Taking Another Look At Marraige *NSFW page 2*

And yet you post.. and read.. and don''t contribute

Oh well, I''m about done with this too. Quite the thread though, I''m going to be frequenting the other Hot new P&C topic,

""Germans - Why do they sound so Angry?""

"Morrolan" wrote:

Our society protects children, but after adulthood is not allowed to impose the same sorts of restrictions. I don''t think that NAMBLA really plays a part in the ''slippery slope'' argument.

Who defines adulthood? Is there just as much of a scientfic explanation to that as there is for being homosexual?

Nope.

I''m just asking cuz I really don''t think I am one yet. I''m 28 and I love playing with Mario and Yoshi. I wonder what Freud would say about that. Sexual something I''m sure.

Must. Not. Reply. Anymore.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Leaving God out of the equation, it is irrefutable that Nature had a well-ordered design. Male plus female equals offspring. It is a certainty that male/male and female/female unions don''t meet Nature''s standard. They may occur ""naturally"" in that one does not consciously elect to ""Be Gay"", but such unions fall short of any design that matches Nature''s intentions.

But just because we evolved a certain way, it doesn''t make that our destiny or an obligation. The other day I heard of a group of neoprimitives who claimed houses are evil because ""we didn''t evolve to live in houses."" Which is true, we didn''t - we evolved to live in caves, under trees, wherever, but not in houses. But if everyone ought to act in accord with Nature''s design, then living in houses becomes immoral!

So my question would be - if you take your claims of nature''s well-ordered design seriously, how can you live in a house, enjoy a book, use the internet, drive a car, or do any of the myriad of things that don''t quite match ""Nature''s intentions""?

Worse yet, this begs a second question. How can we know what Nature''s intentions are? Alas, they''re not available for inspection, otherwise we wouldn''t be having these conversations.

That''s what anthropomorphizing nature does to arguments: turns them into atheistic caricatures of Aquinian natural law.

I''m willing to admit that homosexuality is unnatural. It seems fairly obvious. Where I''m fuzzy is why the word ''unnatural'' has somehow been perverted to mean ''immoral.''

First of all, thanks to all for the gays in the military responses. It''s good to finally see the ""unit cohesion"" claim explained in greater detail.

"Pigpen" wrote:

I hadn''t even asked why the word marriage was so important to the gay movement if civil unions carried the same rights. I would guess that is has to do with completely erasing any border/barrier between full acceptance of gay unions/marriages...

Yeah, pretty much. I mean, it''s functionally equivalent to have civil union with full legal incidents of marriage.

However, it was also functionally equivalent to have black kids go to their own, separate but equal schooling system. Yet I think we can all recognize how that manifests inequality, and should be combatted.

All gay school in Manhatten <- Ridiculous

And as for the gay males in the military showers, I guess that would be like me showering with a bunch of naked army girls. I loved that one scene in GI Jane.. rrrowr. Sexual feelings can seriously compromise situations, and when it''s a life or death one I guess there''s a reason to want to avoid them.

Morality has always been an issue. And from the looks of the history books gay people have been around since pretty much humanity itself. Whether that came about as a product of genetics, or was nudged by society itself, it''s hardly a new concept.

"Swat" wrote:

All gay school in Manhatten <- Ridiculous

My employer donates to them generously.

And as for the gay males in the military showers, I guess that would be like me showering with a bunch of naked army girls. I loved that one scene in GI Jane.. rrrowr.

But these days we have mixed male and female crews anyway.

"Evolution" wrote:

-- So you''re a female volleyball team coach? Wow!! So, like, do you see them shower after the game?
-- All the time. In fact, I shower with them!

But these days we have mixed male and female crews anyway.

That shower together? Sign me up..

My feelings on gays in the military? I really don''t care. It''s their lifestyle and their business. If they want to sneek a peak at my junk in my shower, well, they''re in for a treat.

As to unit cohesion, well, any relationship that is fraternizing in nature is a threat to unit cohesion. There''s nothing like knowing a SGM is plowing some SPC at headquarters while you''re out driving around in minefields.

Leaving God out of the equation, it is irrefutable that Nature had a well-ordered design. Male plus female equals offspring. It is a certainty that male/male and female/female unions don''t meet Nature''s standard. They may occur ""naturally"" in that one does not consciously elect to ""Be Gay"", but such unions fall short of any design that matches Nature''s intentions. It also seems clear that our moral codes and institutions were created primarily to protect that design in the interest of the species and civilization.

Do Christians now anthropomorphize nature to avoid mentioning God? That''s an odd position. ""Nature"" does not have a ""design"" - this is merely a restatement of the classic humanistic belief that God is revealed in His creation, and thus that that creation reflects His hand in all it contains. You can''t leave God out of a design argument that deals with ""interpretations"" of nature, since nature *has* no design. You can assert that it does, but then you can''t take God out. And if you throw yourself on the mercy of evolutionary evidence, you''re going to be totally disappointed with what it shows about diversity of sexual practices.

When looking at nature, we find homosexual relationships and even bonding in the primates (Bonobos and apes at a minimum), and homosexual behavior in numerous vertebrates. Then we get into other species, with asexual, multi-sexual, monosexual, non-sexual and even dynamically sexual creatures all found in nature. By your logic above, they are all as natural as male-female relations. In fact, by appealing to ""Nature"" and ""design"", my view is you are explicitly accepting of the variety of sexual mechanisms exhibited in the world. Otherwise, you risk naming entire kingdoms as ""unnatural"".

Also, implicit in this argument is the ""God made me gay"" argument, as you note. But your qualification relies on some knowledge, unspecified, of what God intended with this ""design"". As any Christian minister will tell you, no one can know the mind of God. And the very idea that God could create people deliberately ""unnatural"" - as what, a test? - smacks of Gnosticism and Manichean ideas made flesh. ""Such unions fall short of a design..."" Who are we to say that? Unless of course you believe there *is* no designer, but then evolution comes in and whacks you with amoebas and promiscuous pansexual bonobos. Who still manage to have a functional society with flagrant sexual practices.

Our moral codes, like all cultures'', have changed over the ages. No longer does the church sanction the Droit De Seignour; we don''t regard slavery as part of Natural Law any more; we know that mental illness is not possession; and there are many other changes that have occured which we take for granted that would mortify early Christians. Heart transplants, for example, and the continued practice and conduct of war. The death penalty. The idea that black people are inferior to whites. Early Christians would have associated homosexuality with dominance relationships, as the practice of the time was usually that, rather than relations of equality. Sure, devout Christian clergy are celibate - because of an ecclesiastical decree intended to prevent the sons of clergy from inheriting Church property! And so forth.

So our current understanding of the restrictions of the Bible is colored by deep-rooted cultural biases that do not stem from it; that is, they''ve not always been accepted this way, but only sometimes.

Thus, marriage - for all its flaws and miseries - has evolved to promote, support and nurture that basic necessary unit. If the state goes out of its way to make marriage attractive, it is because marriage is so difficult and, in many ways, unnatural. It is far more natural for humans, animals that we are, to enjoy gratification whenever and wherever than it is to settle for decades into a system of monogamy.

But monogamy is not practiced in much of the Bible! Clearly God did not intend monogamy as the sole measure of commitment. Neither did he intend that we allow ""witches"" to live, that we eat certain foods, that we allow masturbation, that we pray in public, that we pray in private...I would say rather that we selectively choose interpretations of the scriptures to support our biases. And I believe in this case that this is exactly what''s going on. Just as we did with race, using the Bible to support slavery and discrimination in the worst ways, so we use it now to marginalize people who simply have different sexual attractions that at various times, in various cultures, were accomodated as normal.

I really think your idea that without marriage, we''d all just please ourselves will-he-nil-he is wrong. All societies, even once we''d consider promiscuous, have rules for sexual behaviors and expressions. They all are grounded in that culture and it''s history, just as ours is - and the fact that they differ shows us explicitly that God''s plan, if you believe in such, allows these behaviors and expressions. The fact that we don''t, I would argue, shows a stubbornness in understanding the world around us.

Also, noted that marriage did not ""evolve"", except as a metaphor for cultural change. There is no ""marriage gene"", there is no genetic predisposition to marriage. There *is* a predisposition to being attracted to the opposite, but then there''s one to being attracted to the same sex, one to being attracted to both sexes, and even a recognized state of literally not being sexually attracted to either sex. Clearly, outside of the cultural restrictions we have, every possible variety of sexual attraction occurs in humans. This is chemistry, not choice, at the base level (leaving out experimentation or the obvious choices that *can* occur, we''re talking basic instincts here.)

The Bible is simply not useful as a guide to modern homosexual behaviors. It''s literally several thousand years out of date, in a language and culture that don''t remotely resemble the original. Trying to discern anything beyond basic ideas replicated in all religions - treat others well and they''ll treat you well - runs up against the massive changes that have occured in culture and beliefs and knowledge since the tribal scribes were writing to help their leaders gain influence literally in the village across the lake or over that range of hills.

I don''t buy scripture as a valid way to judge homosexuals, and the above are some of the reasons why. You are welcome to disagree. In fact, it''s obligatory! But give it some thought anyway. This hybrid ""not God, nature - but not all nature, either!"" is terribly uncomfortable as a philosophy.

Surely no one needs a scientific study, or God forbid, a poll, to ""prove"" what is written in our human DNA - that sons and daughters need the qualities of both their parents, Mother and Father.

And yet it is not *in* our DNA, and millions of children grow up with one parent, just fine. In fact, this is directly refuted by pointing to the children of homosexuals, who in my experience are no more likely than the rest of us to be themselves homosexual. The majority of them, like the majority of single-parent kids, turn out just fine. If this were actually ""in our DNA"", if they were growing up in violation of some ""higher order"", we''d see disfunction in so many ways that it would be recognizable as a physical or mental disease. And clearly that is not the case.

Yes, when I was religious, I was a Humanist.

(No straw men on child love, animal love, etc. please. I''m not arguing for any of those, period.)

Our moral codes, like all cultures'', have changed over the ages

True, but who''s to say that every moral choice is correct. Remember Rome?

"Kathleen Parker" wrote:

That many fail, however, is no justification for eliminating the goal of the nuclear, male-female, monogamous family, which has worked well if not perfectly for most of civilized memory.

If civilized memory only covers post-industrialisation years, perhaps. As I understand it, it was far, far more common until then to have large families of 3+ generations living under the same roof instead of the minimal mother-father-child unit.

True, but who''s to say that every moral choice is correct. Remember Rome?

Exactly. However, I''d like to think that, on the whole, we have a better chance of getting it right now, than we did 4500 years ago, when the accretion of what became Christian ethics and morality began.

What specifically did you regard as immoral about Rome? The Stoics? The rites of Mithras? The concept of the Republic, of the rule of law? Or are you just stereotyping based on the excesses of some Emperors and looking at the decline and fall?

For every Hedonist, there''s a Marcus Aurelius trying to keep people on the straight and narrow.

"Swat" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:
"Swat" wrote:

That''s the funny thing about being born gay. There''s no way to prove that, yet it''s the most commonly used argument (Yet I''m sure you can dig up some statistic or junk science to prove differently). And that doesn''t explain how people can ""switch"" sides throughout their life.

Of course, everyone''s been told this by the media millions of times, so of course you will believe this as the truth.

I don''t understand why anyone would choose to be gay. It isn''t like being gay gets you an easy route through life.

Take a trip to Vancouver or San Fransisco some time..

Yeah, we have Provincetown here in MA...not a real good argument to say that homosexuals have to ghettoize themselves to have an ""easy"" time of it.

"doihaveto" wrote:
"Pigpen" wrote:

Let the justice of the peace do the ceremony just like a marriage, the piece of paper is just marriage vs civil union. I know its a small thing, but its what I''m hanging my hat on.

Separate, but equal? ;)

Seperate is never equal.....but then you knew that.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Leaving God out of the equation, it is irrefutable that Nature had a well-ordered design. Male plus female equals offspring. It is a certainty that male/male and female/female unions don''t meet Nature''s standard. They may occur ""naturally"" in that one does not consciously elect to ""Be Gay"", but such unions fall short of any design that matches Nature''s intentions. It also seems clear that our moral codes and institutions were created primarily to protect that design in the interest of the species and civilization.

Actually, JMJ, I was thinking that this was a powerful argument FOR same sex unions.

Hear me out. I''m just sort of running out this idea.

Realizing there is nothing to stop same sex attraction and pair bonding, the question of Nature''s intentions becomes (if one can divine such a thing) why doesn''t this behavior simply disappear as these pairbonds die out?

It''s clear that not all genetic lines should, or will, continue over time, so same sex pairs may be the result of some sort of necessary and natural limiting function on the species as a whole. As overall population expands, less pairs decide to have offspring, and some even forgo opposite sex pairings in favor same sex pairings.

In other species, the species are thinned out via famine, a corresponding growth in predator''s population, or a biological imperative to commit suicide (lemmings, whales).

Maybe in humans the limiting factor is behavioral. Non-reproductive pairs essentially remove their genetics from the pool, limiting overall genetic diversity. This is a good thing, overall, limiting overall diversity in the gene pool ensures that offspring will, in the species sense, be endowed with the atributes necessary to perptuate the species.

That''s not a moral judgement, by the way. Remember that for however ordered Nature appears to be, she''s a stone cold biyotch.

Well mateo, I had never thought of that argument. Interesting twist on natural selection there. Good show!

I''ve often wondered if the apparent increase in same sex attraction could be precisely a ''natural design''. Populations that are satisfied, unrestricted in breeding, unchallenged for food, and widely prodigious often develop methods of trimming the birth rate to zero. Doesn''t it seem logical for the most dominant species on earth to develop natural breeding restrictions precisely to not stress the optimum conditions in which the species exists?

(upon closer reading, I think Mateo and I are heading in the same direction with this theory. Looks like I need to read all the responses before commenting.)

Maybe in humans the limiting factor is behavioral. Non-reproductive pairs essentially remove their genetics from the pool, limiting overall genetic diversity. This is a good thing, overall, limiting overall diversity in the gene pool ensures that offspring will, in the species sense, be endowed with the atributes necessary to perptuate the species.

Well, in a reasonably sized population, this will not be true, unless the gay individuals come from outside the ""clan"" and would have contributed outside genes. In a small population, genetically, you''ll have other more serious problems.

I think the difficulty of this is pegging homosexual behavior. It can occur in heterosexuals, as well as in what we think of as exclusive homosexuals, and so the social roles (and benefits and detriments to society) are pretty complicated. At a high level, yeah, having some extra males around to perform child-rearing is good; but then there are aspects we would *really* not be comfortable with proposing as advantages, such as bonding in an all-male, long-term hunting group (similar to practices in New Guinea, where sex with the wife and sex with friends are regarded as seperate things entirely, apparently). So I think we have our cultural glasses on, if this kind of analysis depends on what we think of as ""reproductive pairs"" and ""non-reproductive pairs"". An analysis that depends on societal benefits is possible, but hard to argue absent direct evidence. We''d leave out a lot of alternatives that might affect the picture; this behavior does not exist in isolation.

Elysium:

I''ve often wondered if the apparent increase in same sex attraction could be precisely a ''natural design''. Populations that are satisfied, unrestricted in breeding, unchallenged for food, and widely prodigious often develop methods of trimming the birth rate to zero. Doesn''t it seem logical for the most dominant species on earth to develop natural breeding restrictions precisely to not stress the optimum conditions in which the species exists?

I''ve not seen evidence that this behavior is increasing. Where did you find that?

Evolution is a change in the relative frequency of genes in a population as a result of environmental pressures. Absent those pressures, there will be a lot of diversity, but I think it would be hard to argue that ""optimum conditions"" are an environmental pressure.

I think this also may be generalizing from a narrow sample (the dedicated homosexual). Being homosexual is not a ""natural breeding restriction"", it''s a behavioral response to body chemistry. Why *that* situation occurs, what mutations are involved and why they persist, would have to account for the *advantage* of dedicated or near-dedicated homosexuals to the population as a whole, not as a negative response to a lack of environmental pressure. As above, we are pre-disposed to consider behaviors we are familiar with, and so we miss some of the implications, when reasoning about past evolutionary events from our current society as a starting point.

I think we anthropomorphize evolution too much. Neat ideas, but I''m not convinced yet that they are not ""after the fact"". (Sorry if I''m abrupt here, I''m not trying to be dismissive. It''s morning and I have to go to work.)

(Sorry if I''m abrupt here, I''m not trying to be dismissive. It''s morning and I have to go to work.)

No worries, if I post before work it is more along the lines of:

""Ugh..umm..cereal."" or ""Where''s my pants""

So I applaud you on your morning thought process!

As anyone who''s gamed with me in the evenings knows, I''m a morning person.

All, some good theories above...and since they are well laid out theories, I will not go against them. Some interesting thoughts...

However...Robear...I will mention one...

The Bible is simply not useful as a guide to modern homosexual behaviors. It''s literally several thousand years out of date, in a language and culture that don''t remotely resemble the original.

I vehemently disagree with that assertion, i.e, the Bible is out of date. This takes the argument in a different direction, but to me, the argument that the Bible is out of date is for two groups of people...those who don''t believe it (so I understand them), and those who want to believe in it, but find some points ''inconvenient'', so they claim its out of date.

I have respect for the first, considerably less for the second...for in the second group, you see people who will try to rationalize their behavior to avoid its true implications. I''m not here to judge, but I do find it silly that some will use parts I to IV of the Bible to prove their argument on point I, but turn around and say Part VI is out of date...because it is against what they want to do (women tend to use this out of date argument a lot that I''ve heard in person). Pure hypocrisy in my opinion...

I make the claim that the Bible is as current today as it was 2000 years ago...(I refer to the New Testament in these arguments, inclusive of the Ten Commandments as well)

(and please don''t think I''m a super holy roller...the sins of mine are legion from the past to the present...so I''m not here to judge others on their behavior. I''m simply making the point that I think it is wrong to state the Bible is out of date, when in fact I ask you to give me one argument from the New Testament that is out of date... On the contrary, many of the actions of Jesus were progressive and visionary imho....

Jesus was a rebel who shook up the system 2000 years ago, he was punk rock. So many people envision the Western ""pretty boy"" in the paintings when that was hardly the case.

If he was idolized now it would be similar to Che Guevara (sp) or some other political/religious revolutionary.

While some of the stuff is terribly outdated (hey, society''s a bit different after a few thousand years, go figure) the main core of what he preaches is a very good template for life.

I realize Christianity isn''t as cool or hip as say, Buddhism, New Age or Spirituality, but there''s no denying that the philosophies behind it amount to some of the best teachings recorded historically.

If same-sex couplings were part of nature''s design to trim the population, why is the stock price on turkey basters still on the rise? And I''m not just talking about Thanksgiving!

Pigpen,

I see what you are saying. Note that I did not claim *all* of it was out of date, but rather it''s approach to homosexuality (as conflicted as that is, it''s grounded in a culture and time we just don''t internalize today). I fall into the ""don''t believe"" category, but I still think the Bible has a lot of good lessons. I don''t believe however that the vast majority of it''s *specific* social or dietary lessons are anything other than out of date. I cited a number, such as slavery being a natural state and the like.

So I''m not painting with as broad a brush as you reacted to, but in temperament, it''s part of why I do not believe any longer.

As for the New Testament being out of date, Matthew 5:29-5:30 are certainly not followed or recommended today, are they? He then immediately condemns divorce as a cause of adultery (except when a man divorces his wife ""for the cause of fornication"". We don''t believe that a divorced person is committing adultery, any more, nor do we believe that adultery is the only legitimate cause for divorce.

I''m not trying to tit for tat here, just making the point that even the New Testament has elements that any modern Christian would regard as out of date, I''d say. I mean, I just started with Matthew, and didn''t have to go to far.

I''m far more comfortable with someone saying ""That makes me personally uncomfortable"" than with someone saying ""Well, I''d be okay with X except that God says I can''t believe in it"", because there is so much weird stuff floating around the Bible. We say we ""understand"" it, but the context it was created in no longer exists, and we pass it through the filter of our current society, culture and beliefs. Our understanding of it is almost entirely different than what was understood in, say Paul''s day, or 500 years after that, or 1000 years after that, or even as recently as the Enlightenment. That''s all I''m trying to point out.

Good points, and I didn''t take offense to what you said with a narrow or broad brush focus.

Having had a divorce, I looked at many passages in the New Testament on it...the only point that I found lacking and not clear was its inference that woman could not petition for divorce...and I will agree that that is not valid...but it wasn''t clear. I think the focus was not that only adultery was an acceptable grounds, but that God hates divorce (not that it is a sin, but that its leads to sin - anger, and actions, etc...which proves itself out in most divorces.)

I respect someone not believing, and enjoy having conversations with them about it. That''s there right, and I find someone who says ""I don''t believe in the Bible but believe it has some good lessons"" to be more credible than someone who says ""I believe in the word and the Bible...except for paragraphs 7, 11 and 69..."" That kinda irks me.

Again, I do respectfully disagree on the Bible being out of date...I think if you look from the literal versus context view, you could find a point here and there to argue on...but if you look at the framework and context of the work as a whole, to include specific points, you get a better viewpoint. Someday I''ll start a post on baptism as a reference from this argument...

The specific social and dietary references...well, my mom tries the dietary, not because she''s a holy roller...but many health nuts will tell you the Biblical diet is one of the healthiest out there (fruits, grains, fish, etc.). Not sure on the social context - although the male/female being truly distinct in the Bible versus how society tries to make us all ''completely'' equal gets a lot of heat (again...another thread someday...)

I understand also the ''makes me uncomfortable'' vs ""God says"" view as well. I find it much more effective to use the Bible as a reference in discussions versus trying to ''smite'' my verbal opponent with it...because to me, the Bible makes perfect sense in its concept of values, fair play, equity, judgement, kindness, etc.... and I find those lessons/values more in need today than ever before!

I will say, in advance of your reply, that yes, many (MANY) Christians pervert the teachings to support their narrow minded views, or to render judgement. These people, I find more offensive than agnostics or atheists...for to distort the word and values to your own needs is worse than not to believe...imho... That make sense ?

oh...and Swat...Jesus being ''punk rock''...that would be a good analogy!

I mean...putting a tax collector as one of your ''apostles''...that was below the prostitution and ''licking a dog''s balls clean'' jobs in those days...

Pigpen, I guess what I''m saying is that what you allude to - finding the ""focus"" of a section of the Bible - is the process of filtering what it *says* through your current understanding of the world, people around you, laws, culture, biases - to arrive at a useful understanding. That filtering tends to re-interpret or gloss over elements that no longer apply, for whatever reasons.

If the Bible is not literally true, then certain parts of it will only be useful as allegory, or general guides, or what have you. If it *is* literally true, then we have bigger problems to sort out.

I''m just not a person who is into overt, massively complicated belief structures that are somehow handed down from on high. That''s just me. I don''t mind a good moral lesson, but when the source of that is also a book where you have to explain to kids that yes, it was okay for *those* guys to bash out the brains of their enemies children and take their women as slaves because they were the chosen of God, well, that''s a reach for me. I don''t have the moral fiber to explain why it was good for the psalmist, but not for the Ugandans.

The specific social and dietary references...well, my mom tries the dietary, not because she''s a holy roller...but many health nuts will tell you the Biblical diet is one of the healthiest out there (fruits, grains, fish, etc.)

But I bet you don''t follow Kashrut, eh? Nor do you make sure that your meat is killed by a schochet with a particular set of prayers beforehand? The ""Mediterranean Diet"" is indeed very healthy, but it''s hardly Biblical in origin. They just happened to be in the right place. And today shellfish and pork are safe to eat.

Again, with beliefs, we filter according to our desires and culture and current understandings. That''s natural and human. I can respect that. I just prefer to view the world through a different set of lenses.