I guess this is one area where we Europeans are well ahead of the US. Gay people have been integrated into our society for years and gay marriage is just, well normal.
Harold Martin
· 8 months ago
First off thanks for the comment Mike. Coming from a big time blogger as yourself I feel priveleged. But yeah it's sad how far behind the US is in alot of things. This, technology, etc. It amazes me sometimes. I noticed on the map of Europe just how integrated the gay lifestyle was. I just don't get why it's such a big deal here in the US. I mean I know WHY it is because of religious groups, etc. but still. Thanks again Mike!
Byron
· 8 months ago
Dude,
This is an involved subject with many issues to consider. I'm going to give you a few things to think about, without going into much detail, and then come back and elaborate on them. Basically, you've given the standard media rationale for permitting "gay marriage"; I've heard this reasoning time and again. Dare I suggest that it is fundamentally flawed at a number of points? So let me suggest a few, ask you to "think outside the (media-constructed) box", and think about why the following things I submit are true (and if you can't figure it out, think deeper, dude!). At any rate, I'll be back when time permits to elaborate. Ready?
1. The issue of "gay marriage" has nothing to do with "equal rights". Nothing. Zilch. Zip. Zero. Nada. This is because
2. Homosexual Americans have always had equal rights with other Americans when it comes to marriage, no more, and no less (you don't hear that from the media, do ya?). :) The truth is that for every American, there are some people who a given individual can be married to, and some they cannot, and it's equal for everybody. Currently. Without "gay marriage". In fact, "gay marriage" extends a special right to homosexuals. And I can prove it. Easily.
3. To reduce the concept of marriage to a matter of gaining extra "rights", anyway, is to badly misconstrue the meaning of marriage in the first place. This is what I hear from a lot of folks: "homosexuals" need "gay marriage" in order to have certain rights. But that's not what marriage is all about...people who go into marriage primarily to obtain "rights" are seriously misguided.
4. Some of what you say you were taught is indeed incorrect--but it is not the Bible that is to blame at all, but rather the (perhaps well-meaning) misrepresentations/extensions of Scripture. The Bible doesn't teach, for instance, that all temptations come from the same source; i.e., I fully believe (along with you), that there are some people who are, for lack of a better term, "born" with homosexual tendencies/temptations.
5. The logical leap you've made, though, is that having a certain desire (in this case, homosexual temptation) justifies behavior in keeping with those desires. This is true neither for homosexuals nor for heterosexuals. Having homosexual attraction, I agree, is not a "choice" with some people (and the Bible doesn't indicate that it is). Engaging in homosexual behavior, on the other hand, is ALWAYS a choice.
6. The evidence you cite to support your belief that "homosexuals were born that way" isn't nearly as strong as you believe it to be; rather, that's a useful fallacy that has been repeated so long that it has become "accepted truth" (repeat a lie long enough, and people will start to believe it). A close friend of mine is a researcher on this very subject, and the results of studies that have been done do not paint NEARLY so black-and-white a picture as the media presents and as you have come to believe.
7. For the Christian, it's one thing--and perfectly valid--to say, "some of what I was taught was wrong" (because that's true for all of us, I daresay; I can point to things I was taught that aren't true either). It's a different thing--and I hope you aren't saying this--to say, "the Bible is wrong". I submit that a Christian is on shaky ground to take that position.
8. The old adage is, "before you knock down a fence, you ought to take care to find out why it was put there in the first place." Our current rush to legitimize "gay marriage" demonstrates essentially zero concern to ask, "why was the 'fence' put there in the first place?" And there are plenty of good reasons.
9. I do hope that all supporters of "gay marriage" understand that
A. The redefinition of marriage (and that's the issue, not "rights") cheapens the marriages of every heterosexual couple (and that's not hard to prove, either).
B. In states where "gay marriage" becomes legal, there is now no logical impediment to polygamy (which has a fuller historical pedigree than "gay marriage"), group marriage, even incestuous marriage (I could be wrong on that last point, but not the first two). Iowa can find no rational, logical, consistent reason to deny a marriage license to a man wanting to marry three wives now.
I hope my comments aren't "un-pretty"; I make them with a smile on my face and love in my heart. But I think that on this subject, a lot of folks aren't thinking NEARLY deeply-enough. At any rate, that's an opening salvo; I can back up every statement I make with logic and cogent reasoning. Might I suggest that any readers consider how/why those arguments, many of which aren't even being heard in this critical national debate, are true. More later!!!
Karen Chaffee
· 8 months ago
Great post! I am of the mind that equal rights for all means just that...ALL. (I found you on Darren Rowse's forum, btw : )
Baz - BlogAsReligion
· 8 months ago
Harold, I couldn't agree with you more.
I have several gay friends and, despite what Byron says, they do not share equal rights with straight married couples. They cannot legally be considered Next-of Kin, they cannot cover their partner with health insurance benefits (unless a company has a clause including domestic partners), etc. As for polygamy, now I've heard everything.
Byron - If you believe being gay is a choice, then choose to be gay for a year. Nothing would prove your point more decisively than that. Most evangelicals back down when faced with that 'choice.'
Baz
Harold Martin
· 8 months ago
@Byron I've known ya for years brother. Long long time. I take what you say to heart too. The fact that you took the time to comment means alot. I'll respond to two points you made.
First point is #2. As Baz said on here how have they had rights? My lesbian friend has great health insurance. Her girlfriend doesn't. She can't get her girlfriend on her insurance. The refuse to because they aren't married. If they could be married or even have a civil union that was recognized by the state of Iowa then she'd be able to put her girlfriend on her insurance. So how is that the same rights that I have when I can go get married at any time and put my wife on my insurance? That's where you lose me.
Next one is point #7. I just wanted to assure you I am not saying "the Bible is wrong" by any means. It's what you thought I was saying in that "some of what I was taught I feel was wrong" so we're good there. Just wanted to clear that up.
Byron
· 8 months ago
Hey, happy to respond. First, Baz misreads what I meant; entirely possible that I wasn't clear enough, so here goes: I didn't say that homosexuals have equal rights, nor did I say that homosexuality was a choice. What I said was that "gay marriage" isn't about equal rights, and that homosexual behavior was a choice (as opposed to homosexual feelings). That's irrefutable; you certainly can choose to engage in, or to not engage in, sexual behavior of any kind.
I am a believer in true equal rights. I would remind you that "equal rights" doesn't require a private company to do anything with regards to benefits (such as insurance is). A company can extend to whomever it pleases insurance benefits, or not provide such benefits at all. Some companies already extend insurance benefits to "domestic partners"; some companies will likely stop offering insurance benefits altogether under "gay marriage."
As far as "next of kin" issues, I fully support the rights of all individuals to choose who makes those types of decisions, and whatever other true issues of rights which are now not held by homosexuals, I'm on board with you on all of that. Parenthetically, I think that some of us evangelicals have gone way beyond the pale in opposing every little thing that's come down the pike that extends reasonable equal rights to homosexuals. Personally, even though it's not popular now, I supported (and still do) "don't ask, don't tell" when Clinton proposed it in '94, and there weren't many conservatives or evangelicals who did so; my point is that I'm good with true equal rights, but "gay marriage" isn't an issue of equal rights at all. I still will prove that in a subsequent post, but finally, to Baz's comment about polygamy: "now I've heard everything" is a slogan, but nothing approaching an argument. I'd challenge you to refute my point logically rather than dismissing it with a wave of the hand.
That's all for now, but back with some of my arguments soon. Just hope you're thinking it through, Bud!
Sharon
· 8 months ago
I agree with Mike CJ; this is taken for granted in Europe and isn't cause for much debate, so no argument from me.
Byron
· 8 months ago
Now let me tackle the first point I made, which is that "gay marriage" has nothing to do with "equal rights" for homosexuals, because they have always had exactly equal rights with others when it comes to marriage. That's logically irrefutable, as we'll see. Here are the rules for everyone when it comes to marriage: any unmarried person may marry any person of the opposite sex who is unrelated by blood (and if there's another qualifier or two, it's not my point to be precise to the minute detail; you get the point). That's true for heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, polygamists, and blind albino disk jockeys from St. Paul. In other words, every person in America has always had equal rights when it comes to marriage.
But I anticipate the response(s); I'll phrase them as statements (there might be variations on a theme, but basically, they boil down to this): "But homosexuals don't want the right to marry a person of the opposite sex"; "but this right to marriage doesn't FEEL equal to heterosexuals", etc. And I'm sure those things are true--but before the law, they are irrelevant (or should be). This is why I say that it's not about "equal rights" before the law--we all have equal rights--but rather, it's about fundamentally redefining the very institution of marriage (and I might add, in a way it's never been done before--unlike polygamy, which has a historical pedigree).
Then the question becomes, why should one group (homosexuals) have the (special) right to redefine the institution of marriage, simply because they do not like the way it's currently defined (and if homosexuals are granted that special right, on what grounds should polygamists or "group marriage" enthusiasts be denied it?).
An analogy might help: I have, as an American, all sorts of freedoms which I have little interest in enjoying. I have the right to skydive. I have the right to bungee jump. I have the right to go mountain climbing. But I also have a profound respect for (OK, fear of) heights, such that I am uninterested in seeking my thrills through these and other (in my judgment) death-defying means. But boy, what I really love is speed. I'd love to get my thrills ("equal thrills") by driving 100 mph. Question: should I, on the basis of the fact that my rights don't "feel equal" with skydivers, be allowed to change the rules of the road so that I can get what "feels equal" to me, a 100-mph speed limit? That's absurd, of course...but effectively, that's the reasoning being employed.
So the bottom line is that the whole "gay marriage" debate is about whether one group of people should be allowed the special right to redefine the institution of marriage (before the law) in a way that it's never been done before, on the basis that the equal rights that group already possesses aren't equal rights that those in the group care to exercise. It sets a dangerous precedent to do this; it's not "hate" or "prejudice" to say so.
Finally, every American of whatever stripe ought to be dismayed at the raw judicial arrogance of the Iowa Supreme Court (and the courts of California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts). Did the voters have a say in this? No (and when they did, in very liberal California, they rejected it, as would Iowa voters, no doubt). The problem is that when courts legislate from the bench--unconstitutionally, of course--then the law becomes, not what is passed by duly-elected representatives, and based upon the Constitution, but whatever a few jurists think it is (and by the way, does anyone else find it curious that the Iowa Supreme Court magically found in the Constitution a "right" that hadn't even been countenanced as a possibility for over 200 years of Constitutional law?). See, if a few jurists can hand down such a ruling that homosexuals find worthy of applauding today, they can just as easily hand down a ruling the next day, with no more basis in Constitutional jurisprudence than this decision, that, for instance, denies personhood to groups of people. Jettison the proper function of the law, and you're left with both feet firmly planted in mid-air.
Enough for now; chew on those awhile, but hear this prediction: the response I receive to this clear reasoning will be things like vitriol, belittling, name-calling, and non-thinking dismissals, Buddy; the logic of what I've said is irrefutable, I submit. Folks may not like it, but I've never seen it answered with logic and clear reasoning.
Harold Martin
· 8 months ago
@Byron See I still don't agree that it's NOT about equal rights. Marriage currently is defined as between a man and a woman. Why can't it just be simply two people? Why does it have to be strictly defined and limted to a man and a woman?
Hefe
· 8 months ago
@Harold Martin Why two people? What reasoning do you employ to restrict marriage to two people?
Harold Martin
· 8 months ago
@Hefe That's what it's currently limited two. A man and a woman. Two people. Why restrict marriage to just a man and a woman?
Byron
· 8 months ago
To the first question, you "don't agree it's NOT about equal rights"...OK, I've just made the argument; respond to it, rather than just say, "I don't agree". What part of my argument is in error? Then, after you say you don't agree, you proceed to concede my point: it's about the very definition of marriage itself, and not about equal rights. You'll have to explain on what basis my reasoning is flawed; it's just not good enough to say you "don't agree", dude.
To the second question, you never answered Hefe: "what it's currently limited to" isn't much of an answer, man, because "what it's currently limited to" in 47 states (and in every state where people have voted on it) is "one man and one woman".
It's not a good argument to raise more questions and ignore the points we've made. Wanna try again, amigo?
Byron
· 8 months ago
Further, when we talk about "equal rights", if there are some that are lacking, it seems incumbent upon you to explain why we must utterly redefine marriage to achieve this equality. There are other ways to do it, surely, and as I said in one of my points, marriage isn't primarily about "rights"; the only "right" I had on my mind when I got married was the "right" to have sex--and that had nothing whatever to do with the state! :)
Harold Martin
· 8 months ago
@Byron I did answer Hefe's question. Why restrict it is what was asked. I answered that it's already restricted to TWO people. Those two people are 1 man + 1 woman = 2 people. My point is why does it have to be 1 man + 1 woman to equal 2 people? Why can't it be 1 man + 1 man or 1 woman + 1 woman to equal 2 people? So I didn't ignore Hefe whatsoever. Nothing wrong with answering a question with another question either.
As far as equal rights ok fine right now if a gay couple wants the other partner to be covered under their insurance is there any easy way to do so? Sure SOME and I stress SOME insurance companies recognize domestic partnerships. Mine for example does NOT. You MUST be married and show proof of that legal marriage in order for your spouse to be covered. So how is it equal that a man can marry a woman and get her covered under his insurance at his job but if a woman wants to get her partner covered there is no way she can if there are no domestic partnership stipulations with said insurance carrier. So if I was gay for example then Blue Cross Blue Shield would tell me essentially that I was out of luck getting my partner covered. And since I can't get married there's no other way to get my partner covered under my health insurance. Of course by legalizing "gay marriage" I could now in the state of Iowa because I'd be able to PROVE I was legally married. So you say we all have equal rights. How is what I just said "equal" in any sense? It's discriminatory. Sorry Byron. No matter how you try and spin it, it is.
We have laws protecting people from not getting a job because they're gay or black or asian or white right? Those laws were made for equal employment opportunities right? So without those laws there wouldn't be "equal rights" as you say we ALL have. Or would you say that's not true? Because by your reasoning we all have equal rights. Now without the EEO would you still stand by that statement and say we still all had equal rights? I would hope not. And see that was something, a law, an act, that had to be changed/passed in order to give everyone whether gay, black, straight, white, etc. the same rights when it came to equal employment. So what is so wrong with making a law to say the same thing about marriage?
Dad
· 8 months ago
As Byron has stated the insurance deal is not a right. It is the company's choice. They are paying at least part of it and than can choose who they want to pay that part for. Why is the issue most always brought that that they can't get benefits unless they are married. In a true marriage the man and woman SHOULD (not always true)be in love and they want to spend the rest of their lives together. That love is the only benefit, other than the one Byron mentioned above, is the only reason you should get married.
Eve
· 8 months ago
Great post. I don't have much of an opinion on this topic, I am more 'to each their own' which I guess is an opinion afterall. Regardless, great post!
Joshua
· 7 months ago
5. The logical leap you’ve made, though, is that having a certain desire (in this case, homosexual temptation) justifies behavior in keeping with those desires. This is true neither for homosexuals nor for heterosexuals. Having homosexual attraction, I agree, is not a “choice” with some people (and the Bible doesn’t indicate that it is). Engaging in homosexual behavior, on the other hand, is ALWAYS a choice.
IMO, this is kind of a meaningless distinction. Desire that is not acted upon is morally neutral, so whether you think the desire for homosexual interactions is chosen or innate doesn't really contribute much to the conversation. It's the action itself that carries moral consequences; if you think the desire is innate but the behavior is chosen, I don't see how that's any different from both of them being chosen.
6. The evidence you cite to support your belief that “homosexuals were born that way” isn’t nearly as strong as you believe it to be; rather, that’s a useful fallacy that has been repeated so long that it has become “accepted truth”
More to the point, whether homosexual behavior is chosen or innate, what business is it of anybody's who I have sex with? And what business is it of anybody's whether my next of kin has the same genitals as me or not?
Iowa can find no rational, logical, consistent reason to deny a marriage license to a man wanting to marry three wives now.
Rock on. Let's go. Again, what difference does it make if a person has one spouse or three? Polygamy is the norm in lots of cultures--why not ours?
The next place that people sometimes go is, "Well, why not marry an animal then?" My answer is simple: animals are not capable of giving consent to the degree that is morally and legally required; people are. Next?
Joshua
· 7 months ago
As a female did you CHOOSE to find men attractive? No. You were BORN that way. Plain and simple. Now if that’s easy to grasp and understand then why can’t a gay man or woman be BORN that way? Why must it be a CHOICE for them? It’s not a choice people. It’s something they have no control over.
Harold, IMO the argument about whether sexual preference is a choice or whether it's innate distracts us from the real point, which is that a person's reasons for choosing a sexual partner are none of your, mine, or the government's business. Innate vs. chosen sexual preference can be an interesting topic for scientific and philosophical exploration, but from the perspective of government policy, it's moot.
Byron
· 7 months ago
H,
Yes, you did answer Hefe's question (and sorry it's taken me a few days; what an incredible week I just lived), but you didn't answer it in a way that really answers it. He asked, "why restrict it to two", to which you answered that "it's already restricted to two", to which the answer to that is simple: in almost all states, it's restricted to one-man, one-woman, so why not just keep it that way? The point is that there is more historical precedent for polygamy than for "same sex marriage", and if we're going to fundamentally alter the equation one way, what rational reason keeps us from altering it another? There is none.
On the next point, you missed my point entirely. I didn't say that all rights are equal currently; I said only this: every single person in this country has always had an equal right to be married with all other people. Period. You're talking about insurance rights and we can add others, like dying-bedside rights, inheritance rights, etc. I didn't say that all of those were equal at all; they are not. What I said was that everyone had an equal right to marry, and that's one of the big things that's being argued. Further, as I argued in my "big post", to "dumb down" marriage to being a matter concerned with getting insurance is to degrade it beyond recognition, IMHO; let's just chuck it altogether if that's what it's come to; further, as has been argued, nobody has a right to health insurance (nor should they); about all you've got is that some companies will currently allow "domestic partners" to get insurance, and some won't; as you say, there are some which, if "gay marriage" is the law of the land, might extend such benefits to the other party, but it's equally likely that there are some companies which, either for ethical reasons or for financial ones, will decide to drop insurance coverage altogether, and there's not a thing that the government can or ought to do about that--because health insurance isn't a right.
Your final paragraph is based upon a faulty premise, that I said we all had equal rights, but as I've explained above, I don't maintain that at all, so I won't delve into that one at this time.
Joshua raises some questions, culminating with "rock on" to the idea of polygamy. Understand that, in such scenarios, I have no interest in calling the 27-year special relationship with my wife a "legal marriage" any longer, if "marriage" can mean any old thing. Want to sleep with a dozen women/men as your "spouses"? You are currently free to do that very thing--but that's not the same thing as asking the state to radically change the legal definition of marriage in order to accommodate each and every peculiar arrangement people want to come up with and call it "marriage", and as I said, in that scenario, I'll be petitioning the state to stop viewing my REAL marriage as belonging to that same newly-prostituted arrangement that IT calls "marriage".
Finally, I agree with Joshua on one thing in his final point: it's not the government's business who my sexual partner is. That's not at all the point when it comes to "gay marriage", but it's a point well-taken from the perspective of government policy. But again, that's a totally different issue from the redefinition of the institution of marriage itself.
Harold Martin
· 7 months ago
@Byron A friend of mine wrote this on a forum I'm on in response to a post I wrote asking the forums thoughts on gay marriage and I wanted to post it here. ---------------
From Alpha Phoenix:
I'll say this, I really don't give a damn what two people do in the privacy of their relationship or home, so long as it isn't harming, or infringing on the rights and happiness of others. That said, if same-sex couples want to get hitched, more power to them. I don't give a rat's ass what the nomenclature used for it is, so long as they are afforded all the rights, privileges, protections, and benefits of heterosexual couples. This country was supposed to have been founded on tolerance and respect, but unfortunately that has not been the case in practice. Is it not okay to discriminate against one group, and shout that their civil liberties and right to happiness are being infringed, but then turn around and discriminate or bar others from having equal rights/benefits/protections? That to me in-of-itself is the epitome of the practice hypocrisy.
From The Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
And lest we forget,
From the Preamble of The Constitution of the United States of America: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You see, these are the principles of respect, tolerance, and equality for all that our great nation was to have been founded on. It pains me to see that so many people have lost sight of that and are so narrow-minded about so many things, even though those are neither infringing upon their rights or their happiness.
Section 1. As for those who want to tout the whole "marriage is for procreation" angle and that's why same-sex couples ought not to be able to marry, they are incorrect. Marriage is not for couples to be able to propagate the species, nor is it a natural occurrence. "Marriage" is actually a social construct. I am not against marriage at all, I just know what the truth of it really is and am attempting to enlighten those of you whom I can. The natural order of things is for a male and a female to propagate the species. The natural order of things does not dictate monogamy, only to protect ones offspring in order to ensure the survival of ones genetic line. Without the social construct, monogamy was simply a matter of choice, not natural law. That's the hard simple truth of it. Monogamy, and marriage came later and were constructed by certain groups and cultures and later came to be their way of life, by choice. In those societies, that became a "social construct". Enter The Church a few millennia later.
Section 2. The Church, or whatever the name of the religious body you want to use to refer to it as in each specific religion (but you all basically know what I'm referring to) deemed "Marriage" to be only acceptable between a man and a woman and thereby turned that into Canonical Law (most likely due to the rampant promiscuity, and also that those who were of same-sex couples did not have children and The Church would not be able to increase their numbers through them (let's face facts, with all religions it's a numbers game)). This was then drilled into the heads of subsequent generations with such fervor that it was believed to be a divine truth that "marriage" can only occur between man and woman and anything other than that was an abomination. Eventually this made its way into the minds of even the non-religious because of the Church's widespread reach in society and their unbelievable influence (hence the separation of Church and State being needed). Ergo, today so many people are either ignorant and think that "Marriage" should only be a union between man and woman because that is the natural order of things in order to propagate the species (see Section 1 for the fallacy in that argument), or brainwashed into thinking that it is God's law that only a man and a woman should be together and that it is an abomination (see Section 2).
Now if you believe what you believe about same-sex marriage, and have come to that conclusion based on personal reflection, not influenced or defined by others, then I can respect that. The only thing is that I have noticed many vehemently purport that their views are theirs and theirs alone and are not shaped by outside forces, but I would suggest really taking a look at that to see if that is true, or merely what you believe (or want to believe) to be true.
Byron
· 7 months ago
H,
I plan to comment later on some of Alpha Phoenix's words, but what discourages me about people in general these days is the lack of logical, rational thinking that takes place. Do you not see the logical leaps, shoddy reasoning, and point-missing that Alpha Phoenix employs? The question becomes, is he not capable of carrying out a rational, logic-based argument, or is he able, but lazy or unwilling to do so? Because his reasoning is quite poor, frankly; I'm betting that if you look at it a little longer, you can poke some holes in it, because I sure can...
Byron
· 7 months ago
Picking apart Alpha Phoenix's "argument":
1. Yes, I agree; it's not the government's business what two or eleven people do behind closed doors.
2. That has utterly nothing to do with people "getting hitched". He's certainly entitled to his opinion, but the fact that people should be free to act as they please sexually is an utterly and completely different, unrelated question to "how shall the government define marriage?"
3. His argument hinges on rights and protections, believing they ought to be equal; I concur, but argue that how we achieve that equality matters a great deal, and that there are means short of the radical redefinition of marriage to accomplish this. Remember the argument about "before you tear down a fence..."? He has no interest in asking that question--and it's dangerous not to ask it in every circumstance.
4. The country was not "founded on tolerance"; he'd have to produce a document substantiating that to prove his point; the preamble and the Declaration do no such thing. They guarantee equal rights; I believe in those things; there are ways to achieve them. Now, should we be tolerant? You bet; I certainly am. But refusing to radically redefine marriage just so somebody can have the possibility of health insurance is not being "intolerant" in the least.
5. Redefining marriage does infringe on my rights, though he's probably never once considered that fact.
6. His argument is built upon an evolutionary understanding of human beings (see Section 1; one doesn't have to read far to grasp this). Ironically, an evolutionary understanding of origins denies the specialness of man--and thus cuts the ground right out from under any rational defense of "respect, tolerance, and equality"--the very things he says are so critical (and I agree with that, of course).
7. Do you really believe that "with all religions it's a numbers game"? Unsubstantiated silliness.
8. Finally, in his last rambling paragraph, he only respects views that have come about through "personal reflection", uninfluenced by others. That's bogus and silly on its face: every person's views have been influenced by others, yours, mine, and his included, and to suggest otherwise is the epitome of naivete. Yes, we ought to think; as I said above, one of the saddest things about this whole argument is the lack of rational, logical thinking that is going into it. But nobody with a straight face and sincere honesty would ever say that his/her viewpoints aren't influenced to one degree or another by the thoughts of other people--and his including that at the end seriously undermines whatever credibility he wishes to maintain.
Back soon with more thoughts...
Harold Martin
· 7 months ago
@Byron I'm trying to get him to come here and respond to you as I really can't speak for him.
Joshua
· 7 months ago
@Byron Finally, I agree with Joshua on one thing in his final point: it’s not the government’s business who my sexual partner is. But again, that’s a totally different issue from the redefinition of the institution of marriage itself.
What you seem to be saying is that a person's sex life is none of the government's business, but the government can define the parameters of the institution of marriage. But sex and marriage are legally intertwined. The government doesn't allow siblings to get married--how come? Because siblings produce inbred kids when they have sex.
In the context of a discussion between you and me, we could agree to separate sex from the institution of marriage and discuss them separately, but speaking about the government and the institution that exists in America right now, sex and marriage are explicitly intertwined.
If you agree with me that the government should not be involved in a person's sexual preferences, then it seems inconsistent for you to say that the government should be involved who a person can and can't marry.
Joshua
· 7 months ago
@Harold Martin As for those who want to tout the whole “marriage is for procreation” angle
If marriage were for procreation, then infertile people would not be allowed to marry. This argument doesn't even begin to hold water, and it's easy to point out the inconsistency to anybody who throws it up.
Joshua
· 7 months ago
@Byron But refusing to radically redefine marriage just so somebody can have the possibility of health insurance is not being “intolerant” in the least.
Gay marriage is about more than just health insurance, but even if it was just about health insurance... Is what you're saying here that you agree with denying health insurance to a person who fits the criteria for having health insurance in every way except that they have the same genitals as their life-partner?
Byron
· 7 months ago
Joshua,
Good responses, and I'll try to answer as best I can. Last question first: I wouldn't phrase it the way you chose. Rather, I'd say that, first off, it's up to individual companies to determine what benefits they extend to their employees...and the word "benefits" is crucial; there's no obligation for a company to extend any particular benefit. Of course, companies then live with the consequences of their decisions, but point is, it's their choice. On that basis, then, I'd argue that's it's really none of my business what a company decides to do. If that company wants to limit benefits to those related by marriage or birth, I think that's fine--and if they want to deny the extension of benefits to people who don't fit that description, I'm fine with that as well, regardless of who happens to live in the house with the employee. If they're "live-ins" of the opposite sex, I'm cool with a company determining that they believe that type of living arrangement runs counter to the company's moral stance, and thus would not extend benefits; same argument would cause me to, I suppose, argue that the company is free to "deny health insurance" in the manner you describe above, because I believe a company ought to be free to determine which benefits it extends to its employees. If I were running the company, I'd not extend healthcare benefits to "domestic partners" of any stripe--and I believe that companies ought to be free to make that decision and follow the dictates of company policy, just as Chick-fil-A, for instance, refuses to open on Sundays; they ought to be free to make those calls.
One other question I'd have, by which I don't mean to cheapen the debate and thus won't dwell on, but which I do think is worth at least mentioning, is this: why would not two (healthily heterosexual) guys who choose to live together and share expenses not themselves clamor for coverage under such a scenario (I guess sort of a "Bosom Buddies" situation). You KNOW that this will happen, already is happening undoubtedly. All sorts of cans of worms are opened, it seems to me, but the bottom line is that I believe a private company ought to be free to insure whomever it pleases, and to deny coverage to whomever it pleases.
Now to your first (I really have no answer as to why I'm answering them backwards...): :)
Perhaps I miss what you're saying, but it seems like you've made a both-ways argument. You suggest that there is a reason why the government does involve itself in matters of who can marry who (incest), and then suggest that it ought not involve itself. Right? Am I missing something? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Further, by your logic, polygamy and group marriage are easily justified, right? Because if it's not the government's business who a person can and cannot marry, and if there exists a subset of people who are polygamous, then what's to deny them legally-sanctioned marriage, if that's how they get their sexual jollies? I've never heard a "gay marriage" advocate give a reasoned response to that question, and I've asked it on several occasions. Of course, someone (was it you? I didn't read all the back comments.) came out in favor of polygamy, etc., to which I say, at what point does marriage lose its meaning? I'd argue that it does so when it varies from the one-man/one-woman concept that, with some exceptions I grant, has generally been the standard for millennia.
I've come to the belief that we'd all be better off if the government got out of the marriage business altogether; that's the way it was for the majority of America's history, by the way. I think we could live with doing it again that way, and then I'd not have to worry that the power of the state was being used--as it already has been--to attempt to coerce children, for instance, into conforming to a particular view of marriage.
Finally, and this is related, but a side point: I've been a pastor for over 20 years now, performing about 60 weddings and doing marital counseling. It dawned on me a few weeks ago that, if "gay marriage" were to become the law of the land, my counsel to any counselees would differ regarding the marriage question depending on their particular situation. I never counsel divorce for heterosexual couples (I have on occasion reluctantly counseled separation); I would always counsel immediate divorce for a homosexual couple. That's not real germane to the discussion, but I just found it odd when I thought about it...
I agree that companies can decide who they do and don't want to cover with their health insurance programs. Individual liberty and all. I just disagree with you as to whether denying coverage solely based on genitals is intolerant. You said that it's not intolerant; I think it is. If a company is going to grant coverage to heterosexual spouses, I don't see why they would deny it to homosexual partners, except for an intolerant attitude towards homosexuality.
As to the "Bosom Buddies" scenario: when I looked into getting "domestic partnership" coverage for my heterosexual-but-not-married partner, the paperwork that I filled out made no distinction based on whether we were in love, having sex, or any of the other markers of spouse-hood. It defined "domestic partner" as, "Living together for at least X years, sharing finances," and so forth. By the insurance company's own rules, if the "Bosom Buddies" decided to file for domestic partnership coverage, it wouldn't matter whether they were actually lovers or not. So it turns out that situation is already covered, and is not a problem.
Perhaps I miss what you’re saying, but it seems like you’ve made a both-ways argument. You suggest that there is a reason why the government does involve itself in matters of who can marry who (incest), and then suggest that it ought not involve itself. Right? Am I missing something? Correct me if I’m wrong.
I'll go back to my closing statement, which was, "If you agree with me that the government should not be involved in a person’s sexual preferences, then it seems inconsistent for you to say that the government should be involved who a person can and can’t marry." You seemed to agree that the government should stay "out of the bedroom" when you said, "it’s not the government’s business who my sexual partner is." Then you say that the government SHOULD define who my marital partner is. I'm saying that, as the law stands today, those two things are intertwined, and you can't have it both ways. The government's decisions about who can marry are tied up with who the government thinks should be having sex with each other. If you agree that the government has the right to tell you who not to have sex with, then that's fine. But if you think the government should stay "out of the bedroom," then you have to either get the government out of the institution of marriage or separate marriage and sex. Either way, the gays get marriage if they want it.
Further, by your logic, polygamy and group marriage are easily justified, right? Because if it’s not the government’s business who a person can and cannot marry, and if there exists a subset of people who are polygamous, then what’s to deny them legally-sanctioned marriage, if that’s how they get their sexual jollies? I’ve never heard a “gay marriage” advocate give a reasoned response to that question, and I’ve asked it on several occasions
I don't think that the government has any right to deny people group marriage if that's what they want. I agree with you that people who support gay marriage must also logically support polygamous marriage. That's my reasoned response. I think that people who are pro-gay but anti-polygamy are probably not thinking their reasoning through fully.
And before you ask (if you were going to ask, and no offense, but people have asked this) yes, I draw the line at marriage to animals, because I don't think that animals can give meaningful consent.
Oh, and a side note: monogamous people don't get married for "sexual jollies," so please don't accuse polygamous people of getting married for that reason. Polygamous people get married for the same reasons you did, they just didn't stop at one. Yes, sex is in there. No, it's not about "jollies".
to which I say, at what point does marriage lose its meaning?
If you define marriage as between a single man and a woman, then it loses its meaning immediately. But if you define marriage as "between two or more people who love each other and want to commit their lives mutually to each other," then none of this threatens it at all.
I would always counsel immediate divorce for a homosexual couple. That’s not real germane to the discussion, but I just found it odd when I thought about it…
I suspect that, given your opinions on the matter, the ethical thing would be to recuse yourself from counseling a homosexual couple.
First, thanks for a good discussion that seeks to understand and be understood, rather than flamethrow--which is what altogether too many of these things turn into. And for what it's worth, a word of clarification: I used "jollies" more for color than anything else, not to be inflammatory, per se. Further dealing with another side point, I think that the ethical thing to do would be at least similar to what you suggest--and this, by the way, is the approach I take with every counselee: I let folks know right up front where I come from, that I attempt to take the Bible as my guide for counsel rather than psychological theories and the like (not that I always get it right, I'm sure), but it's on that basis that I counsel anyone, and I'd be sure to be doubly clear about that fact before I counseled a homosexual couple. If they agreed to those terms, though, I'd happily counsel them. I think you'd agree that's reasonable.
OK, my time is limited, so this'll have to be a couple of posts to address the issues you raise. Joshua, your last post is the first that I pick up on that introduces the concept of "intolerant" into the discussion; I didn't use that word (one way or the other) in my response (and I read it twice to make sure). This opens, of course, a whole can of worms, but I just say that to make it clear that you've introduced a new value into the discussion, the value of "tolerance", which shifts the discussion at least a little bit. But I'm happy to address it (though a treatise worthy of the topic is way too long for a little blog post here!). :)
Several thoughts about "tolerance": 1. It is overrated as a virtue. I'd argue that while it's a virtue, it's only as good as its "object" and its definition. There are many things in life we ought to rightly be quite intolerant of; the $64,000 question is, which ones? But to elevate tolerance to the level of virtue it has been is, I think, to value it too much, at least in its "naked" form.
2. Its very meaning has been subtly redefined over the course of the last generation. "Tolerance" used to mean, "live and let live", effectively; I think that my words about the government not having a place in overseeing the sexual decisions of its citizens, for instance, is a perfect example of the real meaning of the word. That's different, though, from the definition of many today (don't know if it's yours or not), which suggests that it's "intolerant" to make value judgments. For instance, I believe the government should not prevent you from living with whomever you choose. I also believe that some of the choices you could make would be immoral--while others would be moral (at least potentially). The new definition of "tolerance" would in the eyes of some preclude my second statement, suggesting that I'm "intolerant" if I reject some lifestyle choices, some values, as being immoral or what-have-you. I utterly reject that definition.
Now, with those caveats, I suppose that one could argue that my attitude is one of "intolerance" (or that, more specifically, I'd defend that type of "intolerance" on the part of a business). If you want to define it that way, I suppose I'd plead "guilty", and believe that this is one of those issues upon which a company ought to have the prerogative to make those choices, to be "intolerant". I think there are good reasons to uphold marriage, to not alter its definition, to prefer "traditional marriage" to any other arrangement, to write such preference into a company's policies. If that's "intolerant", I say, so be it, but it seems to me that that falls under one of the appropriate senses of being "intolerant"
I'd ask you, would it be "intolerant" for a company to deny insurance benefits to polyamorous people? I honestly don't know what you'd say to that; I'm curious. And if four men and seven women wanted to solemnify their orgy (sorry, I WILL call that "jollies") as a "group marriage", would a company be intolerant to refuse insurance benefits?
At some point, there's also an economic factor...but that's beyond the scope of "gay marriage" benefits discussions, I appreciate.
Now, for a few more thoughts. I hear your argument about my "having it both ways", but I simply disagree: I don't think that one's choice of sexual partner is "intertwined" with marriage in such a way that we ought to write our marriage laws to reflect all possible combinations. I just don't think it follows. Rather, while the libertarian in me does agree that the government shouldn't regulate sexual partners, I believe that it has no fundamental obligation to amend its laws to reflect each and every such arrangement. Though the historical record is not without a bit of inconsistency, one-man/one-woman has the lion's share of historical precedent, and the backing of each of the world's major faiths. Further, there is certainly a sexual dynamic to it, a propagation-of-the-species dynamic as well which has no function in the homosexual relationship (indeed, it argues for polygamy ahead of "gay marriage").
By the way, let me mention that while I disagree with your conclusion, I appreciate your consistency, recognizing that "gay marriage" necessarily leads to polygamy and group marriage; all that's lacking is societal acceptance of the latter, because the rational groundwork is being laid if we subscribe to "gay marriage". I think you phrase it wrongly, though; you speak of the government "denying people group marriage", when in fact, there's no "denial" going on, except in the sense of a "denial" on the part of government to be willing to redefine the institution of marriage. My original argument--unrefuted--is that all Americans have always had equal rights when it comes to marriage: any unmarried man can legally marry any unmarried woman not related by blood. This is not about equal rights to marry (remember, H, I am talking about 'equal rights to marry', not suggesting that all rights are equal in all/other ways). To secure those rights, I think other means can be undertaken short of radically redefining this institution; I have no doubt that other things can be done--and I'd support them, by the way.
I think you conceded my "marriage loses its meaning" point, basically (arguing, of course, that it doesn't lose its meaning if it's redefined--but isn't that my point?). My point would be this: I didn't sign up for this diminished definition of marriage, and in the event some loony court in the state I live redefines it thusly, I will seek legal remedy to have that state remove its legal recognition of my marriage; I've actually contacted a legal society about that very thing. I'd assume you'd support my ability to do that (even if you didn't understand it), on the grounds that I ought to be able, as a free American, to enter into legally-binding contracts (marriage) that cannot be altered without my consent. Right?
Once again, great discussion, and I appreciate your spirit.
@Byron Thanks for your comments as well, Byron. I'm enjoying the conversation.
Though the historical record is not without a bit of inconsistency, one-man/one-woman has the lion’s share of historical precedent, and the backing of each of the world’s major faiths.
This hearkens back to your comment (I think it was yours) about tearing down fences. I agree that, if we've done something for a long time, we ought to have good reasons for changing it, but I submit that just because we've done something for a long time doesn't mean it's a good idea. Slavery has vast historical precedent, but we believe that we have progressed as a society to a point where we reject it. I submit that it may be time to do a similar thing with prohibitions against gay marriage.
Incidentally, as I'm sure you know, Islam, the second largest religion in the world, allows for polygamy, violating the "one man / one woman" backing that you claim.
hen in fact, there’s no “denial” going on, except in the sense of a “denial” on the part of government to be willing to redefine the institution of marriage.
What's being denied is the benefits of marriage, some of which cannot be conveyed via any other mechanism. For example, one of these is the right not to be forced to testify against your spouse.
I have no doubt that other things can be done–and I’d support them, by the way.
I would be fine with that. I don't care if you call it marriage or whatever, as long as everyone has equal access to the benefits and requirements of marriage, regardless of whether they have the same gender or not. Although not wanting to marry another male, I'm not sure my opinion matters for much.
think you conceded my “marriage loses its meaning” point, basically (arguing, of course, that it doesn’t lose its meaning if it’s redefined–but isn’t that my point?).
Actually, what I meant to say is that, to me, you don't have to redefine marriage at all to include gay people, because already I use the latter definition. So, whether it's a redefinition or not depends on where you started from.
I’d assume you’d support my ability to do that (even if you didn’t understand it), on the grounds that I ought to be able, as a free American, to enter into legally-binding contracts (marriage) that cannot be altered without my consent. Right?
Naturally. Although, to be fair, I would argue that from a torts standpoint, the contract between you, your wife, and the state has not been altered, and neither party is in default. The state still provides you with all of the benefits it promised you when you entered into the contract. As far as I know, the marriage contract between the state and the spouses never said, "And never shall we allow anyone but a man and a woman to be married," so I don't think that including gays could be interpreted as a default.
Somehow, I missed responding to this one. So now my responses are out of order too ;-)
And for what it’s worth, a word of clarification: I used “jollies” more for color than anything else, not to be inflammatory, per se.
It's the association of polygamy with sex that I object to, not the term specifically. Like I said, polygamists get married for the sex the same as monogamists do, which is to say that sex is a component of marriage, but there are many other components as well.
If they agreed to those terms, though, I’d happily counsel them. I think you’d agree that’s reasonable.
I do.
Joshua, your last post is the first that I pick up on that introduces the concept of “intolerant” into the discussion;
The first mention of "tolerance" is in post #23, from you, and I think with all the confusion of respond to multiple posts at a time, that's how the word slipped into my post. But I'm happy to drop it, as I agree with you that arguing about someone being or not being tolerant distracts from the discussion on the actual merits and detriments of gay marriage.
Yes, Joshua, your eye is keener than mine; you went back further than did I, to a conversation I'd forgotten, but you're right, I did mention tolerance. Now, it hadn't come up in our discussion, but at any rate, you are correct on that point. On to others:
Yes, I would agree that simple historical precedent, of course, doesn't argue for perpetuation, and your slavery example is well-taken. That said, I'm not sure that those who are arguing for "gay marriage" are even addressing the "why was the fence put there in the first place" question; there seems to be almost no discussion of that issue. What pressing concerns on the part of homosexuals--that could not be remedied otherwise--justify the tearing down of the fence (and as I've argued, the most frequent arguments we hear for its tearing down center on the peripheral issues of "rights" which I believe could be addressed otherwise)?
By the way, does Islam in its current form back polygamy? I'm not sure, but you could be right; it certainly doesn't back "gay marriage", of course, but I'm not sure on the polygamy thing.
Why could a law not be written to safeguard court testimony against one's...other? I'm not at all sure that we have to redefine marriage to accomplish this. And in fact your answer that you'd be "fine" with the assuring of equal rights through other mechanisms leads me to believe that that's your key issue, and not "gay marriage" at all--which again is one of the key bases of my stance.
As to the redefining, I have to call you on that one: it may not be a "redefinition" from your personal standpoint, but it certainly is when it comes to the law of the land. You or I can define anything at all anyway we please, I guess, but as a matter of the law of the land, my point stands: we're redefining marriage. And it's on that basis that I'd argue legally for the non-divorce "annulment" of my own marriage, from the standpoint of the state: when my wife and I were married, both "religiously" and "civilly", there was no difference in the very definition of marriage between the two; 27 (almost!) years ago, "gay marriage" hadn't crossed anyone's mind (well, I'm sure somebody somewhere had thought of it, but I'd never heard the term or considered the possibility as recently as 15 years ago). If the state redefines the very definition, against my will, then I believe I have reasonable cause for action.
By the way, does Islam in its current form back polygamy? I’m not sure, but you could be right; it certainly doesn’t back “gay marriage”, of course, but I’m not sure on the polygamy thing.
Just thought I'd chime in with some links to answer your question Byron. :)
Actually, it's just "CTRL-F". ;-) I thought to myself, "I'm sure I wasn't the one who first mentioned tolerance," and then I searched.
“why was the fence put there in the first place” question; there seems to be almost no discussion of that issue.
I think that this is a valid question. The typical response might be, "Because people in ye olde tymes were bigoted assholes," but that's too flippant and doesn't really address the depth of the question. My answer would be that the institution of marriage exists primarily to institutionalize male ownership over female wombs, so as to increase the probability that a man's familial "sons" actually carry his genes. Marriage says, "this/these is/are my women, and they shall bear only my children." From that perspective, you're right that gays really have nothing to do with it. But the institution of marriage has been extended to include a whole other set of rights that I think that gay partners should have access to. This includes next-of-kin, protection against testimony in court cases, and so on. If we could separate those rights from the institution of marriage, that would be a fine solution for me, but I think that gay marriage activists see that as a lower-probability solution than simply extending marriage to include them.
By the way, does Islam in its current form back polygamy?
My research suggests that actual practice is in the single-digit percents, partially due to the financial burden of supporting up to four separate families, but that the religious texts clearly and explicitly allow it. It doesn't seem to be similar to, say, Mormon polygamy, where the official policy is to not allow it, but it's still practiced.
Though I don't share your rather cynical view of the origins of marriage, I'd suggest that your argument centers, as I've suggested, on primarily those ancillary issues (not unimportant, I'd add, but ancillary) of securing rights. I just don't think that people who go into marriage are terribly concerned with additional rights that accrue to themselves; I can only tell you that in my case, the only "right" I considered as a Christian was the "right" to have sex! :)
Marriage cannot be reduced to a "rights-grab" and retain any significant meaning whatsoever, and that strikes me as a further reason for holding the line where it is--though you're probably right with regard to the gay activists' line of reasoning.
@Byron Though I don’t share your rather cynical view of the origins of marriage, I’d suggest that your argument centers, as I’ve suggested, on primarily those ancillary issues (not unimportant, I’d add, but ancillary) of securing rights. I just don’t think that people who go into marriage are terribly concerned with additional rights that accrue to themselves;
I'm sure that some gay-marriage proponents share your values, and consider rights to be ancillary. My perspective is that I can spiritually marry anybody I care to, using whatever ceremony myself and my spouse and the community we live in recognize. I don't need the government to tell me that so-and-so is my spiritual partner! State recognition of the marriage only becomes relevant when I desire to partake of the privileges that the state grants exclusively to married couples. And that's why I think that rights are inherent to the gay-marriage argument, because the gay-marriage argument always includes getting government to recognize gay marriage, and the only reason I can see to care about that is because you want the government to grant you those rights.
Though I don’t share your rather cynical view of the origins of marriage,
It stems from my view that people are, first and foremost, animals who are undergoing biological evolution. So I tend to see human behavior through the lens of, "How does this enhance or decrease the probability that a person's genes will be passed on to offspring?" From that perspective (which I don't see as cynical, although I understand how others might see it that way) marriage looks like a way of solving the problem of paternity. Females always know that a baby is theirs, because the baby came out of their body. Males have historically not been able to be sure. So marriage was a way of a male institutionalizing his exclusive right to fertilize a given female or females, thereby increasing the probability that her offspring were genetically his. To my eyes, all the other things people say about marriage--about it sanctifying the spiritual bond between a man and a woman, and such--that's all true, but it's all secondary to the basic biological urge to support one's own genetic offspring and not those of another.
I agree with a lot of what you say in that first paragraph. My perspective is this: marriage has never been about rights. No one in their right mind 20 years ago went into marriage even thinking of such things; marriage was entered into for love (well, I'm sure there were people who entered it for all sorts of reasons, but generally speaking, you get what I'm saying). The extra rights were fine, but not even a consideration in most people's eyes, I feel quite certain. While I agree that there are undoubtedly some gay couples who feel that rights are secondary, the continual argument centers on the rights that homosexuals are currently being denied, and how "gay marriage" would fix that. It's just a shame to me that for most people you talk to, it comes down to rights. That's not "marriage" worthy of the name.
As to your second point, perhaps "cynical" isn't the best word to describe it, but you've articulated well the vast difference between your understanding of the origin and nature of marriage, and my own. I believe that God instituted it, that though there were people who monkeyed with it along the way, His design for it is expressed early on in the Bible, and that if we want to create other arrangements whereby we secure rights for people who don't choose to live in that kind of relationship, so be it, but let's not call it "marriage". But at any rate, our differing worldviews are bound to produce differing policy ideas.
@Byron I agree with a lot of what you say in that first paragraph. My perspective is this: marriage has never been about rights. ... I’m sure there were people who entered it for all sorts of reasons, but generally speaking, you get what I’m saying).
I do get what you're saying, but here's my question in response: if marriage is not about rights, then why did you personally get legally married? After all, your spiritual union was (I assume) recognized by a religious official before God and your community. So in every meaningful way, you were married to your wife. So why did you bother to file the paperwork?
And when you did file the paperwork, you became a member of a privileged class, granted those privileges by the government. With all due respect (and I do respect you and your viewpoint based on the interactions we've had here, so please pardon me if this sounds a little harsh), as a member of the privileged class, it's easy for you to say, "Oh, well, it's not about the rights," while you continue to enjoy the benefit of those rights if you ever decide you want them. If you are ever, god forbid, charged with a crime, your wife cannot be compelled to testify against you, and you can even go so far as to prevent her from testifying if she wanted to, under the marital confidentiality privilege. If you were in that situation, would you deny yourself that opportunity, because, "It's not about the rights"?
if we want to create other arrangements whereby we secure rights for people who don’t choose to live in that kind of relationship, so be it, but let’s not call it “marriage”.
Ultimately, you and I agree on what I think is a workable solution, which you present there. But I think that some meaningful questions can be raised to a person who chose to get legally married and who then says, "It's not about the rights." I mean, lots of people get legally married because it's just what you do, without thinking about the benefits they get from legal marriage. But that doesn't mean they don't get them, even if they remain totally ignorant of them for the rest of their life.
But at any rate, our differing worldviews are bound to produce differing policy ideas.
Indeed! I do appreciate the surprisingly civil and fruitful conversation we've had on the topic.
Answer to your first question is real simple: it's "what you did" to get married. Because in 1982, nobody was seriously considering redefining the meaning of marriage, it was nothing more or less than getting a driver's license or anything else like that: it's what you did, and because it didn't involve any compromise of religious belief to do so, there was no compelling reason not to. 25 years ago, nobody thought about such issues as we are today; "we're getting married, so let's go get the marriage license."
Now, as to the rights (and no, nothing you said sounds harsh at all), I readily concur that I am part of a "privileged class", in that regard, and I'm not eager to give up those rights, THOUGH I'M WILLING TO IF MY STATE REDEFINES MARRIAGE. But my point isn't about having those rights, but rather that I couldn't have enumerated a single one of them to you when I applied for the marriage license, because they simply weren't in the equation; I didn't get married for the purpose of gaining any particular right, "rights" weren't on my mind at all, and I daresay that's the case for the majority of folks. It's nice that I got some, but I'm not hoggish about them, and I can easily support making sure that people have the same (before the law, not assuring anything with regard to an employer's providing of health insurance, etc.) regardless of whom they choose to love.
It's about one's motives for getting married, one's understanding of marriage's benefits, etc. For marriage to become an institution that is focused significantly on the gaining of rights is to cheapen it from the outset; that's what I'm saying.
And it's disheartening to me that you find our conversation "surprisingly civil", not because what you said was wrong, but because it's just a stinking shame that people who disagree can't have such civil conversations as a matter of course. "Civil discourse" is a rare commodity these days, but I hope our exchange can serve as a good example of it for anyone else wading through our comments.
By the way, I think we've probably pretty much wrapped it up. What say we each maybe make a closing statement and shut it down (or, have we already?). :)
@Byron & @Joshua I want to thank both of you for your comments on this post. You've kept this post alive and kicking and have made it my most popular post to date and the most commented. I'm closing the comments on this post as it has indeed run it's course. Thanks again.
All Comments
This is an involved subject with many issues to consider. I'm going to give you a few things to think about, without going into much detail, and then come back and elaborate on them. Basically, you've given the standard media rationale for permitting "gay marriage"; I've heard this reasoning time and again. Dare I suggest that it is fundamentally flawed at a number of points? So let me suggest a few, ask you to "think outside the (media-constructed) box", and think about why the following things I submit are true (and if you can't figure it out, think deeper, dude!). At any rate, I'll be back when time permits to elaborate. Ready?
1. The issue of "gay marriage" has nothing to do with "equal rights". Nothing. Zilch. Zip. Zero. Nada. This is because
2. Homosexual Americans have always had equal rights with other Americans when it comes to marriage, no more, and no less (you don't hear that from the media, do ya?). :) The truth is that for every American, there are some people who a given individual can be married to, and some they cannot, and it's equal for everybody. Currently. Without "gay marriage". In fact, "gay marriage" extends a special right to homosexuals. And I can prove it. Easily.
3. To reduce the concept of marriage to a matter of gaining extra "rights", anyway, is to badly misconstrue the meaning of marriage in the first place. This is what I hear from a lot of folks: "homosexuals" need "gay marriage" in order to have certain rights. But that's not what marriage is all about...people who go into marriage primarily to obtain "rights" are seriously misguided.
4. Some of what you say you were taught is indeed incorrect--but it is not the Bible that is to blame at all, but rather the (perhaps well-meaning) misrepresentations/extensions of Scripture. The Bible doesn't teach, for instance, that all temptations come from the same source; i.e., I fully believe (along with you), that there are some people who are, for lack of a better term, "born" with homosexual tendencies/temptations.
5. The logical leap you've made, though, is that having a certain desire (in this case, homosexual temptation) justifies behavior in keeping with those desires. This is true neither for homosexuals nor for heterosexuals. Having homosexual attraction, I agree, is not a "choice" with some people (and the Bible doesn't indicate that it is). Engaging in homosexual behavior, on the other hand, is ALWAYS a choice.
6. The evidence you cite to support your belief that "homosexuals were born that way" isn't nearly as strong as you believe it to be; rather, that's a useful fallacy that has been repeated so long that it has become "accepted truth" (repeat a lie long enough, and people will start to believe it). A close friend of mine is a researcher on this very subject, and the results of studies that have been done do not paint NEARLY so black-and-white a picture as the media presents and as you have come to believe.
7. For the Christian, it's one thing--and perfectly valid--to say, "some of what I was taught was wrong" (because that's true for all of us, I daresay; I can point to things I was taught that aren't true either). It's a different thing--and I hope you aren't saying this--to say, "the Bible is wrong". I submit that a Christian is on shaky ground to take that position.
8. The old adage is, "before you knock down a fence, you ought to take care to find out why it was put there in the first place." Our current rush to legitimize "gay marriage" demonstrates essentially zero concern to ask, "why was the 'fence' put there in the first place?" And there are plenty of good reasons.
9. I do hope that all supporters of "gay marriage" understand that
A. The redefinition of marriage (and that's the issue, not "rights") cheapens the marriages of every heterosexual couple (and that's not hard to prove, either).
B. In states where "gay marriage" becomes legal, there is now no logical impediment to polygamy (which has a fuller historical pedigree than "gay marriage"), group marriage, even incestuous marriage (I could be wrong on that last point, but not the first two). Iowa can find no rational, logical, consistent reason to deny a marriage license to a man wanting to marry three wives now.
I hope my comments aren't "un-pretty"; I make them with a smile on my face and love in my heart. But I think that on this subject, a lot of folks aren't thinking NEARLY deeply-enough. At any rate, that's an opening salvo; I can back up every statement I make with logic and cogent reasoning. Might I suggest that any readers consider how/why those arguments, many of which aren't even being heard in this critical national debate, are true. More later!!!
I have several gay friends and, despite what Byron says, they do not share equal rights with straight married couples. They cannot legally be considered Next-of Kin, they cannot cover their partner with health insurance benefits (unless a company has a clause including domestic partners), etc. As for polygamy, now I've heard everything.
Byron - If you believe being gay is a choice, then choose to be gay for a year. Nothing would prove your point more decisively than that. Most evangelicals back down when faced with that 'choice.'
Baz
I've known ya for years brother. Long long time. I take what you say to heart too. The fact that you took the time to comment means alot. I'll respond to two points you made.
First point is #2. As Baz said on here how have they had rights? My lesbian friend has great health insurance. Her girlfriend doesn't. She can't get her girlfriend on her insurance. The refuse to because they aren't married. If they could be married or even have a civil union that was recognized by the state of Iowa then she'd be able to put her girlfriend on her insurance. So how is that the same rights that I have when I can go get married at any time and put my wife on my insurance? That's where you lose me.
Next one is point #7. I just wanted to assure you I am not saying "the Bible is wrong" by any means. It's what you thought I was saying in that "some of what I was taught I feel was wrong" so we're good there. Just wanted to clear that up.
I am a believer in true equal rights. I would remind you that "equal rights" doesn't require a private company to do anything with regards to benefits (such as insurance is). A company can extend to whomever it pleases insurance benefits, or not provide such benefits at all. Some companies already extend insurance benefits to "domestic partners"; some companies will likely stop offering insurance benefits altogether under "gay marriage."
As far as "next of kin" issues, I fully support the rights of all individuals to choose who makes those types of decisions, and whatever other true issues of rights which are now not held by homosexuals, I'm on board with you on all of that. Parenthetically, I think that some of us evangelicals have gone way beyond the pale in opposing every little thing that's come down the pike that extends reasonable equal rights to homosexuals. Personally, even though it's not popular now, I supported (and still do) "don't ask, don't tell" when Clinton proposed it in '94, and there weren't many conservatives or evangelicals who did so; my point is that I'm good with true equal rights, but "gay marriage" isn't an issue of equal rights at all. I still will prove that in a subsequent post, but finally, to Baz's comment about polygamy: "now I've heard everything" is a slogan, but nothing approaching an argument. I'd challenge you to refute my point logically rather than dismissing it with a wave of the hand.
That's all for now, but back with some of my arguments soon. Just hope you're thinking it through, Bud!
But I anticipate the response(s); I'll phrase them as statements (there might be variations on a theme, but basically, they boil down to this): "But homosexuals don't want the right to marry a person of the opposite sex"; "but this right to marriage doesn't FEEL equal to heterosexuals", etc. And I'm sure those things are true--but before the law, they are irrelevant (or should be). This is why I say that it's not about "equal rights" before the law--we all have equal rights--but rather, it's about fundamentally redefining the very institution of marriage (and I might add, in a way it's never been done before--unlike polygamy, which has a historical pedigree).
Then the question becomes, why should one group (homosexuals) have the (special) right to redefine the institution of marriage, simply because they do not like the way it's currently defined (and if homosexuals are granted that special right, on what grounds should polygamists or "group marriage" enthusiasts be denied it?).
An analogy might help: I have, as an American, all sorts of freedoms which I have little interest in enjoying. I have the right to skydive. I have the right to bungee jump. I have the right to go mountain climbing. But I also have a profound respect for (OK, fear of) heights, such that I am uninterested in seeking my thrills through these and other (in my judgment) death-defying means. But boy, what I really love is speed. I'd love to get my thrills ("equal thrills") by driving 100 mph. Question: should I, on the basis of the fact that my rights don't "feel equal" with skydivers, be allowed to change the rules of the road so that I can get what "feels equal" to me, a 100-mph speed limit? That's absurd, of course...but effectively, that's the reasoning being employed.
So the bottom line is that the whole "gay marriage" debate is about whether one group of people should be allowed the special right to redefine the institution of marriage (before the law) in a way that it's never been done before, on the basis that the equal rights that group already possesses aren't equal rights that those in the group care to exercise. It sets a dangerous precedent to do this; it's not "hate" or "prejudice" to say so.
Finally, every American of whatever stripe ought to be dismayed at the raw judicial arrogance of the Iowa Supreme Court (and the courts of California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts). Did the voters have a say in this? No (and when they did, in very liberal California, they rejected it, as would Iowa voters, no doubt). The problem is that when courts legislate from the bench--unconstitutionally, of course--then the law becomes, not what is passed by duly-elected representatives, and based upon the Constitution, but whatever a few jurists think it is (and by the way, does anyone else find it curious that the Iowa Supreme Court magically found in the Constitution a "right" that hadn't even been countenanced as a possibility for over 200 years of Constitutional law?). See, if a few jurists can hand down such a ruling that homosexuals find worthy of applauding today, they can just as easily hand down a ruling the next day, with no more basis in Constitutional jurisprudence than this decision, that, for instance, denies personhood to groups of people. Jettison the proper function of the law, and you're left with both feet firmly planted in mid-air.
Enough for now; chew on those awhile, but hear this prediction: the response I receive to this clear reasoning will be things like vitriol, belittling, name-calling, and non-thinking dismissals, Buddy; the logic of what I've said is irrefutable, I submit. Folks may not like it, but I've never seen it answered with logic and clear reasoning.
See I still don't agree that it's NOT about equal rights. Marriage currently is defined as between a man and a woman. Why can't it just be simply two people? Why does it have to be strictly defined and limted to a man and a woman?
Why two people? What reasoning do you employ to restrict marriage to two people?
That's what it's currently limited two. A man and a woman. Two people. Why restrict marriage to just a man and a woman?
To the second question, you never answered Hefe: "what it's currently limited to" isn't much of an answer, man, because "what it's currently limited to" in 47 states (and in every state where people have voted on it) is "one man and one woman".
It's not a good argument to raise more questions and ignore the points we've made. Wanna try again, amigo?
I did answer Hefe's question. Why restrict it is what was asked. I answered that it's already restricted to TWO people. Those two people are 1 man + 1 woman = 2 people. My point is why does it have to be 1 man + 1 woman to equal 2 people? Why can't it be 1 man + 1 man or 1 woman + 1 woman to equal 2 people? So I didn't ignore Hefe whatsoever. Nothing wrong with answering a question with another question either.
As far as equal rights ok fine right now if a gay couple wants the other partner to be covered under their insurance is there any easy way to do so? Sure SOME and I stress SOME insurance companies recognize domestic partnerships. Mine for example does NOT. You MUST be married and show proof of that legal marriage in order for your spouse to be covered. So how is it equal that a man can marry a woman and get her covered under his insurance at his job but if a woman wants to get her partner covered there is no way she can if there are no domestic partnership stipulations with said insurance carrier. So if I was gay for example then Blue Cross Blue Shield would tell me essentially that I was out of luck getting my partner covered. And since I can't get married there's no other way to get my partner covered under my health insurance. Of course by legalizing "gay marriage" I could now in the state of Iowa because I'd be able to PROVE I was legally married. So you say we all have equal rights. How is what I just said "equal" in any sense? It's discriminatory. Sorry Byron. No matter how you try and spin it, it is.
We have laws protecting people from not getting a job because they're gay or black or asian or white right? Those laws were made for equal employment opportunities right? So without those laws there wouldn't be "equal rights" as you say we ALL have. Or would you say that's not true? Because by your reasoning we all have equal rights. Now without the EEO would you still stand by that statement and say we still all had equal rights? I would hope not. And see that was something, a law, an act, that had to be changed/passed in order to give everyone whether gay, black, straight, white, etc. the same rights when it came to equal employment. So what is so wrong with making a law to say the same thing about marriage?
you should get married.
IMO, this is kind of a meaningless distinction. Desire that is not acted upon is morally neutral, so whether you think the desire for homosexual interactions is chosen or innate doesn't really contribute much to the conversation. It's the action itself that carries moral consequences; if you think the desire is innate but the behavior is chosen, I don't see how that's any different from both of them being chosen.
6. The evidence you cite to support your belief that “homosexuals were born that way” isn’t nearly as strong as you believe it to be; rather, that’s a useful fallacy that has been repeated so long that it has become “accepted truth”
More to the point, whether homosexual behavior is chosen or innate, what business is it of anybody's who I have sex with? And what business is it of anybody's whether my next of kin has the same genitals as me or not?
Iowa can find no rational, logical, consistent reason to deny a marriage license to a man wanting to marry three wives now.
Rock on. Let's go. Again, what difference does it make if a person has one spouse or three? Polygamy is the norm in lots of cultures--why not ours?
The next place that people sometimes go is, "Well, why not marry an animal then?" My answer is simple: animals are not capable of giving consent to the degree that is morally and legally required; people are. Next?
Harold, IMO the argument about whether sexual preference is a choice or whether it's innate distracts us from the real point, which is that a person's reasons for choosing a sexual partner are none of your, mine, or the government's business. Innate vs. chosen sexual preference can be an interesting topic for scientific and philosophical exploration, but from the perspective of government policy, it's moot.
Yes, you did answer Hefe's question (and sorry it's taken me a few days; what an incredible week I just lived), but you didn't answer it in a way that really answers it. He asked, "why restrict it to two", to which you answered that "it's already restricted to two", to which the answer to that is simple: in almost all states, it's restricted to one-man, one-woman, so why not just keep it that way? The point is that there is more historical precedent for polygamy than for "same sex marriage", and if we're going to fundamentally alter the equation one way, what rational reason keeps us from altering it another? There is none.
On the next point, you missed my point entirely. I didn't say that all rights are equal currently; I said only this: every single person in this country has always had an equal right to be married with all other people. Period. You're talking about insurance rights and we can add others, like dying-bedside rights, inheritance rights, etc. I didn't say that all of those were equal at all; they are not. What I said was that everyone had an equal right to marry, and that's one of the big things that's being argued. Further, as I argued in my "big post", to "dumb down" marriage to being a matter concerned with getting insurance is to degrade it beyond recognition, IMHO; let's just chuck it altogether if that's what it's come to; further, as has been argued, nobody has a right to health insurance (nor should they); about all you've got is that some companies will currently allow "domestic partners" to get insurance, and some won't; as you say, there are some which, if "gay marriage" is the law of the land, might extend such benefits to the other party, but it's equally likely that there are some companies which, either for ethical reasons or for financial ones, will decide to drop insurance coverage altogether, and there's not a thing that the government can or ought to do about that--because health insurance isn't a right.
Your final paragraph is based upon a faulty premise, that I said we all had equal rights, but as I've explained above, I don't maintain that at all, so I won't delve into that one at this time.
Joshua raises some questions, culminating with "rock on" to the idea of polygamy. Understand that, in such scenarios, I have no interest in calling the 27-year special relationship with my wife a "legal marriage" any longer, if "marriage" can mean any old thing. Want to sleep with a dozen women/men as your "spouses"? You are currently free to do that very thing--but that's not the same thing as asking the state to radically change the legal definition of marriage in order to accommodate each and every peculiar arrangement people want to come up with and call it "marriage", and as I said, in that scenario, I'll be petitioning the state to stop viewing my REAL marriage as belonging to that same newly-prostituted arrangement that IT calls "marriage".
Finally, I agree with Joshua on one thing in his final point: it's not the government's business who my sexual partner is. That's not at all the point when it comes to "gay marriage", but it's a point well-taken from the perspective of government policy. But again, that's a totally different issue from the redefinition of the institution of marriage itself.
A friend of mine wrote this on a forum I'm on in response to a post I wrote asking the forums thoughts on gay marriage and I wanted to post it here.
---------------
I plan to comment later on some of Alpha Phoenix's words, but what discourages me about people in general these days is the lack of logical, rational thinking that takes place. Do you not see the logical leaps, shoddy reasoning, and point-missing that Alpha Phoenix employs? The question becomes, is he not capable of carrying out a rational, logic-based argument, or is he able, but lazy or unwilling to do so? Because his reasoning is quite poor, frankly; I'm betting that if you look at it a little longer, you can poke some holes in it, because I sure can...
1. Yes, I agree; it's not the government's business what two or eleven people do behind closed doors.
2. That has utterly nothing to do with people "getting hitched". He's certainly entitled to his opinion, but the fact that people should be free to act as they please sexually is an utterly and completely different, unrelated question to "how shall the government define marriage?"
3. His argument hinges on rights and protections, believing they ought to be equal; I concur, but argue that how we achieve that equality matters a great deal, and that there are means short of the radical redefinition of marriage to accomplish this. Remember the argument about "before you tear down a fence..."? He has no interest in asking that question--and it's dangerous not to ask it in every circumstance.
4. The country was not "founded on tolerance"; he'd have to produce a document substantiating that to prove his point; the preamble and the Declaration do no such thing. They guarantee equal rights; I believe in those things; there are ways to achieve them. Now, should we be tolerant? You bet; I certainly am. But refusing to radically redefine marriage just so somebody can have the possibility of health insurance is not being "intolerant" in the least.
5. Redefining marriage does infringe on my rights, though he's probably never once considered that fact.
6. His argument is built upon an evolutionary understanding of human beings (see Section 1; one doesn't have to read far to grasp this). Ironically, an evolutionary understanding of origins denies the specialness of man--and thus cuts the ground right out from under any rational defense of "respect, tolerance, and equality"--the very things he says are so critical (and I agree with that, of course).
7. Do you really believe that "with all religions it's a numbers game"? Unsubstantiated silliness.
8. Finally, in his last rambling paragraph, he only respects views that have come about through "personal reflection", uninfluenced by others. That's bogus and silly on its face: every person's views have been influenced by others, yours, mine, and his included, and to suggest otherwise is the epitome of naivete. Yes, we ought to think; as I said above, one of the saddest things about this whole argument is the lack of rational, logical thinking that is going into it. But nobody with a straight face and sincere honesty would ever say that his/her viewpoints aren't influenced to one degree or another by the thoughts of other people--and his including that at the end seriously undermines whatever credibility he wishes to maintain.
Back soon with more thoughts...
I'm trying to get him to come here and respond to you as I really can't speak for him.
Finally, I agree with Joshua on one thing in his final point: it’s not the government’s business who my sexual partner is. But again, that’s a totally different issue from the redefinition of the institution of marriage itself.
What you seem to be saying is that a person's sex life is none of the government's business, but the government can define the parameters of the institution of marriage. But sex and marriage are legally intertwined. The government doesn't allow siblings to get married--how come? Because siblings produce inbred kids when they have sex.
In the context of a discussion between you and me, we could agree to separate sex from the institution of marriage and discuss them separately, but speaking about the government and the institution that exists in America right now, sex and marriage are explicitly intertwined.
If you agree with me that the government should not be involved in a person's sexual preferences, then it seems inconsistent for you to say that the government should be involved who a person can and can't marry.
As for those who want to tout the whole “marriage is for procreation” angle
If marriage were for procreation, then infertile people would not be allowed to marry. This argument doesn't even begin to hold water, and it's easy to point out the inconsistency to anybody who throws it up.
But refusing to radically redefine marriage just so somebody can have the possibility of health insurance is not being “intolerant” in the least.
Gay marriage is about more than just health insurance, but even if it was just about health insurance... Is what you're saying here that you agree with denying health insurance to a person who fits the criteria for having health insurance in every way except that they have the same genitals as their life-partner?
Good responses, and I'll try to answer as best I can. Last question first: I wouldn't phrase it the way you chose. Rather, I'd say that, first off, it's up to individual companies to determine what benefits they extend to their employees...and the word "benefits" is crucial; there's no obligation for a company to extend any particular benefit. Of course, companies then live with the consequences of their decisions, but point is, it's their choice. On that basis, then, I'd argue that's it's really none of my business what a company decides to do. If that company wants to limit benefits to those related by marriage or birth, I think that's fine--and if they want to deny the extension of benefits to people who don't fit that description, I'm fine with that as well, regardless of who happens to live in the house with the employee. If they're "live-ins" of the opposite sex, I'm cool with a company determining that they believe that type of living arrangement runs counter to the company's moral stance, and thus would not extend benefits; same argument would cause me to, I suppose, argue that the company is free to "deny health insurance" in the manner you describe above, because I believe a company ought to be free to determine which benefits it extends to its employees. If I were running the company, I'd not extend healthcare benefits to "domestic partners" of any stripe--and I believe that companies ought to be free to make that decision and follow the dictates of company policy, just as Chick-fil-A, for instance, refuses to open on Sundays; they ought to be free to make those calls.
One other question I'd have, by which I don't mean to cheapen the debate and thus won't dwell on, but which I do think is worth at least mentioning, is this: why would not two (healthily heterosexual) guys who choose to live together and share expenses not themselves clamor for coverage under such a scenario (I guess sort of a "Bosom Buddies" situation). You KNOW that this will happen, already is happening undoubtedly. All sorts of cans of worms are opened, it seems to me, but the bottom line is that I believe a private company ought to be free to insure whomever it pleases, and to deny coverage to whomever it pleases.
<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Who’s Responsible for Freddie and Fannie Failing?</abbr>
Perhaps I miss what you're saying, but it seems like you've made a both-ways argument. You suggest that there is a reason why the government does involve itself in matters of who can marry who (incest), and then suggest that it ought not involve itself. Right? Am I missing something? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Further, by your logic, polygamy and group marriage are easily justified, right? Because if it's not the government's business who a person can and cannot marry, and if there exists a subset of people who are polygamous, then what's to deny them legally-sanctioned marriage, if that's how they get their sexual jollies? I've never heard a "gay marriage" advocate give a reasoned response to that question, and I've asked it on several occasions. Of course, someone (was it you? I didn't read all the back comments.) came out in favor of polygamy, etc., to which I say, at what point does marriage lose its meaning? I'd argue that it does so when it varies from the one-man/one-woman concept that, with some exceptions I grant, has generally been the standard for millennia.
I've come to the belief that we'd all be better off if the government got out of the marriage business altogether; that's the way it was for the majority of America's history, by the way. I think we could live with doing it again that way, and then I'd not have to worry that the power of the state was being used--as it already has been--to attempt to coerce children, for instance, into conforming to a particular view of marriage.
Finally, and this is related, but a side point: I've been a pastor for over 20 years now, performing about 60 weddings and doing marital counseling. It dawned on me a few weeks ago that, if "gay marriage" were to become the law of the land, my counsel to any counselees would differ regarding the marriage question depending on their particular situation. I never counsel divorce for heterosexual couples (I have on occasion reluctantly counseled separation); I would always counsel immediate divorce for a homosexual couple. That's not real germane to the discussion, but I just found it odd when I thought about it...
<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Who’s Responsible for Freddie and Fannie Failing?</abbr>
I agree that companies can decide who they do and don't want to cover with their health insurance programs. Individual liberty and all. I just disagree with you as to whether denying coverage solely based on genitals is intolerant. You said that it's not intolerant; I think it is. If a company is going to grant coverage to heterosexual spouses, I don't see why they would deny it to homosexual partners, except for an intolerant attitude towards homosexuality.
As to the "Bosom Buddies" scenario: when I looked into getting "domestic partnership" coverage for my heterosexual-but-not-married partner, the paperwork that I filled out made no distinction based on whether we were in love, having sex, or any of the other markers of spouse-hood. It defined "domestic partner" as, "Living together for at least X years, sharing finances," and so forth. By the insurance company's own rules, if the "Bosom Buddies" decided to file for domestic partnership coverage, it wouldn't matter whether they were actually lovers or not. So it turns out that situation is already covered, and is not a problem.
Perhaps I miss what you’re saying, but it seems like you’ve made a both-ways argument. You suggest that there is a reason why the government does involve itself in matters of who can marry who (incest), and then suggest that it ought not involve itself. Right? Am I missing something? Correct me if I’m wrong.
I'll go back to my closing statement, which was, "If you agree with me that the government should not be involved in a person’s sexual preferences, then it seems inconsistent for you to say that the government should be involved who a person can and can’t marry." You seemed to agree that the government should stay "out of the bedroom" when you said, "it’s not the government’s business who my sexual partner is." Then you say that the government SHOULD define who my marital partner is. I'm saying that, as the law stands today, those two things are intertwined, and you can't have it both ways. The government's decisions about who can marry are tied up with who the government thinks should be having sex with each other. If you agree that the government has the right to tell you who not to have sex with, then that's fine. But if you think the government should stay "out of the bedroom," then you have to either get the government out of the institution of marriage or separate marriage and sex. Either way, the gays get marriage if they want it.
Further, by your logic, polygamy and group marriage are easily justified, right? Because if it’s not the government’s business who a person can and cannot marry, and if there exists a subset of people who are polygamous, then what’s to deny them legally-sanctioned marriage, if that’s how they get their sexual jollies? I’ve never heard a “gay marriage” advocate give a reasoned response to that question, and I’ve asked it on several occasions
I don't think that the government has any right to deny people group marriage if that's what they want. I agree with you that people who support gay marriage must also logically support polygamous marriage. That's my reasoned response. I think that people who are pro-gay but anti-polygamy are probably not thinking their reasoning through fully.
And before you ask (if you were going to ask, and no offense, but people have asked this) yes, I draw the line at marriage to animals, because I don't think that animals can give meaningful consent.
Oh, and a side note: monogamous people don't get married for "sexual jollies," so please don't accuse polygamous people of getting married for that reason. Polygamous people get married for the same reasons you did, they just didn't stop at one. Yes, sex is in there. No, it's not about "jollies".
to which I say, at what point does marriage lose its meaning?
If you define marriage as between a single man and a woman, then it loses its meaning immediately. But if you define marriage as "between two or more people who love each other and want to commit their lives mutually to each other," then none of this threatens it at all.
I would always counsel immediate divorce for a homosexual couple. That’s not real germane to the discussion, but I just found it odd when I thought about it…
I suspect that, given your opinions on the matter, the ethical thing would be to recuse yourself from counseling a homosexual couple.
<abbr>Joshua’s last blog post..Law Enforcement: (not) The most dangerous occupation</abbr>
First, thanks for a good discussion that seeks to understand and be understood, rather than flamethrow--which is what altogether too many of these things turn into. And for what it's worth, a word of clarification: I used "jollies" more for color than anything else, not to be inflammatory, per se. Further dealing with another side point, I think that the ethical thing to do would be at least similar to what you suggest--and this, by the way, is the approach I take with every counselee: I let folks know right up front where I come from, that I attempt to take the Bible as my guide for counsel rather than psychological theories and the like (not that I always get it right, I'm sure), but it's on that basis that I counsel anyone, and I'd be sure to be doubly clear about that fact before I counseled a homosexual couple. If they agreed to those terms, though, I'd happily counsel them. I think you'd agree that's reasonable.
OK, my time is limited, so this'll have to be a couple of posts to address the issues you raise. Joshua, your last post is the first that I pick up on that introduces the concept of "intolerant" into the discussion; I didn't use that word (one way or the other) in my response (and I read it twice to make sure). This opens, of course, a whole can of worms, but I just say that to make it clear that you've introduced a new value into the discussion, the value of "tolerance", which shifts the discussion at least a little bit. But I'm happy to address it (though a treatise worthy of the topic is way too long for a little blog post here!). :)
Several thoughts about "tolerance":
1. It is overrated as a virtue. I'd argue that while it's a virtue, it's only as good as its "object" and its definition. There are many things in life we ought to rightly be quite intolerant of; the $64,000 question is, which ones? But to elevate tolerance to the level of virtue it has been is, I think, to value it too much, at least in its "naked" form.
2. Its very meaning has been subtly redefined over the course of the last generation. "Tolerance" used to mean, "live and let live", effectively; I think that my words about the government not having a place in overseeing the sexual decisions of its citizens, for instance, is a perfect example of the real meaning of the word. That's different, though, from the definition of many today (don't know if it's yours or not), which suggests that it's "intolerant" to make value judgments. For instance, I believe the government should not prevent you from living with whomever you choose. I also believe that some of the choices you could make would be immoral--while others would be moral (at least potentially). The new definition of "tolerance" would in the eyes of some preclude my second statement, suggesting that I'm "intolerant" if I reject some lifestyle choices, some values, as being immoral or what-have-you. I utterly reject that definition.
Now, with those caveats, I suppose that one could argue that my attitude is one of "intolerance" (or that, more specifically, I'd defend that type of "intolerance" on the part of a business). If you want to define it that way, I suppose I'd plead "guilty", and believe that this is one of those issues upon which a company ought to have the prerogative to make those choices, to be "intolerant". I think there are good reasons to uphold marriage, to not alter its definition, to prefer "traditional marriage" to any other arrangement, to write such preference into a company's policies. If that's "intolerant", I say, so be it, but it seems to me that that falls under one of the appropriate senses of being "intolerant"
I'd ask you, would it be "intolerant" for a company to deny insurance benefits to polyamorous people? I honestly don't know what you'd say to that; I'm curious. And if four men and seven women wanted to solemnify their orgy (sorry, I WILL call that "jollies") as a "group marriage", would a company be intolerant to refuse insurance benefits?
At some point, there's also an economic factor...but that's beyond the scope of "gay marriage" benefits discussions, I appreciate.
More later.
<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Who’s Responsible for Freddie and Fannie Failing?</abbr>
By the way, let me mention that while I disagree with your conclusion, I appreciate your consistency, recognizing that "gay marriage" necessarily leads to polygamy and group marriage; all that's lacking is societal acceptance of the latter, because the rational groundwork is being laid if we subscribe to "gay marriage". I think you phrase it wrongly, though; you speak of the government "denying people group marriage", when in fact, there's no "denial" going on, except in the sense of a "denial" on the part of government to be willing to redefine the institution of marriage. My original argument--unrefuted--is that all Americans have always had equal rights when it comes to marriage: any unmarried man can legally marry any unmarried woman not related by blood. This is not about equal rights to marry (remember, H, I am talking about 'equal rights to marry', not suggesting that all rights are equal in all/other ways). To secure those rights, I think other means can be undertaken short of radically redefining this institution; I have no doubt that other things can be done--and I'd support them, by the way.
I think you conceded my "marriage loses its meaning" point, basically (arguing, of course, that it doesn't lose its meaning if it's redefined--but isn't that my point?). My point would be this: I didn't sign up for this diminished definition of marriage, and in the event some loony court in the state I live redefines it thusly, I will seek legal remedy to have that state remove its legal recognition of my marriage; I've actually contacted a legal society about that very thing. I'd assume you'd support my ability to do that (even if you didn't understand it), on the grounds that I ought to be able, as a free American, to enter into legally-binding contracts (marriage) that cannot be altered without my consent. Right?
Once again, great discussion, and I appreciate your spirit.
<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Who’s Responsible for Freddie and Fannie Failing?</abbr>
Thanks for your comments as well, Byron. I'm enjoying the conversation.
Though the historical record is not without a bit of inconsistency, one-man/one-woman has the lion’s share of historical precedent, and the backing of each of the world’s major faiths.
This hearkens back to your comment (I think it was yours) about tearing down fences. I agree that, if we've done something for a long time, we ought to have good reasons for changing it, but I submit that just because we've done something for a long time doesn't mean it's a good idea. Slavery has vast historical precedent, but we believe that we have progressed as a society to a point where we reject it. I submit that it may be time to do a similar thing with prohibitions against gay marriage.
Incidentally, as I'm sure you know, Islam, the second largest religion in the world, allows for polygamy, violating the "one man / one woman" backing that you claim.
hen in fact, there’s no “denial” going on, except in the sense of a “denial” on the part of government to be willing to redefine the institution of marriage.
What's being denied is the benefits of marriage, some of which cannot be conveyed via any other mechanism. For example, one of these is the right not to be forced to testify against your spouse.
I have no doubt that other things can be done–and I’d support them, by the way.
I would be fine with that. I don't care if you call it marriage or whatever, as long as everyone has equal access to the benefits and requirements of marriage, regardless of whether they have the same gender or not. Although not wanting to marry another male, I'm not sure my opinion matters for much.
think you conceded my “marriage loses its meaning” point, basically (arguing, of course, that it doesn’t lose its meaning if it’s redefined–but isn’t that my point?).
Actually, what I meant to say is that, to me, you don't have to redefine marriage at all to include gay people, because already I use the latter definition. So, whether it's a redefinition or not depends on where you started from.
I’d assume you’d support my ability to do that (even if you didn’t understand it), on the grounds that I ought to be able, as a free American, to enter into legally-binding contracts (marriage) that cannot be altered without my consent. Right?
Naturally. Although, to be fair, I would argue that from a torts standpoint, the contract between you, your wife, and the state has not been altered, and neither party is in default. The state still provides you with all of the benefits it promised you when you entered into the contract. As far as I know, the marriage contract between the state and the spouses never said, "And never shall we allow anyone but a man and a woman to be married," so I don't think that including gays could be interpreted as a default.
But I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.
<abbr>Joshua’s last blog post..“Semiautomatic rifles a ‘hazard’; seizures are up”</abbr>
Somehow, I missed responding to this one. So now my responses are out of order too ;-)
And for what it’s worth, a word of clarification: I used “jollies” more for color than anything else, not to be inflammatory, per se.
It's the association of polygamy with sex that I object to, not the term specifically. Like I said, polygamists get married for the sex the same as monogamists do, which is to say that sex is a component of marriage, but there are many other components as well.
If they agreed to those terms, though, I’d happily counsel them. I think you’d agree that’s reasonable.
I do.
Joshua, your last post is the first that I pick up on that introduces the concept of “intolerant” into the discussion;
The first mention of "tolerance" is in post #23, from you, and I think with all the confusion of respond to multiple posts at a time, that's how the word slipped into my post. But I'm happy to drop it, as I agree with you that arguing about someone being or not being tolerant distracts from the discussion on the actual merits and detriments of gay marriage.
<abbr>Joshua’s last blog post..“The war on drugs” - More than just a metaphor</abbr>
Yes, I would agree that simple historical precedent, of course, doesn't argue for perpetuation, and your slavery example is well-taken. That said, I'm not sure that those who are arguing for "gay marriage" are even addressing the "why was the fence put there in the first place" question; there seems to be almost no discussion of that issue. What pressing concerns on the part of homosexuals--that could not be remedied otherwise--justify the tearing down of the fence (and as I've argued, the most frequent arguments we hear for its tearing down center on the peripheral issues of "rights" which I believe could be addressed otherwise)?
By the way, does Islam in its current form back polygamy? I'm not sure, but you could be right; it certainly doesn't back "gay marriage", of course, but I'm not sure on the polygamy thing.
Why could a law not be written to safeguard court testimony against one's...other? I'm not at all sure that we have to redefine marriage to accomplish this. And in fact your answer that you'd be "fine" with the assuring of equal rights through other mechanisms leads me to believe that that's your key issue, and not "gay marriage" at all--which again is one of the key bases of my stance.
As to the redefining, I have to call you on that one: it may not be a "redefinition" from your personal standpoint, but it certainly is when it comes to the law of the land. You or I can define anything at all anyway we please, I guess, but as a matter of the law of the land, my point stands: we're redefining marriage. And it's on that basis that I'd argue legally for the non-divorce "annulment" of my own marriage, from the standpoint of the state: when my wife and I were married, both "religiously" and "civilly", there was no difference in the very definition of marriage between the two; 27 (almost!) years ago, "gay marriage" hadn't crossed anyone's mind (well, I'm sure somebody somewhere had thought of it, but I'd never heard the term or considered the possibility as recently as 15 years ago). If the state redefines the very definition, against my will, then I believe I have reasonable cause for action.
But enough of that.
Thanks again for reasoned discussion.
<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Defining Decency Down</abbr>
Just thought I'd chime in with some links to answer your question Byron. :)
http://muslimvoices.org/islam-polygamy/
http://www.answering-christianity.com/polygamy.htm
http://www.al-islamforall.org/litre/Englitre/po...
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_the_Quran_al...
Yes, Joshua, your eye is keener than mine
Actually, it's just "CTRL-F". ;-) I thought to myself, "I'm sure I wasn't the one who first mentioned tolerance," and then I searched.
“why was the fence put there in the first place” question; there seems to be almost no discussion of that issue.
I think that this is a valid question. The typical response might be, "Because people in ye olde tymes were bigoted assholes," but that's too flippant and doesn't really address the depth of the question.
My answer would be that the institution of marriage exists primarily to institutionalize male ownership over female wombs, so as to increase the probability that a man's familial "sons" actually carry his genes. Marriage says, "this/these is/are my women, and they shall bear only my children." From that perspective, you're right that gays really have nothing to do with it. But the institution of marriage has been extended to include a whole other set of rights that I think that gay partners should have access to. This includes next-of-kin, protection against testimony in court cases, and so on. If we could separate those rights from the institution of marriage, that would be a fine solution for me, but I think that gay marriage activists see that as a lower-probability solution than simply extending marriage to include them.
By the way, does Islam in its current form back polygamy?
My research suggests that actual practice is in the single-digit percents, partially due to the financial burden of supporting up to four separate families, but that the religious texts clearly and explicitly allow it. It doesn't seem to be similar to, say, Mormon polygamy, where the official policy is to not allow it, but it's still practiced.
<abbr>Joshua’s last blog post..Coke Zero: Break Up</abbr>
<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Defining Decency Down</abbr>
Marriage cannot be reduced to a "rights-grab" and retain any significant meaning whatsoever, and that strikes me as a further reason for holding the line where it is--though you're probably right with regard to the gay activists' line of reasoning.
<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Defining Decency Down</abbr>
Though I don’t share your rather cynical view of the origins of marriage, I’d suggest that your argument centers, as I’ve suggested, on primarily those ancillary issues (not unimportant, I’d add, but ancillary) of securing rights. I just don’t think that people who go into marriage are terribly concerned with additional rights that accrue to themselves;
I'm sure that some gay-marriage proponents share your values, and consider rights to be ancillary. My perspective is that I can spiritually marry anybody I care to, using whatever ceremony myself and my spouse and the community we live in recognize. I don't need the government to tell me that so-and-so is my spiritual partner! State recognition of the marriage only becomes relevant when I desire to partake of the privileges that the state grants exclusively to married couples. And that's why I think that rights are inherent to the gay-marriage argument, because the gay-marriage argument always includes getting government to recognize gay marriage, and the only reason I can see to care about that is because you want the government to grant you those rights.
Though I don’t share your rather cynical view of the origins of marriage,
It stems from my view that people are, first and foremost, animals who are undergoing biological evolution. So I tend to see human behavior through the lens of, "How does this enhance or decrease the probability that a person's genes will be passed on to offspring?" From that perspective (which I don't see as cynical, although I understand how others might see it that way) marriage looks like a way of solving the problem of paternity. Females always know that a baby is theirs, because the baby came out of their body. Males have historically not been able to be sure. So marriage was a way of a male institutionalizing his exclusive right to fertilize a given female or females, thereby increasing the probability that her offspring were genetically his. To my eyes, all the other things people say about marriage--about it sanctifying the spiritual bond between a man and a woman, and such--that's all true, but it's all secondary to the basic biological urge to support one's own genetic offspring and not those of another.
<abbr>Joshua’s last blog post..Wal-Mart hasn’t heard that “free is not a business model”</abbr>
As to your second point, perhaps "cynical" isn't the best word to describe it, but you've articulated well the vast difference between your understanding of the origin and nature of marriage, and my own. I believe that God instituted it, that though there were people who monkeyed with it along the way, His design for it is expressed early on in the Bible, and that if we want to create other arrangements whereby we secure rights for people who don't choose to live in that kind of relationship, so be it, but let's not call it "marriage". But at any rate, our differing worldviews are bound to produce differing policy ideas.
<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Defining Decency Down</abbr>
I agree with a lot of what you say in that first paragraph. My perspective is this: marriage has never been about rights. ... I’m sure there were people who entered it for all sorts of reasons, but generally speaking, you get what I’m saying).
I do get what you're saying, but here's my question in response: if marriage is not about rights, then why did you personally get legally married? After all, your spiritual union was (I assume) recognized by a religious official before God and your community. So in every meaningful way, you were married to your wife. So why did you bother to file the paperwork?
And when you did file the paperwork, you became a member of a privileged class, granted those privileges by the government. With all due respect (and I do respect you and your viewpoint based on the interactions we've had here, so please pardon me if this sounds a little harsh), as a member of the privileged class, it's easy for you to say, "Oh, well, it's not about the rights," while you continue to enjoy the benefit of those rights if you ever decide you want them. If you are ever, god forbid, charged with a crime, your wife cannot be compelled to testify against you, and you can even go so far as to prevent her from testifying if she wanted to, under the marital confidentiality privilege. If you were in that situation, would you deny yourself that opportunity, because, "It's not about the rights"?
if we want to create other arrangements whereby we secure rights for people who don’t choose to live in that kind of relationship, so be it, but let’s not call it “marriage”.
Ultimately, you and I agree on what I think is a workable solution, which you present there. But I think that some meaningful questions can be raised to a person who chose to get legally married and who then says, "It's not about the rights." I mean, lots of people get legally married because it's just what you do, without thinking about the benefits they get from legal marriage. But that doesn't mean they don't get them, even if they remain totally ignorant of them for the rest of their life.
But at any rate, our differing worldviews are bound to produce differing policy ideas.
Indeed! I do appreciate the surprisingly civil and fruitful conversation we've had on the topic.
<abbr>Joshua’s last blog post..Wal-Mart hasn’t heard that “free is not a business model”</abbr>
Now, as to the rights (and no, nothing you said sounds harsh at all), I readily concur that I am part of a "privileged class", in that regard, and I'm not eager to give up those rights, THOUGH I'M WILLING TO IF MY STATE REDEFINES MARRIAGE. But my point isn't about having those rights, but rather that I couldn't have enumerated a single one of them to you when I applied for the marriage license, because they simply weren't in the equation; I didn't get married for the purpose of gaining any particular right, "rights" weren't on my mind at all, and I daresay that's the case for the majority of folks. It's nice that I got some, but I'm not hoggish about them, and I can easily support making sure that people have the same (before the law, not assuring anything with regard to an employer's providing of health insurance, etc.) regardless of whom they choose to love.
It's about one's motives for getting married, one's understanding of marriage's benefits, etc. For marriage to become an institution that is focused significantly on the gaining of rights is to cheapen it from the outset; that's what I'm saying.
And it's disheartening to me that you find our conversation "surprisingly civil", not because what you said was wrong, but because it's just a stinking shame that people who disagree can't have such civil conversations as a matter of course. "Civil discourse" is a rare commodity these days, but I hope our exchange can serve as a good example of it for anyone else wading through our comments.
<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Defining Decency Down</abbr>
<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Defining Decency Down</abbr>
I want to thank both of you for your comments on this post. You've kept this post alive and kicking and have made it my most popular post to date and the most commented. I'm closing the comments on this post as it has indeed run it's course. Thanks again.