800 years or 80 years ... what difference does it make? Tradition by itself is no justification for anything.Bubblehead wrote: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.
She clearly misunderstands the point of the comparison. No one is saying that skin pigmentation is exactly the same as gender in every way; that is a huge strawman fallacy on her part. The point is that the arguments against gay marriage are logically similar to the arguments against interracial marriage: appeals to tradition, religion, made-up "natural law", and the notion that if we deviate too far from one particular accepted norm, then we might lose all of them.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.
There's simply a blizzard of misleading, distorted, and false claims here. Too many to go into in detail, and all totally irrelevant to the point being made. She's attempting misdirection here.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.
She is treating her religious beliefs as if they are objective fact. This is all what many (albeit not all) Christians believe. That is irrelevant to a discussion of what society may permit. Christians also believe it is a "sin" to reject God, yet society does not force people to accept God. She also makes numerous claims of social harm which are also mere statements of belief, and which are also irrelevant to social policy because they have no objective basis.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.
This is an outright falsehood. There are entire books in the Minor Prophet area of the Old Testament devoted to condemnation of interracial marriage.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.
If God places so much weight on "sexual identity", why did Jesus spend almost all of his time attacking material power and wealth rather than sexual adventurism? Why are Americans, the most capitalistic and militaristic society on Earth, also claiming to be the most Christian? Why is homosexuality singled out among the vast litany of sins for special persecution? Why aren't rich people condemned by Christians, since Jesus condemns the wealthy and says that they will be paupers in the Kingdom of Heaven? Why aren't bankers condemned by Christians, since Jesus condemns the money lenders? Why aren't tax collectors treated the same way as prostitutes, since Jesus spoke of them in the same breath and in the same way? Christians don't even have a problem with convicted murderers getting married, yet they suddenly rise up to speak against homosexuals being treated like everyone else? Because homosexuality is immoral? Is it worse than MURDER? The hypocrisy is absolutely disgusting.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.
Christians find a lot of ways to interpret the Bible to their own advantage, or to the advantage of their own prejudices. The sins of themselves or their peers are somehow not worthy of public condemnation, while the sins of others are. No reasoning is given for this double standard, other than to quote the parts of the Bible which condemn their foes and downplay or ignore the parts of the Bible which condemn their friends.
Interesting. Read this carefully: she just admitted that her interest in gay marriage is due to her desire to stamp out homosexuality in society. It's not about the definition of marriage; it's about her belief that homosexuality should be eliminated entirely. Marriage is just a means to an end for her, with the ultimate goal being a homosexual-free society.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.
In short, it's pretty much an admission that this is about hatred of gays, not the contrived smokescreens she threw up earlier. And she does not distinguish between "interests" and "opinions". Gays have "interests" in being treated as equals: this will directly affect their own lives. Anti-gay bigots do not have any "interests" in mistreating gays; it will not directly affect their own lives in any way. They only have opinions on how gays should be treated.
She's a fucking stupid bitch and a liar, to be honest. She cloaks her bigotry beneath kind-sounding words, and she cloaks her religious insanity beneath neutral-sounding language.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.
