Journal pudge's Journal: Them Gays Are Comin' To Get You 60
A lot of people have apparently presumed I am anti-gay-marriage.
This is true.
Sorta.
Read on if you care.
I believe homosexuality is a sin. Am I certain of it? Nah. Can I argue pretty convincingly why it is, from the Bible? Including the New Testament? Yeah. Can I also argue why I think many Christians make way too much of it? Sure. But this is not about my religious beliefs, and that's the point.
Marriage is a fundamentally religious establishment. That does not mean you cannot be married if you are not religious, it only means religion created the institution, evolved it, and made it a cornerstone of our society. The state did not create marriage, it recognized what the churches had already created. And in doing so, it created a whole set of laws that go above and beyond what the religious establishment offered. They ended up creating something else, something separate, though intimately related.
At the time, there was no reason to think we might want to use those same laws for something other establishment than the husband-wife marriage. But now we do. And this causes a lot of confusion and anger, because we don't think of these as two separate things, but as one: marriage.
There was no reason to call it anything other than marriage. It's like in programming: I write a method called saveUserKarma(). But wait, I need to save other things about the user too. I could create saveUserEmailAddress(), but if I change the method just slightly, I can use it to save the user's email address. But the name doesn't really allow for that.
As I said, marriage is a fundamentally religious establishment. And if I remember correctly, the Constitution says something about Congress making no laws respecting an establishment of religion.
The answer seems pretty simple to me. Marriage is religious, which is why we have the problem: many people believe homosexuality is sinful, and gay people should not enter into the religious institution of marriage. Marriage as a civil instituion is not religious, but we have treated them as one and the same thing, for historical reasons. But government cannot legislate religious institutions.
So change the name. Simple.
Civil marriages for none, civil unions for all.
A civil union would be purely legal, a marriage purely social. A civil union would not be bound by anything having to do with beliefs -- including the incidence of love itself -- but only the legal union of two people (for starters
Obviously, this creates many legal complexities, in that a civil union is not intended to be necessarily permanent, and marriages are. But we already have a framework for this in divorce law, and this might actually end up improving the divorce process itself. Further, it very likely would tend toward making the married family unit less stable and less significant in society, but that is a social problem I believe can be addressed by society, without government.
Is this not an idea libertarian-conservatives and liberals can get behind?
On The West Wing this week, a Congressman wanted the White House to back a bill dissolving all civil marriages. The show treated it like a joke, but I believe it is the answer to the problem.
I completely agree (Score:2)
If I want to get married? I go to my religious establishment of choice, get married, and get my civil union document stapled to my marriage certificate.
There could be problems down the road, however. You say 'civil unions for all' meaning give gays 'union' rights, but now, other things that are currently illegal will want rights (pediphelia, beastiality, etc..). Of course, I'm against those things, and think they are fundamentally wrong, but wasn't that the stance of homosexua
Re:I completely agree (Score:1)
I don't think it will be, assuming you are smart and make sure civil union law is closely related to contract
Re:I completely agree (Score:2)
Re:I completely agree (Score:2)
Re:I completely agree (Score:2)
We ignore it, unless child abuse or controlling husbands are involved. Then they are prosecuted. There are about 30,000 polygamists here...and 60,000 in the West overall. In fact, in Colorado City (population 8,000), polygamy is the norm. In another town, a lot of polygamists live without any problems under a gay mayor. No joke. Overall, most polygamists are go
Re:I completely agree (Score:1)
I know a lot of people living with good friends as roommates who would welcome that, and I don't see polygamy as being nearly the problem that pedophilia or bestiality is--it's closer to "normal" than homosexuality, I think.
Civil Union? (Score:1)
Wooot. (Score:1)
Seriously, Pudge, this is the first time we've ever been in stone-cold 100% agreement on an issue of governance, and I like that, cause you strike me as a sensible guy and I have this forlorn hope that eventually all us sensible people will make sensible laws and it'll
Unrepentent Anti-Gay Marriage Advocate. (Score:1)
Michigan constitution to ban gay marriage and civil unions. I didn't
like the options I had, but to allow same sex couples to marry was the
option I disliked most. I will take responsibility for my choice too,
and defend it.
However, the pro-gay marriage groups need to take responsibility for the
11 states voting for amendments to their constitutions also. Had the
issue not been pressed, nor if I thought the issue would come to a head
in the next
Re:Unrepentent Anti-Gay Marriage Advocate. (Score:2)
"Maybe you could limit yourself to fighting for interracial water fountains for now, Rev. King? Shouldn't push too hard for equal rights..."
Similar thoughts myself (Score:2)
Re:Similar thoughts myself (Score:2)
Religions can marry anyone now, and nothing would change in that respect.
Separating marriage as a solely religion-controlled option could open the door to polygamous marriages even though the civil union could be limited to two individuals.
You can do that now. Polygamy is only outlawed as a legal institution.
I agree but.... (Score:1)
The Cathlolic Church recognized this and made marriage forbidden to the priesthood specifically to prevent them from dying and leaving their "wealth" to some woman.
Re:I agree but.... (Score:2)
Re:I agree but.... (Score:1)
Marriage predates organized religion.
Those were examples pudge. We use examples to illustrate a point.
Re:I agree but.... (Score:2)
Hey pudge (Score:2)
You stated that homosexuality is a sin. Do you think that people are born homosexual, or that it's a choice? I find this question fascinating because if they're born homosexual, that means that God creates some people in the image of sin, which I think might teach me
Re:Hey pudge (Score:2)
I'm surprised you think I do. John Kerry has the same basic view as Bush: no gay marriage, but perhaps gay unions.
I find this question fascinating because if they're born homosexual, that means that God creates some people in the image of sin, which I think might teach me more about how He works. On the other hand if homosexuality is a choice, why does it seem to be a choice that falls on people like a curse?
I don't find the question
Re:Hey pudge (Score:2)
What's interesting is this concept of suppression of nature. I guess from what you said about your temper that you believe that people can be born with certain tendencies, and from that I can infer that you believe some people are born gay. Now, that to me sounds like you believe that people can be born with a curse, because surely desiring human contact and suppressing
Re:Hey pudge (Score:2)
That's fact, as far as I am concerned. I've seen far too many examples of people who inherited traits for it to be mere coincidence.
and from that I can infer that you believe some people are born gay
Not at all. I have no idea. I am saying it doesn't matter.
Why do you think God would create such people?
DId you miss the part about original sin? I'm pretty sure I mentioned it.
Didn't mean to offend (Score:2)
Re:Didn't mean to offend (Score:1)
I'll lead a little then (Score:2)
But homosexuality is different. Homosexuals are born sinners. They cannot escape their sin. They are damned. This is a totally unique case. As Pudge acknowledges, their existence contains a greater amount of inescapable orig
Oh, I know this one. (Score:1)
Are you trying to be funny? (Score:1)
Funny? Not necessarily (Score:1)
Re:I'll lead a little then (Score:1)
That wouldn't make sense. (Score:2)
Also, what accounts for the limited numbers of gay people? Why are
Re:That wouldn't make sense. (Score:1)
I'm running out of entities that have the ability to corrupt people at the genetic level, that aren't God.
Be coy if you like. Frankly, whenever I see descriptions of the universe as some moral obstacle course, I can't believe this is the plan of a deity.
So God's out there creating the galaxies and quasars and the supernovae, and suddenly thinks to himself
Re:That wouldn't make sense. (Score:2)
We are all corrupt.
But there is, now and then, rare cases in the Bible where the free will of man is overruled by evil.
Rare? Read Romans 7.
Also, what accounts for the limited numbers of gay people?
What accounts for the limited number of people with hot tempers?
Re:I'll lead a little then (Score:2)
I disagree entirely.
As Pudge acknowledges, their existence contains a greater amount of inescapable original sin that Jesus cannot forgive.
I acknowledged no such thing, not even remotely. First, I never said they have a greater amount of sin, and more importantly, I never gave the slightest hint that their sin cannot be forgiven. I don't know where you got any of
Re:I'll lead a little then (Score:2)
As Pudge acknowledges, their existence contains a greater amount of inescapable original sin that Jesus cannot forgive.
I didn't see Pudge acknowledge that. On the contrary, he specifically disagreed with your assertion that it goes beyond original sin or means the person was born with more sin.
And, of course, I believe the Bible disagrees as well. There is only one kind of unforgiveable sin: the kind that is not brought to Christ.
Re:Didn't mean to offend (Score:2)
I disagree entirely.
Even if a homosexual is able to repress his or her nature successfully, the thoughts are still there, and the thoughts and urges are sinful.
Even if I can repress my temper, the thoughts and urges to lash out are still sinful.
As to how someone should live their life, I make no recommendations. That's between them and God.
Re:Didn't mean to offend (Score:2)
But wouldn't you argue that homosexuality goes beyond original sin? To be born homosexual is to be born with more sin. It is an abomination against God.
That presupposes that homosexuality is a worse sin than others. I do not believe the Bible, at least, teaches that to be the case.
Just for fun, I don't believe the Bible teaches original sin [bible.ca]. (more [bible.ca], still more [bebaptized.org]).
Re:Didn't mean to offend (Score:3, Informative)
Thoughts and urges are not sinful.
The urge to do wrong is temptation.
To act on that urge is sin.
There are passages in the Bible that refer to thoughts as sin, but they are about entertaining wrong thoughts, as opposed to merely having them.
Re:Hey pudge (Score:2)
Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
But to support this, it means legalizing gay marriage. You take all authority of blessing "marriage" from the government and replace it with the the authority of creating "civil unions". Now, only a church can create a "marriage". The very first thing that will happen is that there will be a new church created that blesses gay "marriage". Will you support
Re:Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
Re:Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
Re:Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
The beauty of this idea is that it breaks the legal and moral interconnection.
Re:Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
Why would a conservative who is unwilling to allow gay civil marriages be ok with gay church marriages coupled with civil unions? What makes this acceptable, or at least "ignorable" (I simply won't recognize it), while the current situation requires a constit
Re:Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
One word: Marriage. That WORD is linked to moral/ethical/religious acceptance[1] among tradional/religious people. Using a different word breaks to connection in theory, AND in a very real way for these people. It's just another unfortunate thing that we allow in the name of freedom in the US. If it's called marriage, however, it implies social approval. It's just that simple. R
Re:Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
Yeah, I understand that, but because it is not government sanctioned gay marriage it is OK? Is that the difference? I guarantee that if such an idea became law, there would be massive amounts of gay marriages in gay friendly places of worship. And they newly married couples would use "marriage" as the word to describe their relationship. The word "marriage" would not disappear for gay couples, but instead would be embraced. Now the couple would have civil rights as a couple and
Re:Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
Yes. So my church won't sanction it, my government won't sanction it, and it therefore has nothing to do with me, and bothers me a lot less. That's how it will work for a great many people.
I guarantee that if such an idea became law, there would be massive amounts of gay marriages in gay friendly places of worship.
Of course. That happens now, too. It will increase, yes, that is a give
Re:Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
By removing from the government the sanctioning of marriage, any kind of couple (gay or straight) gaining a legal couple status is tolerable. In addition, the separation creates a loophole where you can honestly believe that it is not "my
Re:Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
Largely, yes.
By removing from the government the sanctioning of marriage, any kind of couple (gay or straight) gaining a legal couple status is tolerable.
For some, yes.
In addition, the separation creates a loophole where you can honestly believe that it is not "my" church sanctioning the gay marriage, so "I" can tolerate it.
Again, this "loophole" -- not a loophole really, since it is actually the point -
Re:Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
But that wouldn't MATTER. The people who are opposed to the pairing wouldn't HAVE TO call it marriage. And that would make the differnce.
couple and to have the right to be married in a church of God.
Totally beside the point. Churches can do that right now. It conveys nothing more than sanction WITHIN that church. legal marriages (using that word) convey sanction in society - the pairing needs to be acknowledged as a m
Re:Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
Re:Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
Re:Agree, but it leads us down another path (Score:2)
I try to escape, but they keep drawing me back in! (Score:2)
I'm trying to take a breather and regroup here and then you not only bring up a topic that I am interested in, but YOU ESPOUSE THE EXACT SAME LOGIC THAT I USE WITH REGARD TO THIS SUBJECT. Bless you, man. We disagree a lot, and some of my friends wonder why I even hang out on here, but you just proved me right again. Damn. You look at problems and try to solve them honestly for most part (just as we all do, no one's perfect). That's what I appreciate.
My wife and I argue this with people
I with you... (Score:2)
I too think Civil Unions should be available to all as whatever a government can do to recognize a "love commitment".
However, I still think marriage deserves distinction and should be available and recognized by the government. A family is a political unit, a love commitment is not. Its more akin to a corporation.
As a political unit a family deserves recognition from the government as such. I think preserving marriage as a political unit helps preserve inididuality (an individual is a political unit).
Re:I with you... (Score:2)
The government's real interest here is not in the love business, but in protecting the rights of individuals in a relationship -- whatever that relationship is -- and in encouraging such relationships, which helps our economy etc. (through the pooling of resources).
Is there some government interest I am ov
Re:I with you... (Score:2)
I just see no government interest in recognizing a love commitment.
My favorite bite on that...
But for Civil Unions, I'm not pushing them but I can tolerate them.
Speaking with a small l (Score:2)
But it will never happen. The point is social approval. Not tolerance or acceptance or equality.
Amen! (Score:2)
why marriage? why civil unions? (Score:1)
You couldn't have expressed my sentiments more exactly. But changing the name does not solve the problem. You deftly pointed out why government should not be involved in marriage, but you didn't give any justification why they should be involved in civil unions.
The White House staffers on the West Wing treated
Re:why marriage? why civil unions? (Score:2)
To protect the rights of those in the relationships, primarily.
Re:why marriage? why civil unions? (Score:1)
How does legal recognition of their relationship help protect their rights?
Re:why marriage? why civil unions? (Score:2)