Posted on 12/04/2003 9:53:48 AM PST by ArGee
Some thoughts from me on this discussion:
I can appreciate that the discussion of gay marriage, civil unions, and even the legal acceptance in Lawrence vs. Texas of private homosexual behavior is quite upsetting to people who view the world through a Judeo-Christian lens. The various religions, denominations, and sects that have developed from the Bible construct codes of conduct and behavior that keep their congregations functioning by social contract, and as a consequence, it is often necessary to draw lines between "us" and "them". Sometimes interim groups can be perceived, sort of "kind of like us, but not really us, but certainly not 'them'". I've seen this in some Christians who accept other Christians only if they are not Catholic, Mormon, etc., and have a tolerance of those from outside Christianity, if they are Jewish, for instance, when it is convenient on certain issues, like the government structure of Israel, for instance.
This line-drawing game goes on in each human life. It's necessary for our sanity! How else do you make sense of a world that has evil in it? I, for instance, consider myself pro-life, but I'm in favor of the death penalty. How do I do this? I draw the line between innocent life, and guilty life. The circumstances that challenge these lines are on the fringes, like insanity. I don't believe that we have the right to execute an insane criminal, but who is insane? I have no problem telling a woman who is pregnant by consensual sex that she should carry a baby to term, but what do I say to a pregnant 12 year old who was raped by her mother's boyfriend? Clearly, in the last case, there are two innocents to consider.
Some denominations have tried to come to grips with moral dilemmas raised by the need to treat gay people in our society fairly, with ancient Biblical injunctions to shun homosexuality. These churches have wrestled with the same dilemmas when it came to what to do about slavery, or the treatment of women, or racial equality. They see themselves properly as leaders of our society in dealing with these matters, and feel that they need to go forward from Biblical ideas that were relevant in an underpopulated world, but seem less so on a planet of six billion people, when deciding how to interpret language that was designed to fulfill the idea of "go forth and multiply".
Certainly, not every right-minded religious idea is right for our society. I was a Catholic during the mid 1980's when the US bishops were castigating Ronald Reagan for the military buildup of his Administration. War is hell, and does hurt a lot of people, but I'm glad that we got the payoff of the collapse of the Soviet Union during the Reagan-Bush years. The bishops' high minded idea was wrong, the Soviet bear responded to strength, not flower bouquets, and the good guys won. I suspect that is the way that many people here feel, that mainline Protestant denominations who are accepting of gay clergy, or are looking for ways to sanctify gay unions, are using high-minded (in their opinions), but mushy thinking in their analysis.
America, for better or worse, is the world's ultimate marketplace of ideas. Our Constitution enshrines change, if the people demand it, as much as it sanctifies fairness through constancy. Right now, the debate on gay marriage is joined, and important decisions are being made. The side that wins this debate is the side that convinces the most people in the middle that it is right. At this point, the middle says that while it's shocked by the Massachusetts court decision (because it probably wasn't paying attention), it really doesn't have an answer as to why gay people should not have some fairness in this area. The middle remembers when gay people were forced to be closeted, and it really doesn't want to shove them back in there, no matter what churchgoing conservatives think. The middle looks back with horror on gay bashing, and while it might have misgivings about hate-crime laws, it certainly doesn't want to see gay people being beaten up or killed because of their sexual orientation. Any arguments from the right that remind the middle of gay bashing are not going to influence anyone in the middle.
The same is true of religion based arguments. A powerful tradition in America is the idea that while each person has the right to practice their own religion, they do not have the right to impose the beliefs of that religion on others who do not believe. Certainly, a consensus born of religious thought or moral belief can infuse itself into law, but it needs to have a basis in objective moral reality, rather than just a reflection of mere ritual. An example of this is the repeal of "Sunday laws". When you have a majority government composed of people who ritualistically hold Sunday as a sacred day, you have laws that restrict alchoholic beverage sales on that day, or restrict businesses from opening on a "day of rest". A society that becomes more "live and let live" lets people decide whether they will work on Sunday, or buy a beer on that day. The people who wish to keep the Sabbath holy, get to do so, while the rights of others are not infringed.
The gay marriage debate centers on this. Unless conservatives can use this interim period where the middle is still uncomfortable with the idea of full gay marriage, but accepting of civil unions, as an opportunity to explain the actual harm that heterosexual marriage will endure by letting gays into the civil (but not religious) institution of marriage, then the period of discomfort will pass. Showing people in the middle that gay marriage and civil union are really the same thing, will only accellerate the process of acceptance of gay marriage, unless there is real harm shown. Just simply arguing that "it changes thousands of years of tradition," or "it's not Biblical," or "marriage is for procreation," is not going to do it. The folks in the middle have seen many traditions change, they are reluctant to infuse law with religion, and they know a lot of marriages that do not involve procreation, so these arguments will not wash. If conservatives want to win, they need to keep this as civil union, and preserve a distinction between full marriage, and what is essentially a contract right. The toothpaste is long gone out of the tube on civil union.
The fact that fundamentalist religious people are completely up in arms about this delights those on the left to no end. Expect them to be in society's face about this issue, and they'll do whatever they can to provoke an overreaction that will make them political hay. I'm sure they take some slight comfort whenever an abortion clinic is bombed, it gives them a chance to paint the pro-lifers as being so far away from the mainstream as to ridicule their ideas. They'd just love an opportunity to see a huge overplaying of the hand that Republicans have been dealt. They know that there's a period of time for the eventual societal acceptance of gay commitments, and they know that it's not going to happen before the 2004 election. If Republicans are seen as just saying "marriage is between a man and a woman", and offering the compromise of civil union where the courts force the issue, they can defuse this issue as cutting against them. The folks in the middle who are uncomfortable with even civil union can blame Howard Dean as the personification of it, and for those who are comfortable with civil union, Bush can win them over on other points, he has many to make. Howard can't bash Bush in a debate about his traditional view of marriage, after Howie's complained about making election debates being about "God, guns and gays".
The left won the abortion debate in this country, because the right didn't see them coming in time. If the right wants to win the gay marriage debate, then it had better change its tactics. There are some places where gay marriage and abortion would be acceptable, just like there are places where gay marriage or civil unions and abortion would never be acceptable. When we try to have the entire nation all one way, the left usually wins this debate.
Thanks again to ArGee for starting this thread, and thanks to all who provided light rather than heat.
It's not that new. In fact, I'm aware of one very old story involving a man, a woman, a snake, and a fruit...
Will we ever learn that we don't know more than G-d?
Shalom.
I resepectfully disagree. A man and a woman indulging in an illicit sexual relationship (if they are not married) can consecrate or legitimize that relationship by marrying. Two men or two women can only legitimize their relationship by ending it.
The sticking point is that a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can be licit or illicit; moral or immoral. Such a relationship can be the cornerstone and foundation of a civlization, or it can be destructive.
OTOH, a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex can only be immoral, illicit, and destructive.
You are right that the myriad types and levels of sexual immorality - from pre-marital sex, adultery, promiscuity, down to "swingers' clubs" and S&M and other horrors - are not only objectively evil, but are destroying countless individuals' lives and families, and therefore, by sheer numbers, society.
Yet if we celebrate the James Bond promiscuity in movies and TV, what basis do we have for telling homosexuals their own lifestyle is wrong?
The descent into the destruction of civilization hinges greatly on the debasement and destruction of sexual morality, and we have seen it happening for some time. It actually started over a hundred years ago or more. But the abyss has been reached with "homosexual marriage". Once the lines of right and wrong are completely erased, there is no stopping. Pedophilila, necrophilia and cannibalism are next on the list of acceptability. But homosexuality is a big milestone, because it is 100% forbidden not only by every monotheistic religion in the world, but by God in our hearts (as expressed by ArGee).
The homosexual activists and their handmaidens have succeeded probably beyond their wildest dreams. By desenstizing the populace to all manner of sexual immorality, (and then the populace indulging in same) who can point a finger at the pederasts and sodomy practitioners?
It's kind of like sharing stolen goods with someone, and later the partaker of such goods has no foundation from which to criticize the thief, even as they commit worse and worse crimes.
A lot of people - by nature - are easily led. And when practically 100% of the "information" that comes into their minds through school, media, "news", and so forth is wrong or biased, then such people will be easily led.
Only people who have a thirst for the truth - in any sphere - will do the work that it takes to find the truth. And then there are cynics who say "there is no truth" - but their absolute conviction of such lack of truth is itself a sort of truth, so they are hypocrites.
Just because a lot of people are witless doesn't make the situation ok. And when I say "witless" I don't mean low IQ. There's a native wit or intelligence that means the ability to discern - nay, discriminate - between right and wrong, and it has little or nothing to do with education level or "smarts". And many people have had this dulled out of them, therefore they swim in whichever direction the flow is going.
I hate to disagree with you, Kevin, since I usually do agree with your comments. From everything I have read (and I shamefully admit I haven't read EVERYTHING scripter has) the homosexuals you describe are the useful idiot ones. The real activists (like Michaelangelo Signorile) have admitted that their real reason for demanding marriage is to destroy it as a cultural institution, and this will enable them to fully indoctrinate children in the values of hoomosexuality right from the beginning. This is Signorile's admitted statement, as well as the platform of other activists.
Certainly, a consensus born of religious thought or moral belief can infuse itself into law, but it needs to have a basis in objective moral reality, rather than just a reflection of mere ritual.
Just where does one find "objective morality"? In a secular world view, every man is his own center of gravity, and the result is an enormity of competing individuals (who then form groups) each with distinct sets of rights and wrongs. Eventually, the "objective morality" becomes the moral view of whoever is in charge. The logical end of such objective morality is "might makes right".
On the other hand, sectarian viewpoints are equally untenable. What is the solution? The only solution I can see is to look, with a broad view, at the moral absolutes as contained in every monotheistic religion in the world (if people don't like to accept Judeo-Christian moral foundation). I have read major portions of the Koran (several years before 9-11), and the moral precepts are essentially the same as in the Bible. I have studied the Vedas for more than 30 years and I can assure you that the moral precepts contained in them are universal, and in complete congruence with what we accept as Judeo-Christian moral absolutes.
Any differences are slight - the basics are the same.
When we reject moral absolutes, the "moral objectivity" you speak of is nowhere to be found. We will wind up similar to a large pack of snarling dogs, and the big dog will set the rules.
Both are damaging to the fabric of society. They 'bother me' the same amount.
Ok, perhaps a poor choice of words. I refer, however, to the morality that any philosopher can understand, without reference to any specific religion. Surely, people who live their lives without religious belief structures can lead moral lives, at least in relation to the way they treat their fellow human beings. I was trying to distinguish between universal standards of right and wrong (Golden Rule, charity, mercy, avoidance of harm of others, etc.) that do get some disagreement on the fringes, and laws that clearly reflect the mere influence of a religious practice. My example of beer sales on Sunday seemed perfect as an example, if beer is wrong, it should be wrong all of the time, if beer is OK, then it should be as right to buy it on Sunday as it is on any other day of the week.
Are the common teachings of ancient religions a perfect guide to moral people of today? In most nearly everything, surely they have great value as showing us how to treat each other, but collectively, they have been wrong, as well. All of the major religious texts have countenanced slavery, all sanction war in ways that are easily misinterpreted by individuals who seek power through militarism, and all have regarded women as lesser beings.
Every religion that survived to be practiced today has facets that enabled its adherents to overcome hardships of everyday life. Surely, one of those hardships was producing enough people to fill the needs of an agricultural society. Yes, each new child is another mouth to feed, but generally, that mouth comes with a pair of hands to plant and to reap. Any religion that said, "Replace yourselves, but no more," would have died out what with famines, wars, disease, and accidents, on top of those who were infertile, and we would not have heard about that religion. Clearly, our Western society has re-evaluated its position on slavery, on equality of the races, and of the sexes, and it is currently considering its stance on a form of non-procreative sexual behavior. Were the Biblical (and other faiths) injuctions against homosexuality designed to foster procreative uses of sex, and thus aid the spread of the society with that set of beliefs, or are they universal truths, never to be tampered with? Many here would argue the latter, many in the world outside of Free Republic would agree with the former. Those are going to be the fellow Americans who will need to be convinced that gay marriage is wrong for reasons that do not revolve around ancient religious beliefs, tradition (which is just doing something a certain way because its always been done that way), or procreation. I just haven't seen any reasons that would convince anybody in the middle, who hears the other side talk about fairness, lack of harm to existing and future heterosexual marriages, and tolerance.
We will wind up similar to a large pack of snarling dogs, and the big dog will set the rules.
Well, I suspect there will be a lot of snarling in about five months or so, when gay people will either flock to MA for ceremonies and marriage certificates to take back to the courts at home. That's only if the MA legislature fails to adopt a civil unions plan that peels away one judge from the 4-3 majority, to approve the compromise. Those people who think that some form of civil disobedience or divine intervention will occur to prevent any official recognition of some form of gay commitment by the state of Massachusetts will be quite disappointed. I expect there to be lots of unhappy people posting here on May 17th (or soon thereafter, if the legislature fails to enact something the court -the big dog here- can live with) when CNN shows pictures of gay couples in wedding regalia on TV. By that time, middle America will have come to grips with it, and if the answer is gay marriage that they don't like, they can always vote for the guy who believes that marriage should always be between a man and a woman.
Apparently you see religion based morality as antiquated, imperfect, and needing updating. The problem with that view is where does the metamorphosis of moral standards stop? It only stops when the big dog says it stops. Gay marriage seems to be ok with a lot of people now (although the figures I've read are about 60% against); but if there are no moral absolutes, what about polygamy? Already there may be a case about that. Polyandry? Or sets of three or more people? Or incest? There's nothing inherently "more" wrong about those types of sexual relationships.
And what about pedophilia? There are currently professors and psychologists who are propagandizing adult child sex - in the name of childrens' rights of sexual expression. Gay activists initially wanted to eliminate the age of consent; now it has been softened to lowering it bit by bit so as not to outrage the natives. (In the Netherlands, they have lowered it for boys to 12, due to the pressure from gay activists.) You may say, well, adults having sex with children is wrong because the majority of people say it's wrong. Majority is an amorphous thing, changes with whoever's voice is the loudest and most insistent.
I agree that mere quoting of the Bible (or Manu Samhita, or Talmud) is not enough to convince everyone of the evils or harm caused by normalization of same sex acts or marriage. But eliminating moral absolutes from legitimate discussion means that eventually the debate boils down to: "It's right!" "No, it's wrong!" "No, it's right!" etc. and those with the most access to media and courts, wins.
Scripter's links contain article after article of the dangers of same sex acts in the form of disease, pedophilia and so on. But people who want to normalize homosexuality avoid these topics like the plague. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own set of facts. If someone wants to make the claim that same sex acts are not unhealthy or physiologically unnatural, let's see some articles. The facts about homosexuality are driven from the debate by gay activists and their handmaidens, with cries of "bigot!" and "hater!", threats of lawsuits, or - as in Canada, the UK and other countries, fines and jail sentences.
One problem is that it already IS public, and will become more and more so. Your statement is like someone saying "I don't want anyone to steal the horses from my barn". Well, the horses are gone, the barn is burned down, and the fence is ripped out of the ground.
It's on the streets, in the schools, forced on employees and business owners, in every form of entertainment and media, and so on. The courts are validating it as we speak, and will continue to try to do so. You are being forced into it with or without your consent. And this is the intent of the gay activists - to change the very atmosphere we live in.
I agree with your point that everyone needs to work on his/her own spiritual life or moral life - but this doesn't negate our responsibility to protect the public virtue, which is right now being viciously attacked on many fronts.
Me too. But are you one who accepts "civil unions" while rejecting "homosexual marriage?"
I would guess you are not. It is that "mush middle", as Hunter112 calls them, that I am trying to understand.
Shalom.
True, but a slavery that more resembles today's 30-year mortgage than the slavery of the U.S. south. No religion santions treating people as property. That was the huge jump that made slavery immoral. There is nothing inherently immoral in a business transaction that binds one man in service to another for long periods of time, or for life, as long as the bound is treated as a human being.
all sanction war in ways that are easily misinterpreted by individuals who seek power through militarism, and all have regarded women as lesser beings.
So you blame the religious truths for those who misapply them?
Shalom.
From G-d's perspective, all sin is sin, and lying to our wife about working late when we were out playing golf is just as sinful as homosexuality from that standpoint. But not all sins are as socially destructive. That's why we can justify lying (a sin) to the Nazis about hiding Jews in the attic to impede the holocause (a sin).
From G-d's perspective, both might be equally sinful, but there is a difference.
But your analysis above is spot-on. If more Christians would remember that Jesus came to save us as much as them the world would be in a lot better shape. Unfortunately, most American Christianity is really paganism with a thin veneer of Biblical Christianity glued to the outside.
Shalom.
That's because Hunter believes religion was created to make morality easier to conrol. I don't think that hypothesis would satisfy Occam's razor. It is far more likely that G-d revealed truth to us, but we prefer to think we are smart enough to figure it out on our own.
I believe morality is a universal law, like the laws of physics, only with far less immediate consequences. If you jump off a cliff, you fall to your death. If you ignore the moral law, your nation slowly slides off a cliff. The unfortunate part of that is that while we are sliding, we delude ourselves into thinking it isn't because of our gross immorality that we are sliding.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.