The Marriage Equality Thread

[Jonas]

On the political (rather than theological) level:

1. Marriage is not a uniquely Christian concept.
2. Non-Christians can get married according to principles and rituals that aren't Christian.
3. There are no non-religious reasons to forbid gay marriage.
4. Therefore, unless you object to Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Jains and (etc.) getting married, you have no reason to oppose gay marriage.

[Jan]

I can't help but be excited at this news:

http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-passes-resolution-in-support-of-marriage-equalit

NAACP Passes Resolution in Support of Marriage Equality
May 19, 2012
Decision Affirms Opposition to Government Efforts to Codify Discrimination

(Miami, Florida) The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People today released a resolution supporting marriage equality. At a meeting of the 103-year old civil rights groupÆs board of directors, the organization voted to support marriage equality as a continuation of its historic commitment to equal protection under the law.

ôThe mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure the political, social and economic equality of all people,ö said Roslyn M. Brock, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the NAACP. ôWe have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law.ö

ôCivil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACPÆs support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all peopleö said Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP.

The NAACP has addressed civil rights with regard to marriage since Loving v. Virginia declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967. In recent years the NAACP has taken public positions against state and federal efforts to ban the rights and privileges for LGBT citizens, including strong opposition to Proposition 8 in California, the Defense of Marriage Act, and most recently, North CarolinaÆs Amendment 1, which changed the state constitutionÆs to prohibit same sex marriage.

Below is the text of the resolution passed by the NAACP board of directors:

The NAACP Constitution affirmatively states our objective to ensure the ôpolitical, educational, social and economic equalityö of all people. Therefore, the NAACP has opposed and will continue to oppose any national, state, local policy or legislative initiative that seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the Constitutional rights of LGBT citizens. We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.

Jan

[JoeD80]

well written.

If only my boss could give me such compliments!

My apologies for misunderstanding what you were saying there.

No need to apologize; just trying to do my best to be clear.

[WorkerCaste]

Except that again ignores the Jewish law that Christ was raised under in order to make that debate. It frames the meaning of the words under a modern, secular mindset, rather than a Jewish religious one. Paul, the author of most of the letters of the new testament was actually a Jewish religious scholar before his conversion. Prior to his conversion, he was a member of the Sanhedrin, which were elite judges that went around literally trying and executing people who violated Jewish law. The idea that homosexuality would have been acceptable would have been extremely foreign to both Christ's and Paul's culture. Again, this all presumes for the sake of argument that these are just normal human beings.

I've also heard the "it doesn't condemn lesbianism" argument several times, which is also framing the words in a modern English mindset. If you look in the Bible's original languages, in every instance where we would say "One who..." or "A person who..." they always use the masculine, He. It isn't that the Bible is anti-female or anything like that, but it was common to writings of the time. Separating out and specifically saying "lesbian" wouldn't have been part of his writing except in instances where he was only addressing women. There weren't lesbian special interest groups in Isreal in 60-80 AD for that to have been a consideration. Looking at the author's life again to try to discern the intention of the writings: the Jewish Law again doesn't make that distinction, so the intention of condoning lesbianism while condemning male homosexuality would again be highly unlikely.

I am assuming that you mean that the ômistakenö possibility ignores Jewish law rather than the ôtranslationö possibility. Actually, I donÆt think it does. It merely makes the point that, in the absence of direct quotes from Christ, we donÆt know what he believed. As I recall, the New Testament tells us that Christ did not unilaterally follow Jewish law. WouldnÆt ChristÆs defense of the adulteress have been just as culturally foreign? The fact that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin doesnÆt impact that at all, since the premise was that it could be a mistaken assumption based on the authorÆs beliefs. Also, our knowledge of Jewish law is subject to the same possibilities of honest mistakes and translation errors. It is a tradition in the Jewish faith to debate the fine points of law.

Yes, the possibilities I raise do presume that these are human beings, although perhaps not normal, depending on your definition of normal. If by normal you mean within the range of possible human characteristics, then I would have to say that I believe the apostles to be normal. If by normal you mean within the range of prevalent human characteristics, then I would credit them with being outside of that range. I would believe them to be intelligent and spiritual men, but not infallible. This could certainly be an impasse in our opinions. I will point out that in the scriptures the apostles make mistakes, though. JudasÆs fall and PeterÆs denial come quickly to mind. They were students, and I doubt they had time to learn all the Christ could teach.

Ordinarily with most older writings I would concede the point concerning ôOne whoö or ôA person whoö being masculine but able to refer to both, although it was just as frequently because the culture did not think the women counted as it was a matter of selecting one gender for convenience. In this specific case, though, gender is the issue. The sin is not ôa person who lies with another person.ö In the passage from Mark you mentioned earlier they dealt quite handily with man and wife. When speaking of not lying with a woman during her period, the feminine is used is it not?

One thing I didnÆt mention before that impacts the arguments in Timothy and Titus is that the authorship is not universally accepted. Differences in language and tone, among other things, leave a debate as to whether Paul actually wrote the Pastorals, and they are the primary source of the arguments against homosexuality. I certainly donÆt know whether he did or notà well beyond my level of knowledgeà but it does not appear to be a fringe argument, and one that has been debated since the second century. But this leads us back, once again, to the possibility of error. Between the authors understanding , the proximity of the authorÆs to the source, the editing and translation, there is, to me, a great deal of room for error.

I notice that you didnÆt respond to my final two paragraphs, though. I was interested in hearing your thoughts.

SO.. how can the current laws be changed to allow everyone's opinion to viable and everyone rights to be upheld? Does the word marriage need to be removed from laws and kept as a societal(that a word?) issue? Can just the word legal union be used instead with the definition of that being the big discussion? And of course i have no legal background at all so this maybe far harder than i think it should be.

That would certainly satisfy my sense of justice. I have no interest in trying to tell a religion what a marriage should be in their eyes. I am more concerned with the legal aspects. That being said, you will notice that the most recent legislation passed against gay marriage also ruled out any form of civil union or other legally recognised relationship. Also, from a practical perspective, striking all governmental references to "marriage" in every law, document and form would probably be prohibitively expensinve at this point in time. Marrige is too interwoven in the secular world.

[David Panzer]

I'll post the link to this since the pic is huge

http://i.imgur.com/Q1nCX.jpg

But this one is smaller and shows the various definitions of marriage according to the bible

[SmileOfTheShadow]

I don't think so at all. An amazing capacity that exists in humanity is that we can be affected by those who lived in times we never touched. The reason the gospels were ostensibly written was to preserve His teachings in a way that could be understood by those who followed. The reason we can draw new lessons from the past is because we've added our own experiences to the equation; experiences that never existed in older times. The drive to continue learning should include adding to the wisdom of the past.

That's very true, and well written.

There's a big difference between noting evolving sensiblities and saying that something was wrong in the first place. I have my own thoughts on the history of the Book but saying it was wrong was certainly not what I implied.

My apologies for misunderstanding what you were saying there.

[Jan]

Ah.. whats in a name... Why is the WORD that important? And this goes for both sides. How much of the issue is the word, and how much of the issue is the rights and privileges granted?

Part of the problem is that not all of the benefits to marriage are codified, they're customary. So what's in the word may be the difference between how a hospital recognizes a next of kin. In our society, marriage bestows well-recognized rights and privileges. Creating a whole new institution would require defining every situation.

The same-sex couples I know have chosen what words they use to describe their partners. They say 'wife' and 'husband'. A few say 'spouse'. For the most part 'partner' or the former code phrase 'good friend' have fallen out of use from what I can tell.

I've been going to the occasional wedding or handfasting or joining ceremonies since the late '70s. I think that the same-sex couples will revere marriage far more than many straight couples and they deserve the exact same designation that's already legally recognized.

Jan

[Milkman]

It's an easy test - can this party sign a legal contract? If yes, then why deny that possibility of a contract for benefits to them?

Oh my... thats a whole other thing isn't it. BladeRunner anyone? :P So i will just leave that for another off topic thread in the future.

[Milkman]

I would very much resist legal renaming the institution simply to satisfy religion. There are many laws and customs in the land that various religions don't like or approve of and they manage well enough. Given that the institution of marriage has existed long before Christianity, if they simply want to call theirs "The Sacrament of Marriage", I'd be perfectly content with that. And there's even a recent precedent for renaming a sacrament - The "Sacrament of Reconcilliation" used to simply be called "Confession".

Ah.. whats in a name... Why is the WORD that important? And this goes for both sides. How much of the issue is the word, and how much of the issue is the rights and privileges granted? Right now i think there are too many people that think marriage is between a man and a woman and you cant change that definition easily. So why try? Its adding to a fight that shouldn't be that important. Isn't the important thing the rights they deserve? I guess that could lead to the slippery slope point... but everything is a slope and your either going up or down it constantly anyway.

[JoeD80]

Can we marry robots? AI? genetically grown or cloned beings?

It's an easy test - can this party sign a legal contract? If yes, then why deny that possibility of a contract for benefits to them?

For one, I'd say it'd be a conceited person to say "I have a better understanding of what Christ said than those who walked with and broke bread with him."

I don't think so at all. An amazing capacity that exists in humanity is that we can be affected by those who lived in times we never touched. The reason the gospels were ostensibly written was to preserve His teachings in a way that could be understood by those who followed. The reason we can draw new lessons from the past is because we've added our own experiences to the equation; experiences that never existed in older times. The drive to continue learning should include adding to the wisdom of the past.

The other alternative in terms of what you mean by divine inspiration would be: "well we should say the Bible's wrong,"

There's a big difference between noting evolving sensiblities and saying that something was wrong in the first place. I have my own thoughts on the history of the Book but saying it was wrong was certainly not what I implied.

[Jan]

SO.. how can the current laws be changed to allow everyone's opinion to viable and everyone rights to be upheld? Does the word marriage need to be removed from laws and kept as a societal(that a word?) issue? Can just the word legal union be used instead with the definition of that being the big discussion? And of course i have no legal background at all so this maybe far harder than i think it should be.

Point being... perhaps we CAN come up with a solution.

I would very much resist legal renaming the institution simply to satisfy religion. There are many laws and customs in the land that various religions don't like or approve of and they manage well enough. Given that the institution of marriage has existed long before Christianity, if they simply want to call theirs "The Sacrament of Marriage", I'd be perfectly content with that. And there's even a recent precedent for renaming a sacrament - The "Sacrament of Reconcilliation" used to simply be called "Confession".

The thing that annoys me in the ongoing discussion (not aimed at anybody here) is all the scare-tactic 'slippery slope' arguments that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to wanting to marry minors (nope, they can't enter into contracts) or pets (oh, puh-leez!) etc. ad nauseum. Now I can see the small possibility that someday there might be a movement to allow polyamorous marriage. I don't have a problem with that and it's an issue for another day. Look how long it's taken for society to move from allowing inter-racial marriage to there being a movement to allow same-sex marriage.

Jan

[SmileOfTheShadow]

But for non-christians, accepting the bible as the "divinely inspired word of god", instead of "a collection of folk tales and legal customs of a nomadic group from the middle east followed by sequel" is very tough to swallow.

Which has nothing to do with the discussion of JMS' assessment of Christian doctrine, and subsequent follow ups of my rebuttal of JMS' post. You're welcome to believe that, but it doesn't speak to the validity or non-validity of any of my posts.

[David Panzer]

But for non-christians, accepting the bible as the "divinely inspired word of god", instead of "a collection of folk tales and legal customs of a nomadic group from the middle east followed by sequel" is very tough to swallow.

[SmileOfTheShadow]

The Bible isn't the only book worth reading in this world (and I have read it plenty thank you very much. No I'm not religious but I was raised with it). If we are all God's creatures then perhaps we are getting a better insight into this creation called man than the people who lived 2000 years ago did, and can be accepting because that's where we should be as a society now. Who said that all the divine inspiration could only occur in the past?

My original response was to JMS' post in which he framed what Christianity has taught vs. teaches and then responses to rebuttals in my argument. Since that was the main topic of the thread, the Bible becomes pretty paramount in that discussion.

"Who's to say divine inspiration can only occur in the past?" is a good question.

For one, I'd say it'd be a conceited person to say "I have a better understanding of what Christ said than those who walked with and broke bread with him."

Globally, from a Christian perspective, everything that is accepted as doctrine was either 1. spoken by Christ or 2. taught by those who directly interacted with Christ. So unless Christ speaks to you in a vision, or appears before you or whatnot, saying "This needs to be added to my word. Go forth and tell all nations!", there really wouldn't be a possibility of divine inspiration. In which case you'd have a heavy burden of proof on you to back up that claim, so it's unlikely that there would be something to change or be added to God's word.

The Bible is pretty complete in terms of a moral template. It's not ambiguous at all on how people should act.

The other alternative in terms of what you mean by divine inspiration would be: "well we should say the Bible's wrong," in which case you've made an inherently non-Christian argument, so it's moot in that context.

[Jan]

Well this was staying mostly civil... until the nazi pope comment...

It was vague enough that I didn't say anything. I'll remind everybody what I said in the first post on this thread - If you wouldn't say it to your boss at work, don't say it here.

Thoughts later regarding a solution.

Jan