The Sanctity Of Marriage

[PaulS]

As a married hetro male, I get a little tired of people preaching about how marriage is only meant to be between a man and a woman, and the fear-mongering that goes with any suggestion of same-sex marriage as though somehow a gay mariage is going to tear down the 'institution' of marriage (whatever the hell 'institution' means). Frankly, I just don't understand how gays marrying, in any way diminishes hetro marriage. A lifetime committment to the one you love is the same for hetros as for gays.

 

Unfortunately the right for gays to marry still faces an uphill battle in Australia, although I think there is traction and I hope for it to be fully legal within years (which is way to slow, I know).

 

Anyway, I just wanted to share this paragraph from Jack Spong's latest newsletter.

 

"Did God set monogamous coupling as the original basic building block of all human society in the creation story of the book of Genesis? Of course not! Does the good archbishop not know that the “seven-day” creation story of Genesis 1:1-2:4a is a product of the 6^th century BCE? Does he not know that the story of the “fall,” as related in Genesis 2:4b-24 is the product of the 10^th century BCE? Neither of these times is anywhere close to the beginning of human history. Human-like creatures, called hominids, have populated this planet for at least 4,000,000 years, and self-conscious, language-using, recognizably human creatures have been on this planet, according to the best scientific estimates for somewhere between 100,000 and 250,000 years. The biblical story of creation is, thus, very recent, relatively speaking. In most of human history monogamous marriage between one man and one woman was all but unknown. The original pattern of human “marriage” and family life appears to have been polygamy and harems. Since women were largely regarded as property in that period of time, the number of wives a man had determined his wealth and status. A vestigial reminder of this value system is preserved in church marriage ceremonies, when one man, the father, gives the bride away to another man, the husband, as if she were a possession. When the early writers of the Bible sought to describe this period of their own Hebrew ancestry, they quite accurately portrayed their forebears, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as polygamous people. Even the ultimate Jewish hero, King David, who was called “the man after God’s own heart,” was portrayed as the husband of many wives. His son, Solomon, in whose reign the Adam and Eve story was actually written, was famous for having had 300 wives and 700 concubines. So the suggestion that the monogamous, heterosexual marriage of one man to one woman is the original divine plan written into “natural law” and is, therefore the “basic building block of the social order” and thus not capable of being altered is both patently false and historically inaccurate. Marriage as a human institution has been and still is evolving from polygamy based on male supremacy to monogamy, based on sexual equality. In the light of this understanding the ability to grant to same-sex couples the dignity and sanction of official marriage is simply another step to be welcomed in that evolution."

Edited October 26, 2012 by PaulS

[NORM]

The Gay Agenda:

 

http://www.markfiore...ion/agenda.html

[PaulS]

The Gay Agenda:

 

http://www.markfiore...ion/agenda.html

 

Love it!

[Neon Genesis]

Whenever I hear homophobic Christians rail about the santicty of marriage, I always think of this:

[GeorgeW]

Frankly, I just don't understand how gays marrying, in any way diminishes hetro marriage.

 

Nor do I.

 

But, none of the arguments against same-sex marriage are rational. They are emotional reactions and should be understood as such.

 

George

[JosephM]

While i support the ability to grant to same-sex couples the dignity and sanction of many of the benefits of officially recognized marriages , i also support the right of a society/nation to determine its own rules of acceptance of what it deems appropriate and best for its evolution even if that disagrees with my personal views .

Joseph

 

George,

Rational is subjective. IMO, you go out on a limb saying NONE of the arguments against are even rational.

Edited October 26, 2012 by JosephM
changed wording of first sentence

[GeorgeW]

George,

Rational is subjective. IMO, you go out on a limb saying NONE of the arguments against are even rational.

 

Joseph, I would be interested in hearing a rational argument against same-sex marriage.

 

George

[JosephM]

Well George the real question is... Rational argument to who? For example there is this article. I am neither expressing agreement or disagreement with it but only making a point that "making a so called 'rational argument' of this issue " is highly subjective.

Joseph

[DCJ]

Joseph, I would be interested in hearing a rational argument against same-sex marriage.

 

George

Try this one: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

[GeorgeW]

Well George the real question is... Rational argument to who? For example there is this article. I am neither expressing agreement or disagreement with it but only making a point that "making a so called 'rational argument' of this issue " is highly subjective.

Joseph

 

Joseph, I glanced through the article and in spite of its title, I found no rational, non-religious argument.

 

George

[JosephM]

George,

Just because you found it not a "rational argument", i would ask.... Does that make it so? Take a read of DCJ's article quoted above and tell me if it is more or less rational or not at all? It has better credentials than my reference and it appears most rational to me as an argument against. Whether i would agree or not is another matter.

 

DCJ,

Thanks for the input and reference.

[GeorgeW]

George,

Take a read of DCJ's article quoted above and tell me if it is more or less rational or not at all? It has better credentials than my reference and it appears most rational to me as an argument against.

 

Joseph, I looked and the article is 42 pages. I don't have the time now to read it and comment. Maybe you or DCF would like to summarize a specific rational argument against same-sex marriage from the article.

 

George

[minsocal]

Try this one: http://papers.ssrn.c...ract_id=1722155

 

Have not read much of the article. The abstract places it in the late 1800's as far as thinking goes on the subject.

 

Myron

[minsocal]

Well George the real question is... Rational argument to who? For example there is this article. I am neither expressing agreement or disagreement with it but only making a point that "making a so called 'rational argument' of this issue " is highly subjective.

Joseph

 

The article is rather old school and reinforcing of the status quo.

 

Myron

[minsocal]

"

Point 6

 

Discuss Point 6 of the TCPC 8 Points...

 

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we...

Find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes.

 

or more recently and simply restated and re-numbered as Point 5...

 

Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes."

[JosephM]

George,

 

I am not at all interested in a debate or presenting an argument. A summariy already exists at the beginning in the article and then goes into detail in the pages that follow. My point remains, you made the statement "none of the arguments against same-sex marriage are rational. They are emotional reactions and should be understood as such." (i emphasized none)

 

I commented that you are hanging yourself out on a limb with that statement. I don't share the belief that there are no rational arguments and i believe DCJ does likewise. it appears to me that you are closed on the issue that there are. So we presented you with what seemed to us a rational rather than emotional argument that may be perhaps as Myron points out old thinking. But regardless, thinking that doesn't agree with your present view i personally wouldn't call not rational without a more thorough investigation..

 

Joseph

 

Myron,

Sorry, but i fail to see the applicability of point 6 to the article. i am not advocating either side of the issue at hand, just acknowledging that there exists rational thought on both sides of the issue. PC's 8 points do not speak , in my view, to either side of the issue of recognizing same sex marriages as a legitimate institution in society. Understanding on both sides to me is more valuable than statements such as there are no rational arguments that exist.

 

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

I am not at all interested in a debate or presenting an argument. A summariy already exists at the beginning in the article and then goes into detail in the pages that follow.

 

Joseph, I don't wish to get into a debate as well. However, I am still waiting to hear rational argument against same-sex marriage. If you or DCF could summarize one or point specifically to one in the articles, I would be most interested. There must be something that you guys found persuasive that led you to post links to the articles.

 

George

[NORM]

Well George the real question is... Rational argument to who? For example there is this article. I am neither expressing agreement or disagreement with it but only making a point that "making a so called 'rational argument' of this issue " is highly subjective.

Joseph

 

Thanks, Joseph. You unwittingly provided a rational argument FOR the acceptance of same sex marriage!

 

The article you posted makes the point that "traditional" marriage (between a man and woman) was not something that Christians or even Jews invented. No, it was conceived in the minds of human beings and established as a custom long before The Church erected one single flying buttress.

 

Since marriage is a social construct invented in the minds and heart of mankind, it stands to reason that it is quite permissible to alter such constructs as seems fit for the circumstances.

 

And, since nowadays homosexuals are no longer content to remain in the closet, it's time the human-made institute of marriage evolve to embrace those among us who are naturally inclined to seek a partner among their own sex.

 

Thanks for the article!

 

NORM

[NORM]

Try this one: http://papers.ssrn.c...ract_id=1722155

 

Well, I am all for rational arguments on any given subject. But, you lose me when you misstate the facts. From the article:

 

Their [Revisionists who seek equal rights for homosexuals to marry] goal is to abolish the conjugal conception of marriage in

our law and replace it with the revisionist conception. - emphasis mine

 

There is no such effort of which I am aware.

 

It also overstates the importance of heterosexual coitus in the codification of marriage. The article goes to some length to illustrate the importance of sexual intercourse in the marriage contract. While this is true, there are certainly plenty of examples of thriving marriages where there is NO sexual intimacy at all.

 

It also speaks of heterosexual marriage that produces children as the "ideal."

 

I don't think that most advocates of gay marriage have truck with that notion in the abstract. However, it is a fact of life that homosexuals exist and are attracted to one another in just the same way as heterosexual couples.

 

And, further; there are newer studies http://www.crisismag...ame-sex-couples than the paper cites (the paper's documentation is quite old) that point to countless homosexual couples who have reared normal, healthy children.

 

They do not seek to deny John and Jane Doe the right to enjoy the privileges of marriage. On the contrary, they wish to join their ranks.

 

I'm with George on this one: I still see no rational reason to deny same sex marriage.

 

Sure, there are plenty of rational appeals for discrimination against homosexuals - but I have yet to see one that wins the argument.

 

And, in societal evolution, it's all about the winning!

 

NORM

[Neon Genesis]

While i support the ability to grant to same-sex couples the dignity and sanction of many of the benefits of officially recognized marriages , i also support the right of a society/nation to determine its own rules of acceptance of what it deems appropriate and best for its evolution even if that disagrees with my personal views .

Joseph

 

George,

Rational is subjective. IMO, you go out on a limb saying NONE of the arguments against are even rational.

Do you think bans on interracial marriage are subjective beliefs that individual nations should be allowed to decide on whether or not to ban? Would you have supported the U.S.'s "right" to ban interracial marriage if they had decided to continue the ban rather than overturn it?

[GeorgeW]

It also speaks of heterosexual marriage that produces children as the "ideal."

 

Those who argue against same-sex marriage because the purpose is procreation, do not at the same time favor banning heterosexual marriage involving a sterile partner or banning the marriage of post-menopausal women. They don't advocate medical tests to prove fertility. So, the procreation argument is not "rational."

 

I would agree that procreation and child rearing is a reason for marriage. But, there are others reasons as well; sex, companionship, economic, etc. I would not agree (and neither do they) that procreation should be a requirement.

 

 

George

[JosephM]

Do you think bans on interracial marriage are subjective beliefs that individual nations should be allowed to decide on whether or not to ban? Would you have supported the U.S.'s "right" to ban interracial marriage if they had decided to continue the ban rather than overturn it?

Neon,

 

I do think they are subjective beliefs. I would not be for banning interracial marriage but i support the right of society to decide the issue whether i am in agreement or not. Would i vote to overturn such? Yes , of course.

[JosephM]

Joseph, I don't wish to get into a debate as well. However, I am still waiting to hear rational argument against same-sex marriage. If you or DCF could summarize one or point specifically to one in the articles, I would be most interested. There must be something that you guys found persuasive that led you to post links to the articles.

 

George

 

George,

 

You certainly won't get one from me but i do think the arguments in the long article are rational. Rational doesn't mean we agree. I believe the writer has used his full possession of reasoning to come to the conclusions he has and those reasons, in my view, are not without some merit or sense of soundness. Disagreement with his meticulous reasoning doesn't make it irrational. Because your view differs does not make you rational and him (Girgis, Sherif , Princeton University Department of Philosophy) irrational. That was my only point. You sound to me pretty closed (even perhaps pretty emotional on the issue) without reading his entire essay. But i could be mistaken as i sometimes am, so i will just drop it.

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

Because your view differs does not make you rational and him (Girgis, Sherif , Princeton University Department of Philosophy) irrational.

 

I absolutely agree that my view does not make something rational, logical or even reasonable. But, a point-of-view and a rational, logical argument are not necessarily the same thing. I would be interested in what particular argument in the article that you find to be sound reasoning against same-sex marriage.

 

George

[JosephM]

George,

Most all of his points while i may or may not agree with him use his best capacity for sound reasoniong and rational thought. Me providing a particular statement is irrelevant to my point. I am not advocating an against position. Only indicating there is understanding to be gained by not assuming there are no rational arguments against.