Opposing Gay Marriage Is Rational, Not Religious
Leroy Huizenga, First Things
Many make the mistake of thinking that opposition to gay marriage is religious. A Facebook friend recently posted this quote: “Have you ever noticed the same people who claim that marriage is a religious institution only think that LGBT people shouldn’t get married? They never seem to object to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists getting married.”
Federal judge rules against Hawaii gay marriage
Jennifer Sinco Kelleher, Associated Press
A federal judge ruled Wednesday against two Hawaii women who want to get married instead of enter into a civil union, handing a victory to opponents of gay marriage in a state that’s been at the forefront of the issue.
Puritans: The Original Republicans?
Thomas Kidd, The Anxious Bench
What political legacy did the Puritans leave to America? There was a time when historians commonly portrayed the Puritans as America’s founding democrats.
Anything But Human
Richard Polt, New York Times
Wherever I turn, the popular media, scientists and even fellow philosophers are telling me that I’m a machine or a beast. My ethics can be illuminated by the behavior of termites. My brain is a sloppy computer with a flicker of consciousness and the illusion of free will. I’m anything but human.
Glad to see the obligatory anti-gay marriage post for the day!
“Marriage existed before Church and state”
So did polygamy.
“Marriage concerns the physical complementarity of the sexes. ”
That’s a tautology if ever I’ve seen one: “Marriage is defined as the uniting of opposite genders because opposite genders are required to form a marriage.” Not a very persuasive argument, IMO.
“[T]he state has an interest in regulating marriage, which is a public institution, to the end of “assur[ing] stability in society and the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens.”’
That is one of its interests. Marriage has a beneficial and stabilizing impact on the parties involved whether children result from the union or not. See here.
“The Church is also interested in regulating marriage..”
Is it? Why have I not heard the Church demand that the state place the same restrictions on heterosexual couples that the Church supposedly does? As far as I can tell, the Church has been completely disinterested in legislating the relationships of heterosexuals.
Look, if you want to make civil divorce more difficult to obtain, many gay-marriage supporters might get on board with that, especially when children are involved.
I don’t think anyone here is a “bigot” or a “hater” … but I don’t think these arguments are very reasonable, and I certainly don’t think most of you have stopped to consider the needs and rights of gay men and women in America. Perhaps if this argument were not approached from merely an abstract, vague ideal but dealt with the realities of life as it is …
Glad to see James Michels caught up again in the anti-homosexual post of the day…He must be the new “Meggie.”
John writes, “He must be the new ‘Meggie.’”
The “old” Meggie made herself unpopular by correcting some false information and providing links to the correct information. Verboten! LOL! But I agree with James’s arguments. Even if it were historically accurate to claim marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman, would it matter? All cultures up to and including the Stone Age practiced cannibalism. Does this mean we should never have stopped cannibalizing? After all, our ancestors did so for generations. Many of our ancestors were either slaves or slave owners. Should we therefore support slavery? Our ancestors could be extremely cruel and barbaric. It’s quite nauseating to read about how the early kings and queens of England, for example, had their rivals killed. I like to believe that the human race has grown and developed in many ways over the centuries.
I don’t know who the old Meggie was, but “ThenewMeggie”
is making a curious argument. Is she saying old-fashioned
marriage is like slavery or cannibalism? I don’t think so, or
why would gays want a part of it. Is she saying that gay
marriage is no worse than “the early kings and queens of
England”? I don’t think so, as it sets a very low bar. Of
course, she needs to make a positive argument to make
sense. She hasn’t here.
But then neither has James Michaels. He basically claims
that the arguments he mentions about straight marriage
fail to persuade him. But he does not develop a positive
argument in favor of his viewpoint. Does he think his lack
of an argument is better than the arguments he rejects?
Mike,
Keep in mind James and Meggie come to a Christian blog and tout unbiblical things in very illogical, double-speak ways and then act appalled that such a blog would post things contradictory to their ‘superior’ opinions.
@Mike Melendez:
I’ve made several positive arguments for gay marriage on this blog before. In short, marriage serves a public good even if no children are produced. It benefits the individuals involved by providing stability and permanence, both factors that profoundly influence mental, emotional and even financial health. Marriage would especially benefit the gay community which has suffered the repercussions of promiscuity even more so than the heterosexual community (which has reaped not only venereal disease but unwanted pregnancies, abortion and the abandonment of children).
There has been no compelling evidence that acknowledging these unions negatively impacts heterosexual marriage.
Regarding the Bible …
I will concede that Scripture has offered some profound moral insights. At the same time, one cannot deny that it condones and even commands human slavery (Exodus 21:20-21 even condones beating one’s slaves). It has decreed that people die in horrific ways for trivial offenses (such as the man brutally stoned to death for gathering wood on the Sabbath). It has insisted that women are so beneath men and their opinions regarding theology so beyond worthless that they should just shut up … at least within the confines of a church. It implies that women who divorce their husbands for abuse are adulterers.
Believe what you want, but I don’t want our laws based on a literal and narrow reading of this book.
@ThenewMeggie: “I like to believe that the human race has grown and developed in many ways over the centuries.”
I would agree with this. For instance, there appears to be a moral progression from say “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others”, the so-called silver rule of Confucius (among others). to “… you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 19:18).
Jesus, when needled by a lawyer as to who is [my] neighbor, gave the parable of the good Samaritan in Luke 10. Was this a development of the principle of general beneficence? Does it represent a positive development, or “growth”?
Contrast Christ’s parable with Kant’s categorical imperative. Is this development or growth?
There can be growth and positive moral development if drawn from the same well that springs forth all morals.