StarDestroyer.Net BBS

CaptJodan wrote:My co-worker’s position was that, as long as the law was exactly equal to gay couples as it was to straight couples, then a different term (not necessarily civil union) should be an acceptable compromise.

Darth Wong wrote: PS. You don't have to attack religion in order to attack the lie that religion owns marriage. That's a simple matter of history. Does she think the ancient Egyptians and Chinese copied marriage from Judeo-Christianity 5000 years ago, long before Judeo-Christianity existed?

CaptJodan wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:PS. You don't have to attack religion in order to attack the lie that religion owns marriage. That's a simple matter of history. Does she think the ancient Egyptians and Chinese copied marriage from Judeo-Christianity 5000 years ago, long before Judeo-Christianity existed?

Actually, no, but she does seem to believe that marriage exists as a product of religion (be it Egyptian, Babylonian, whatever), which I suppose is easily enough refuted in countries where religion doesn't have so tight a hold.

Darth Wong wrote: Ask her to justify this claim rather than simply stating it. Especially since the basic idea of marriage doesn't change much from culture to culture even if the beliefs of the religion change enormously. It's always been about publicly laying claim to someone, and about assigning property rights.

For that matter, ask her to explain where the Bible says that God invented the tradition. Especially since Adam and Eve never had a wedding ceremony. The Bible simply starts mentioning the concept of husbands and wives without making note of where it came from. Yes, there are part of the Bible where it says that a married couple becomes one in Christ or some other poetic nonsense, but that does not mean God invented the concept of marriage, or that pagans have no claim on it. There are parts of the Bible where it says that single people become one with Christ too, or that shared belief means you become part of one family, also joined with Christ. Does that mean God invented the concepts of being single, or being part of a group? Just how far are we to take this absurd pseudo-logic?

Kitsune wrote:Another item which might or might no is that some religions such as Universalist Unitarians and modern pagans mostly support gay marriage....Those are religious organizations which support gay marriage.

CaptJodan wrote:I made a point of pointing this out in my response, that some religions might well accept a "spiritual union" (I changed it slightly Lusankya) while others would not, thus further confusing an issue that needs no further confusion. I await her response, and might post it (and my original message) here if she does it in a reasonably timely manner.

CaptJodan wrote: I'm really willing to bring actual Abrahamic religious discussions into play only as a last resort, primarily because I fear, like so many other strongly religious people, that she will shut down an otherwise productive debate on the moral implications of separate terms for the same concept. I'd like to defeat her logic on strictly moral/ethical grounds if I can, especially since actually debating the premise that biblical marriage even matters when we see the tradition used well beyond that religion is the key concept I want her to accept.

Me-with snips for fluff like intros and names and such wrote:
After thinking about it a bit, I think there were a few things I wanted to discuss regarding your idea, and feel free to respond as you like.

1. I would imagine that perhaps changing the definition of marriage to those people who married (heterosexually) outside the church might not understand why their definition is changing. The use of the term seems quite ingrained in our culture (as it is in so many others) and just the logistical issues of changing the term for a whole host of people would (probably for the conservative right) be unacceptable It would, after all, cost money to have all those forms changed and such. However, from a moral standpoint, I don think this argument does much. It's more from a practical standpoint.

2. Someone asked me (when I was knocking the idea around) "how would religious institutions feel if we changed their term, but kept "marriage" as a secular term?" In other words, reverse the plan. This is an interesting concept for me. We know that marriages, as the term goes, have taken place around the world, and long before Christianity even existed (this makes a couple assumptions about your beliefs, so forgive me if I am overreaching). Marriages have been performed both before and after the existence of Christianity which might have involved little or no religion at all.

Ergo, the logical conclusion is that marriage transcends any one particular religion (and as my next point will demonstrates, kind of transcends any singular definition). Thus, the term "marriage" should remain a secular term, while something like "spiritual union" or the like would take the place of religious unions.

Now the question here is, do we think religious institutions would accept this compromise? I don't think they would, and I would ask you to ask yourself why that is. It suggests that there is a hidden power to the word, a power that fundamentally suggests a higher, more important, more respected union than another term would convey. And that is why I bring up "separate but equal" as a concept. The laws wouldn't be different, but the social impact might be.

3. I'm sure you'd agree that marriage itself has never really had a solid definition from the beginning of time. The actual definition has not always included one man with one woman, it hasn't always included love (more arranged or used as a currency exchange), and of course today, it certainly doesn't mean a union between a couple and God (in non-religious ceremonies, or ones of a wholly different religion that does not deal with a single God, for example). I submit that the term has the capacity to accept the influx of homosexual unions to be counted as marriage. You stated earlier that because of separation of church and state, the state cannot bind the church to accept the union, and I agree. But at the same time, the church should not have sole rights over the term "marriage" for all persons, even those of non-religious or different religious faith, as the street works both ways.

Her wrote: 1, 2 and 3.--my answers all got mixed together . I'm really glad you were kicking the idea we talked about on Friday around with friends (haha, that sounds funny). I did the same, and it brought about good conversation. Several conservative people I spoke to agreed with the concept that religious marriages (of various religions) and legal unions were fundementally different, although related entities. Because of this, even though they felt that homosexuality would be, in the long run, harmful for society, they they agreed that possibly sepparating the legal and religious catagories would be a fair compromise between differing ideologies.

Your idea about asking religious institutions to create a new term for their sanctioned heterosexual unions was interesting. To me personally, the importance seems to be distincition, one way or the other, and I think the idea is fair. You are suggesting that all forms of legalized unions, no matter the situation, be defined as marriage? I did some research, and the only logical/legistical point I have to make about that is as follows: While homosexual unions have been legally recognized in countries such as Africa, China and Japan, in the English language, the word marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman (see dictionaries and the OED). The Anglo-saxon/English world has never practiced or had a word for homosexual marriage. If we were to legeslate two catagories of government recognized unions, then it would seem logical that the new catagory be the one to come up with a new name. If, from a legal standpoint, this seems unjust or dangerous, then it seems that those religious institutions who still believe in strictly heterosexual unions should keep the term "marriage," since that is what it has always meant, and that the government should devise two new terms for heterosexual and homosexual legal unions.

I see what you are saying about marriage sounding like the official or correct term and a new term sounding less authorized. I think that exhuming the term marriage from state-sanctioned verbage and starting with two, equally new and similar terms for heterosexual and homosexual legal unions would be fair. It would also make a clear distinction between what the government sanctions and what spiritual authorities sanction.

Here are a couple of the sources I was looking at--some are directly related, and some indirectly. Both have a nice list of references that we can look into buying/obtaining on our own--which I thought was really useful.

http://www.ejhs.org/volume10/betrayal.htm
http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article. ... ssmarriage

Thanks again for writing! This was a good idea. I'm sorry if it seemed like it took me a while to reply. I just saw the e-mail tonight. Sometimes it takes me a while to respond to e-mails, so if that ever happens, it doesn't mean that I'm anoyed or offended, it just means that I'm probably I havn't found a good chunck of time to write back yet (it takes me a while to write e-mails . So, again, thanks very much and I look forward to continuing the discussion.

Your bubbly airhead friend wrote:I did some research, and the only logical/legistical point I have to make about that is as follows: While homosexual unions have been legally recognized in countries such as Africa, China and Japan, in the English language, the word marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman (see dictionaries and the OED)

marriages (of various religions) and legal unions were fundementally different, although related entities.

even though they felt that homosexuality would be, in the long run, harmful for society,

While homosexual unions have been legally recognized in countries such as Africa, China and Japan, in the English language, the word marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman (see dictionaries and the OED). The Anglo-saxon/English world has never practiced or had a word for homosexual marriage.

government should devise two new terms for heterosexual and homosexual legal unions.

I think that exhuming the term marriage from state-sanctioned verbage and starting with two, equally new and similar terms for heterosexual and homosexual legal unions would be fair.

Darth Wong wrote: Your bubbly airhead friend wrote:

CaptJodan wrote: 1. “Because of this, even though they felt that homosexuality would be, in the long run, harmful for society…”

Did you ask them how it would be harmful to society? I’m curious to know what their reasons are. Do they fear people will be “recruited” into being gay? Or is it a condemnation against people being “openly” gay and not being forced to a heterosexual marriage? Do they have evidence that homosexual marriage will be harmful to a society at large?

2. “You are suggesting that all forms of legalized unions, no matter the situation, be defined as marriage?”

In a word, yes. Many conservatives (some still today) find the idea of interracial marriage to be repugnant. There is, in fact, even a separate word for the concept known as miscegenation (which includes, but is not limited to interracial marriage). Do we point to a man and a woman of different race and say “they are miscegenationed” (or something to that effect)? No, we say they are married, but it wasn’t so long ago that marriages between two racially different people were not recognized by state or church. The term marriage adapted to accommodate interracial marriage. It has also already adapted for legal unions outside of the church, i.e. secular marriage, a marriage not in any way under God. So why single out homosexual marriage?

3. “I did some research, and the only logical/legistical point I have to make about that is as follows: While homosexual unions have been legally recognized in countries such as Africa, China and Japan, in the English language, the word marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman (see dictionaries and the OED).”

This is simply false.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare ROYAL MARRIAGE.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

I think you should take special note of several items there.
First, #4, where the meaning of the word explicitly mentions homosexuals, but refers to it as being without legal sanction. Now if it goes from being illegal to legal, with the same rights as heterosexual marriage, how is it in need of another term?

Items 5-9 simply refute the idea that marriage ONLY means a union between a man and a woman. The fact is that marriage has grown to accommodate unions that have nothing whatsoever to do with living beings. But I think it’s important to understand the hypocrisy here. Your position insinuates that it’s fair to say “the marriage of ice cream and apple pie is a match made in heaven”, but that “gay marriage” is going too far. In effect, an inanimate object is more worthy of the term marriage than a gay couple that perform a union (religious or secular) ceremony. Does that seem like a morally defensible position to you?

Lastly, take a look at definition 10. That is what the definition of marriage used to look like. Marriage used to refer to a contract between husband and wife. You’ll note that the term “obsolete” is next to it. The definition was changed to reflect our more modern outlook on society, and it’s by no means the only word that has gone through such changes. Just because a word has always meant X does not mean it cannot change. “Cool” used to just refer to temperature differences, after all.

4. “I see what you are saying about marriage sounding like the official or correct term and a new term sounding less authorized. I think that exhuming the term marriage from state-sanctioned verbage and starting with two, equally new and similar terms for heterosexual and homosexual legal unions would be fair. It would also make a clear distinction between what the government sanctions and what spiritual authorities sanction.”

But isn’t this overly and unnecessarily complex? We’ve already been talking about creating terms based on religious and non-religious based unions, but we seem to be drifting back to homosexual vs. heterosexual. It seems as if we have moved from talking about adding one additional term to adding three plus the one already in existence (religious heterosexual, religious homosexual, non-religious heterosexual, non-religious homosexual). For that matter, why don’t we differentiate between interracial marriages, and refer to these differently, which would put in an addition 2 terms? I see this as doing no favors to anyone socially. It actually would serve to further subdivide populations into “groups”, or tribal units. I don’t see how this brings acceptance or equality.

Your idea of creating two separate terms does not seem different from creating a separate term for interracial marriage, which as we can see was never adopted as a means to describe interracial relationships, and even doesn’t exclusively target only interracial couples. Why, then, should it be permissible to single out a specific group which the church finds offensive (as they used to with interracial couples (and some still do)) when we have found ways to incorporate non-traditional unions into the word “marriage” in the past?

ray245 wrote:Just asking people around here, did the ancient Greeks ever refer to their union between homosexual partners as marriage?

ray245 wrote:Just asking people around here, did the ancient Greeks ever refer to their union between homosexual partners as marriage?

Kitsune wrote:

ray245 wrote:Just asking people around here, did the ancient Greeks ever refer to their union between homosexual partners as marriage?

I brought that up in another discussion and the person I was discussing it with stated that it was between an older man and a younger male, trying to suggest pedophilia. From what I read though, the union between males and females were often of similar ages though.

Kitsune wrote:I would be careful how far to follow that. For example, what what Pagan Scandinavians call marriage be considered marriage. In some instances, a Pagan warlord would even be married to one or more Christian wives. I think as far as monogamy (In the West), it is a more or less Roman practice although the Greeks might have followed it.

salm wrote:Why is it even important what the word used to mean? Even if the word marriage wouldn´t have included the gay variant of marriage it could just be amended. That´s like saying we can´t call gay people gay because gay used to mean something else.

CaptJodan wrote:

salm wrote:Why is it even important what the word used to mean? Even if the word marriage wouldn´t have included the gay variant of marriage it could just be amended. That´s like saying we can´t call gay people gay because gay used to mean something else.

From what I've been able to piece together of her argument, she's trying to discover a compromise between those that want equal rights and a rightful gay marriage, and those conservative church-goers that want gays not to infringe upon their marriage. She's trying to prop the term marriage as a "church only" term, because, in her view, the meaning was theirs first (at least in the English variation). There are, of course, all kinds of problems with that, including the one you mention (and I hope my argument dealt with).

Her wrote:I re-read our past e-mails, and I'll try to pick up where we left off.

I agree that the meanings of words change: this, in fact, is the very primes of our discussion--we are attempting to define terms in light of modern changing reality. I agree that marriage does not imply Christian marriage, but to many different religious and secular ideas of marriage--that was a good point. My point in the previous e-mail was that marriage has in the past always been defined as a union of a man and a woman, and that it was not until the last three decades that the term has begun to include another possible meaning--as the dictionary.com definition you cited demonstrates. In our discussion about the possibility of creating one new term, my point was to contrast 800 years, to 30 years in deciding which group, if a second name was added, the term "marriage" should logically apply to. However, I can understand your concern regarding such a categorical definition because of cultural value which accompanies naming. Your point about using the word marriage to talk about inanimate objects but not people was particularly valid to me. I also concede that it would be logistically difficult to create two whole new terms for heterosexual and homosexual marriage, and the more that I thought about it, I believe you are right: either the state should recognize a difference or they should not. Choosing one term to name all legally recognized unions seems to be logical.

You compared homosexual marriage to miscegenation, pointing out that if one is not distinguished in modern society, than neither should be the other. However, I believe that there is a large difference. Skin color and biological sex are two very separate issues. There is a very substantial difference between skin pigment and sex organs--not to mention the many other sexually differentiated organs. While the miscegenation and homosexuality have both become more accepted in America over the last 150 years, I do not believe that this chronological parallel is enough to substantiate larger ideological comparisons. Just because one idea is progressively accepted doesn't mean that all ideas should be. For example: child pornography, factory farming, and commercial materialism, although they have only become increasingly accepted over the last 70 years, are not necessarily good components of society. By the same token, just because some ideas become less accepted doesn't mean that they are incorrect--the practice of backing printed currency with another form of wealth is a good example of this. This leads into something else you asked me about in your last e-mail.

You asked me why Christians believe that homosexual marriage would be harmful to society. I will try my best to answer this question, but it is certainly only scratching the surface. According to the Bible, God created humans. They are his own masterpiece whom he loves and whom he intends to be in fellowship with for all of existence. God created humans perfect, with every aspect of our essence in balance and accord with his character and our good. We were, however, led astray and became infected with a virus which has corrupted us through and through. Although we are bear the image of God, that image is warped by our rebellion and sin. All of the good desires and drives that we have are now slightly off-balance. Ambition, passion, anger, sadness, hunger, sexual desire, fear, and reason are all drives which are now misinformed by a will that is both rebellious against God, as well as unable to judge the greater benefit or harm of individual choices, and thus more prone to error and serious fallacy. In order to protect us, the Bible teaches that God informed humans about what is and is not good. Greed, rage, ruthlessness, self-pity, anorexia, anxiety, arrogance are all examples of dangerous deviation from healthy drive control--they are all innate drives which contradict the character of God and harm us as individuals and as communities. Although we cannot escape these realities of our existence, we can work to avoid them. Of the sexual drives, God says that the one and only sexual model that is safe and good is an exclusive, monogamous relationship with one member of the opposite sex while they are living. The Bible says that the monogamous sexual relationship between a man and a woman represents the relationship between God and humans. The interaction of two people's sexual organs, made to fit together, hints at not just a physical but also transcendent spiritual reality. The monogamy of this act--each individual being solely devoted to the other--is significant because God has promised a singular, devoted, never-ending love to humans and desires the same in return. Additionally, there are aspects of God which are represented in men and women exclusively--both are made in the image of God, and it is in the union of the two that the full picture of God's character is best seen--as flawed as men and women are, it is still the picture God has given to us, one of the many that lasts as a dim reflection of what God intended for us--sisterhood, brotherhood, motherhood, fatherhood, friendship, and civic servanthood are other examples of dim reflections he's given us to teach us about him and what we were meant to be. The way that we interact with others emotionally, spiritually, physically all either reflects the character of God or twists it. So in Christian marriage, both the daily/lifetime choices of the relationship, as well as the individual sexual acts of the relationship are meant to reflect the goodness and glory of God. When this pattern is twisted, so is the reality which it represents. Because both the body and the spirit are to reflect and glorify God at all times, no other form of sexual interaction are acceptable before God. When societies begin to practice and accept sexual practices outside of what God has prescribed for us, they are stepping outside of what is good for them. Homosexuality is only one of many ways that we can step outside of the safety zone of God's structure. Adultery, prostitution, sexual trafficking, polygamy, promiscuity, pornography, etc. are all harmful to individuals and to communities--yet our society and our world has chosen to live in practice of these things because they gratify unhealthy but strong sexual drives. Every single person struggles with such desires--no one is pure or free from unhealthy desires, in any area of life. But what God has requires us to do is to reverence his Love for us above our own immediate desires and gratification and trust that He has the authority and wisdom to inform our present actions. I understand that you probably do not accept these ideas, but it is the answer to your question, and I hope that it will at least help you understand where Christians are coming from and why they think the way they do.

The Bible does not express any objection to miscegenation--in fact, God punished one person for merely mocking a miscegenated couple. However, the God of the Bible forbids homosexual acts. Skin color is irrelevant to God in this issue, but sexual identity is not--God even speaks specifically in the Bible to hermaphrodites, barren, and sterile men and women, explaining how despite their lack and cultural persecution, he (God) values them and will bless them even more than typical heterosexual, reproductive individuals, for loving him and walking in his ways. In other words, God places real weight on sexual identity but does not judge people the way that most of the world judges people on these counts. He acknowledges all reality, and he prescribes what reality is best. Just as God loves each individual completely, without loving their hourly acts of sin, so Christians are called to love every person without affirming their sin. So as Christians living in America, the church is commanded to love and except people who are homosexuals, but they are not to support homosexuality as a socially-accepted practice.

I hope this was helpful. It really, in a way, completely changes our discussion. Originally I was approaching the issue hoping to find a middle ground where a legal compromise could be drawn up which would respect the interests of both parties--those for and against homosexuality as a social practice. I think that that approach would still be a valid and helpful possibility that should be explored. However, in your last e-mail you seemed interested in talking about why the "other side" took the stance they did in the first place, so this response took a slightly different direction. But, let me know what you think--we can continue talk about the Christian standpoint, or we could go back to talking about things from a more legal/neutral perspective of arbitration. I'm good either way.

Ok, so this is something of a necro, given how long it's been since I last posted, but this was only due to the fact that the other party didn't get back to me for so long. In addition, it's still well into the first page, so I was hoping it'd still be valid.

However, I believe that there is a large difference. Skin color and biological sex are two very separate issues. There is a very substantial difference between skin pigment and sex organs--not to mention the many other sexually differentiated organs. While the miscegenation and homosexuality have both become more accepted in America over the last 150 years, I do not believe that this chronological parallel is enough to substantiate larger ideological comparisons.

Just because one idea is progressively accepted doesn't mean that all ideas should be. For example: child pornography, factory farming, and commercial materialism, although they have only become increasingly accepted over the last 70 years, are not necessarily good components of society.

By the same token, just because some ideas become less accepted doesn't mean that they are incorrect--the practice of backing printed currency with another form of wealth is a good example of this.

Ambition, passion, anger, sadness, hunger, sexual desire, fear, and reason are all drives which are now misinformed by a will that is both rebellious against God, as well as unable to judge the greater benefit or harm of individual choices, and thus more prone to error and serious fallacy.

Of the sexual drives, God says that the one and only sexual model that is safe and good is an exclusive, monogamous relationship with one member of the opposite sex while they are living. The Bible says that the monogamous sexual relationship between a man and a woman represents the relationship between God and humans.

The interaction of two people's sexual organs, made to fit together, hints at not just a physical but also transcendent spiritual reality.

The monogamy of this act--each individual being solely devoted to the other--is significant because God has promised a singular, devoted, never-ending love to humans and desires the same in return.

Additionally, there are aspects of God which are represented in men and women exclusively--both are made in the image of God, and it is in the union of the two that the full picture of God's character is best seen

The way that we interact with others emotionally, spiritually, physically all either reflects the character of God or twists it. So in Christian marriage, both the daily/lifetime choices of the relationship, as well as the individual sexual acts of the relationship are meant to reflect the goodness and glory of God. When this pattern is twisted, so is the reality which it represents. Because both the body and the spirit are to reflect and glorify God at all times, no other form of sexual interaction are acceptable before God. When societies begin to practice and accept sexual practices outside of what God has prescribed for us, they are stepping outside of what is good for them. Homosexuality is only one of many ways that we can step outside of the safety zone of God's structure.

Adultery, prostitution, sexual trafficking, polygamy, promiscuity, pornography, etc. are all harmful to individuals and to communities--yet our society and our world has chosen to live in practice of these things because they gratify unhealthy but strong sexual drives.

Every single person struggles with such desires--no one is pure or free from unhealthy desires, in any area of life.

I understand that you probably do not accept these ideas, but it is the answer to your question, and I hope that it will at least help you understand where Christians are coming from and why they think the way they do.

The Bible does not express any objection to miscegenation

However, the God of the Bible forbids homosexual acts.

Originally I was approaching the issue hoping to find a middle ground where a legal compromise could be drawn up which would respect the interests of both parties--those for and against homosexuality as a social practice.

-I can't recall that child pornography has become MORE accepted as a social practice? Isn't this just a flat out lie? Weren't children exploited more in a variety of different ways more in the past?

-Is that skin color thing even accurate? I was under the impression that a passage in the Bible actually speaks against dark skin.