jump to navigation

The Great Gay Marriage Debate… June 27, 2011

Posted by marchooks in Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
trackback

I recently posted my objection to using religion as a basis of what I believed to be bigotry against gays on Facebook. I followed it up with a request to get one reason why there shouldn’t be gay marriage. The screen capture is below.

The Facebook Post That Started All of This

This sparked a lively debate on the comments section and I began to realize analyze what people were saying. First though, what sparked this thought process was a happen to walk by the television when a reunion of one of the Real Housewives of (not sure) was on. One of the women was a lesbian and the other said that the bible says that it’s wrong and that is what she too believes. I was appalled that no one challenged her on this. They took what she had to say as the truth. Then, New York passed a law allowing gay couples to be married in that state. And it came to the forefront of my mind.

First, I grew up in a Catholic family. I read the bible, went to church every Sunday and for ten or so years went to Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (a.k.a CCD) classes. Which if you don’t know, are the bible school of the Catholic religion. I grew up a religious person, firmly believing in God and yes. that gay people were sinners. I grew up and formed my own opinions. I soon discovered that gay people were not really any different than anyone else. And that they don’t fall in the stereotypes I knew. I discovered that I should care about my own shortcoming instead of worrying about the “sinners”. For background purposes, I am a straight male, 27 years old. So with full disclosure, I continue unabated.

First, I’d like to take on the “bible says gay people are sinners” point of view.  The two main passages I hear quoted the most are from Leviticus. They are Leviticus 18:6  “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination.” and Leviticus 20:13: “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” If you believe that scripture should be taken literally than there is no disputing that the Bible condemns homosexuality. And I am not going to argue that point.

What I instead argue is that you are cherry picking verses from the bible and saying that others are “past it’s time”. For instance in Letitivus 18:19 the verse says “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.” I have rarely ever heard this and am sure more than a few have done it. There is also  Mark 12:19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.” Last I checked, this isn’t custom for women to do. If my brother were to die, I’m not going to marry his wife and have children with her. That is ridiculous. The bible is filled with these. There are passages that if a bride is not a virgin, she shall be stoned to death (DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21) and dozens more like it. The Bible is a book from a different age, to pretend that all of the customs and laws pertain to us in 2011 is ludicrous. And to choose which are and aren’t is ignorant. We as humans are flawed, and our interpretation of the bible is flawed to. None of us are perfect vessels.

Next up, is the “fabric of society will tear if Gays are allowed to be married” argument. I’m not sure how to even respond. The state of marriage in this country is bordering on flimsy. Almost half of babies born in America are born to unwed mothers and the divorce rate is near fifty percent. Allowing gay people to get married would do nothing to change those numbers.

And we can’t forget the “activist judges” argument. When Massachussetts and California legalized gay marriage by a court decision, many conservatives blamed the judges for ruling based on agenda than on legal precedent. And of course, you could argue that. But what it fails to recognize is that many conservative causes have been upheld by judges as well. And I never heard the “activist judge” charge get called when the ban on handguns in the city of Chicago was reversed. The conservatives applauded the change and recognized that a liberal Chicago would never overturn it on it’s own. Judges are one part of the Government the United States has. They have an ability to rule on laws and overturn them. In fact, since they don’t run for election, they can incite the most change or stay the course against public opinion. Brown v Board is a perfect example how judges had the ability to achieve what at the time, our elected officials were not.

In my Facebook post, I have asked for a logical reason against gay marriage. So far, I have not received one. I have received a lot of talk. I have received the argument that I should come up with a reason they should instead of why not. Well the reason is simple. It’s to allow homosexual couples the same rights that heterosexual couples have. From tax benefits, hospital visits, inheritance, to the dignity of being seen as normal. I don’t pretend to be an activist, I’m just a normal guy trying to see why something so illogical to me is overwhelmingly present in our society. Discrimination against gay people is wrong, no matter what your religion. And if you use the bible as a weapon of hate, you don’t understand God at all. The God I grew up believing in was the only one that could judge you. “let he without sin cast the first stone” is a oft-quoted, rarely understood phrase. I think in time, these people will see that they are on the wrong side of history and will regret their ways.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Chuck Plunk - June 27, 2011

Your speaking like a child. You haven’t even offered a proposal. I think something should be fair magically isn’t a rationale. I’m waiting for someone to tell me what the benefit is other than its about ‘fairness’. If that is your flimsy basis, than at least prove the current state is unfair. I know that’s difficult to impossible, but that is the burden you have to overcome to be taken seriously. Make a proposal so the consequences can be evaluated and weighed against the currently unstated upside. That’s called making a case. That is a reasoned and rational approach. All your doing is trying to incite a mob with feelings and imagery.

An insignificant person on a reality show said the Bible condemns homosexuality and her views concur with the Bible. You actually tried to undermine the credibility of the Bible in a paragraph in order to vilify this person from a reality show. The badness of this person is then a large part of your justification for your vague position. That of course is a terrible argument.

You use the classic bad behavior to justify something else that’s probably bad argument with the marriage statistics. A majority of that is a result of failed social engineering and you seek to make the situation worse because heck we already messed it up quite a bit. Obviously a bad argument.

Your judges paragraph is so mind-boggling twisted and apparently ignorant of relevant facts that I don’t think I can cover everything. “ many conservatives blamed the judges for ruling based on (an ) agenda (rather) than (any conceivable legal rational).” Agreed and rightly so. “And I never heard the “activist judge” charge get called when the ban on handguns in the city of Chicago was reversed.” …because of the incredibly strong and obvious legal rational for doing so. SEE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. It isn’t activism when a court correctly reads the constitution. It’s you know their job. Then in an incredible bit of irony you bring up Brown v Board. Thurgood Marshall made careful arguments and built credible cases about peoples actual RIGHTs given to them by the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. He did great work and won cases. He won Brown v Board in 1954 by a unanimous opinion. Had the Kennedy-Johnson administration enforced and enacted the ruling and civil rights legislation as well as Eisenhower and Nixon did and would have, there would have been no need for a civil rights movement. Thurgood Marshall had already won the battles in 1954. Democrats were busy inciting mobs to obstruct the law. See: Orval Faubus, George Wallace, Harry F. Byrd, Sr, Thomas LeRoy Collins, etc. Given all that nothing from your judicial paragraph is credible.

Then you conclude with pretending not to know or understand the many reasons and problems with your non specific vague idea of a position. I’ve stated or implied tens to hundreds in my previous message to you. I also debunked a lot of crap rhetoric people spew. You pretend there is a magical RIGHT being denied, but you can’t name, define, or find the origin of this right. Thurgood Marshall would find that pathetic.

The only thing you put forth that could be a credible reason to support your vague concept of a position is “the dignity of being seen as normal.” I agree that that is probably all this is really about. Guess what? Making an enormous overhaul and causing chaos to 50 separate legal systems and the nightmare of how they would each recognize each others ‘new-proposed’ differences because a group of people feel insecure about their lifestyle and need validation to feel better about themselves is not a impressive argument. I can empathize with it, but a radical law change with many consequences and zero benefits doesn’t seem like a solution to personal problems.
The institution of Marriage was created to benefit 1)Families 2) society-civilization and 3) the God/Religion spiritual concept. Not in any order. Why would you create gay marraige? Answer: So the couple feels better. “the dignity of being seen as normal.” I don’t even think gay marrige would make them feel “normal” as you said. ‘Normal’ implies things that are contrary to an ‘alternative’. You probably just chose a poor word. ‘Comfortable with themselves’ is what you propably mean. I don’t see what prevents them from doing so now. Other than people like you ginning up a mob movement shouting how magical, unnamed, and unfound RIGHTS are being un-demonstrate-ably DENIED by EVIL “religious” people and people who aren’t in your mob movement.

Which again you would be a lot less mob like if you would clearly state what you want and not vilify imaginary or insignificant people. Again, I can’t believe that your main motivation is that you don’t like people who come to an opinion using Christian religious teaching and practices as a basis among many other things. Dislikeing that is not a reason to go totally against it. It is a reason to dislike that particular basis. Makes one think this whole thing is only an excuse to bash Christians and independent thinkers.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: