bible (at least in societies where the Bible is not a bible)"

---> Since the dawn of this country, wasn't the door for gay marriage "closed" just like the others? Has the Constitution changed in some way over the past 200 years, or has societal tolerance changed to allow gay marriage? And if the issue has more to do with societal norms rather than the Constitution, aren't those norms generated by the belief systems of the citizens?

Mark,

"As far as polygamists are concerned, again, most people are not interested."

----> Whether or not people are "interested" is irrelevant. You are attempting to change federal and/or state laws.

"But perhaps an argument can be made that when there are more than two people in a "marriage", the bonds between any two are weaker. Moreover, the people who practice polygamy typically are sapping the strength of society by relying on state-provided welfare for the many children and wives which the single male polygamist either cannot or will not support, and polygamy is really about male abuse of women and female children for sexual purposes"

----> Thanks for your opinions. Unfortunately, none of it has to do with the Constitution. I'm still waiting to hear why the federal government has prohibited polygamy when it is apparent no such restriction exists in the Constitution.

"Thus, I think there are rationales against polygamy that stand up to scrutiny"

-----> Again, either polygamy and incestuous marriages are prohibited by the Constitution or they are not. Your opinion on the social impacts of each are moot considering your primary position on gay marriage is Constitutional law.

Globalone: "You can't argue for gay marriage and then close the door on every other conceivable "marriage" equation that may exist." -- I believe the door is closed for the 'other marriages' because of laws set up by 'humans' to protect their own societies (not just American, but in almost all others too) and not because of some proclamation in the Bible (at least in societies where the Bible is not a bible).

As far as polygamists are concerned, again, most people are not interested. But perhaps an argument can be made that when there are more than two people in a "marriage", the bonds between any two are weaker. Moreover, the people who practice polygamy typically are sapping the strength of society by relying on state-provided welfare for the many children and wives which the single male polygamist either cannot or will not support, and polygamy is really about male abuse of women and female children for sexual purposes. An m/m or f/f couple typically involves no more sexual abuse than the typical m/f couple, and there are legal remedies available for the victim in such relationships where there is abuse. Thus, I think there are rationales against polygamy that stand up to scrutiny, whereas I think that the rationales proffered against m/m and f/f marriage do not withstand scrutiny and after all is said and done, the opposition is based on someone's religious faith. Fortunately, the Constitution of the US (and California, by the way) forbid use of religion (religious faith) faith as justification for a law that interferes with individual freedom.

Mark,

Again, if you are going to assert "Constitutional Law" as the basis for gay marriage, then you are also requesting that federal and/or state laws that prohibit polygamy and incestuous marriage be thrown out as well.

You can't argue for gay marriage and then close the door on every other conceivable "marriage" equation that may exist. They are simply not mutually exclusive of each other.

Nobody's talking about more than 2 people marrying, except people who are trying to use their faith as justification for a law that interferes with another individual's freedom. Keep the Bible in the Church and out of the Legislature and we'll all be better off.

Homer,

Let me provide you with some insight.

First, just because you can't google "homosexual marriage" in the Bible and find a specific verse that validates it or not, doesn't mean it isn't discussed. If you had actually spent some time reading the Bible and learning about it, you would have realized this.

Second, your argument that "Christians" are simply trying to tell people what to do is gibberish. Guess what? Our society does that everyday. Does it occur to you that it is illegal to marry more than one person at the same time (i.e., polygamy)? And why is that? Because the Constitution disallows it? Absolutely not. It's because our "society" has established social norms forbidding such marriages to exist. The same is true for incestuous relationships. Laws exist preventing these types of marriages because of social norms (and faulty scientific evidence).

Not a sermon, just a thought.

Computers, airplanes, corn, chocolate, the internet, gasoline, hair dryers, polyester, the Grand Canyon, Idaho, plastic surgery, eyedrops, gumballs, movies, sewing machines, giraffes, penguins, Australia, Hello Dolly, jump ropes, DVDs, cheddar cheese- the list can go on and on of things that are not mentioned in the bible that people accept and use every single day.

The fact that gay marriage may or may not be mentioned is so completely, utterly irrelevant to my life.

If Mr. Anderson wants to live a Biblical lifestyle- fine, he should march out into a desert somewhere, start herding goats and wearing dirty clothes, and marry two or three women. Actually, he couldn't do that because the average lifespan of a bible-era goat herder was so short he'd already be dead.

The fact that living people want to use the Bible to tell other people how to live their lives, picking and choosing which sections to follow and which ones to ignore, is revolting. But then, people like Mr. Anderson make a living by doing so, so what can anyone expect?

I agree with Dr. Anderson. He is correct in his assessment. Marriage is a sacrament of the church of the first order. The Church is the Bride of Christ not the groom of Christ. Marriage is fundamental, foundational and of the first order. If marriage for homosexuals were approved by God then he would have included it somewhere in the text of over 6,000+ years. Women were oppressed in the first century but Jesus' interaction that made them equal (along with passages from Luke, etc.) were not edited out so why would a practice that was happening on Mars Hill? It is simply not part of God's design.

I, as a voter, allow my faith to inform my views and I will vote based on this - just as all people do whether their faith is rooted in religion or not. The individual becomes a block of people, like in California, who will vote as their faith informs them - out voting another block of voters. It's called democracy.

However, if it had gone another way then I would have been satified that democracy had occurred on a state level and would have lived with the results. I would then have left it to rest once and for all. It would be a case where the people were ready for a change that was not conducive with Biblical principles but was what the people of the country wanted.

Finally, this support of marriage between a woman and a man is something the church itself must grapple with. It's an internal issue that needs more attention than it does on the civil side of things. But don't ever tell me that as a voter I cannot vote my conscience or allow my faith inform my views and votes. You allow yours to inform you.

"There is no gay marriage in the bible."

There's no equality for women in the bible.

There's no voting in the bible.

There's no 'trial by jury' in the bible

There's no divorce in the bible.

There's no protection for religious minorities in the bible.

There's no freedom of speech in the bible.

There's no... Well, you get the point.

Just because it's not in the bible doesn't mean it shouldn't be in American Civil Law.

pallasathena1,

You clearly have no idea what the Bible says or means about a number of topics. I suggest you find other sources to support your opinions or refrain from speaking about something that is completely foreign to you. It only serves to make you look foolish and your argument weak.

whizler,

I can only imagine, based on your comments, that you have no objection to polygamy or marriages of an incestuous nature (i.e., brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son, etc.,) correct? And that the laws created to prevent such marriages are evil, racist, and unconstitutional? (Well, maybe not evil or racist.)

God doesn't exist, the jesus myth is a silly fairy tale, and the bible is a piece of racist, homophobic, hateful tripe that sucks as literature and is useless as a moral compass. I can't believe how much energy you jesus freaks spend on trying to understand how this lame book and its 'written-by-committee-through-a-broken-telephone' ramblings apply to your lives. You do realize that you are all delusional, right?!? Sitting around, arguing over who has the best imaginary friend, or what that imaginary friend would do if he was here... It's like a bad joke - or would be, if there weren't so many of you nutcases around.

Quoting passages from the bible as 'proof' of god's intentions?!? C'mon - do you REALLY believe that crud?

I particularly love the poster who is so scared of god's wrath that he or she won't even write the word 'god', instead replacing it with 'g-d'. That is hilarious, given that the poster is living in the 21st century. It's like a bunch of superstitious cavemen are having this discussion.

Religion is a cancer of human intellect - a vestigial tail on rational thought. One day, history will look back at you people and smile - the same pitying and ridiculing smirk that we give now when we hear about people like the ancient Greeks praying to Zeus, or any other primitive belief systems.

There's no United States of America in the Bible, either.

You'll just have to deal.

Perhaps, Mr. Anderson, G-d didn't think true followers of faith would try to use the bible to inflict harm on their fellow citizens. Maybe its a test to see if you will do the right thing or if you will cling to outmoded doctrine and prejudices. Or if your heart is big enough, your compassion and empathy great enough and your patriotism strong enough to reach out and include gays under the big tent.

Spending time, money and thought on how to keep gays in line with your biases is the sign of a shriveled heart and a miserly faith.

The point is it doesn't matter. The Bible has as much bearing on gay people's rights to marry as Huckleberry Finn or Alice in Wonderland.

Citizens have the right to marry; any gay persons who are citizens, therefore, have that right, notwithstanding what Jesus, Mark Twain, or the flying spaghetti monster might or might not have said or meant.

"The normal reading of the Bible throughout history and around today's world concludes that the Bible calls for male-female marriage."

How wonderful for you and your faith. The problem is, it doesn't matter what the bible calls for. Yes, yes. I recognize that the US has a history of being predominantly Christian and that it is demographically predominantly Christian, but it doesn't matter. Sure, elected public officials swear in on the Bible, but we have to remember that they are swearing on the bible to uphold the Constitution. Homosexuals shouldn't have to settle for your table-scrap compromises of "civil unions" and other such nonsense. The question is not whether or not we should "grant" special rights to homosexual couples...the very idea assumes that they are in fact second-class humans, which they are not. The question is whether or not we can deny them their human dignity. Your arguments from the Bible may work in your own church, but unless you can come up with a valid reason outside your personal religious faith to deny them their rights, then it just isn't gonna work. I'm sorry.

If you believe the Bible doesn't allow for gay marriage, then prohibit it within your church. But to hold that non-Christians must similarly abide by your beliefs is inane.

What's really risible is that Christians don't even adhere to their own laws, and yet expect others to. The operating ethic of today's Christians? When your moral example fails, legislate it.

Thank you for sharing your interpretation of what the Bible states to you. Yet, I have another interpretation:

That argument might sound appealing, but, in fact, it is a logical fallacy (philosophers call this one "denying the antecedent"). Consider a different argument that has exactly the same logical structure:
1. If it is Thursday, then I have to go to work.
2. It is not Thursday.
3. Therefore I do not have to go to work.

So, Just because the Bible NEVER mentioned same sex marriage, to me- it does not mean it is not so. Yes, they mention the acts of sexuality/relations---yet, I can see that the same “acts” are also seen with heterosexual couples. The fact that wives need to submit to their spouse, even if the wife is not in “the mood” (borderline rape to me) does not mean it is so. The fact that only missionary is permitted does not mean it is so--- many people interpret the bible differently. You have every divine right to see your case is so- yet, understand the “do onto others”---meaning, you have every right not to permit same sex marriage ritual in your church. Yet, give those who have no issues with marrying such a couple---that same respect.

Blessings.