I’ve been thinking about writing this for a while now, as I’ve been trying to work out exactly what I think about this issue. I also work at a company that now produces a line of gay wedding invitations. I don’t want to offend people or get people mad at each other, but I wanted to make sure people know where I stand.
I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I believe this to be a clear teaching from the Bible, which is what I use as my authority on moral issues.
That statement does not mean that I hate homosexuals. I don’t. But I do think that what they do is wrong. I sincerely hope and pray that God will show them the error of their ways and that they will repent.
So, a while ago now, the courts in Massachusetts decided that the state couldn’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when giving out marriage licenses. As immoral as I may feel gay marriage is, their interpretation is likely exactly where the law leads.
In fact, the law allows many things that I consider immoral. Adultery, premarital sex, strip joints, and abortion are all allowed by the law, yet I consider them all to be wrong. Adding gay marriage to the list seems like a reasonable thing to do in this culture.
Yet, the entire purpose of law in the first place was to enforce society’s morals. It’s wrong to steal because God said so and society thinks so. Therefore, our laws enforce this and punish those who steal.
But at one time, many of the things I mentioned as “legal but wrong” before were considered wrong by society, and laws enforced them. Society as a whole seems to be moving away from God, and the laws are changing to reflect this. Things that used to be unthinkable (such as moving in with your boy/girlfriend) are now commonplace. So what’s next? Stealing software/music/movies is getting more and more common and accepted. Is stopping “discrimination” against those who steal coming soon? How about discrimination against polygamy? Will we soon need marriage between n partners?
I really don’t know the answers there. But in my mind, it’s very difficult to separate marriage from God. God invented marriage (between one man and one woman), and one of its purposes is to glorify Him. I don’t really understand what it’d mean to be married and yet not know God. The concept is just foreign to me. If banning gay marriage comes up for a vote, I’d be betraying my conscience to do anything except voting to ban it. The word “marriage” means a lot to me.
So maybe we need to separate the church and state here. Have church create the concept of “marriage”, and the state create the concept of a financial-based union (which is basically what a corporation is). But that really won’t work in this society, as we already have an installed user base, and people want to be able to be “married” without going to a church.
So I don’t know the answer at all, really. But it saddens me that we live in a world where this needs to be an issue.
Thank you for reading this, and do feel free to comment and disagree (or agree) with me. I understand that there are probably a lot of people who think quite differently than I do. But please try to explain why you believe what you do, and try to keep it a civilized discussion.
I disagree with you for the simple reason that I don’t see anything wrong with being gay. The only evidence anyone has offered me that bible says homosexuality is wrong. The bible also says eating shellfish is wrong, but owning slaves is ok. Ultimately, I don’t believe the bible is a better source for morality than direct observation of the universe or even other books or movies. The whole “this is the word of God” bit strikes me as essentially saying “listen to me because I tell you too.”
Also, I don’t think all gay couples exclude God from their marriages. Maybe I think this because one of my church youth group advisers was gay and so is one of our church ministers. (Yeah, I know it’s a UU church; they’re strange.) Maybe I think it because I see a lot of different ways to make God part of one’s life, other than the traditional Christian way.
Also, I’ve seen a lot more pain come from the judgments against gays, than from the gayness itself. In my book, causing pain is wrong.
I’m glad to finally see you comment on this issue. I was wondering just the other day if you held a firm opinion on it or if it was really something only Jessi felt strongly about. I’m proud of you for sticking to your guns like you are, since at least in one of your social circles, you’re in a clear minority. Of course, I think you hit the nail on the head when you point out that much of the conflict arises from where one derives their morality (their Morality Service Provider, if you will :-)). You and Jessi look up for morality, while somebody like me looks in. No matter what the source, you’ll always encounter resistance to your morality. Trying to escape that fact is why wars of annihilation are fought. I’ve always used the rule, “The greatest good for the greatest number of people” for making moral judgments. I think its a fairly reasonable rule, that few could disagree with. However, for this belief, I have been called at various points in my life, a heathen, a pagan, a communist, a monster, a fascist, and even a trekkie. Despite sometimes stiff resistance and seemingly highly-placed people telling me I was wrong, I persevered and kept my values intact. I know you are more than capable of achieving the same, but I thought I’d lend some encouragement anyways.
I totally agree with you on your separation point.
Yet, the entire purpose of law in the first place was to enforce society’s morals. It’s wrong to steal because God said so and society thinks so. Therefore, our laws enforce this and punish those who steal.
The founding fathers didn’t see eye to eye. It’s my impression that some of them believed, as I do, in a society where a person is free to maintain any set of ethics, as long as he doesn’t harm anyone else.
Stealing harms another person. Consensual sex of any stripe, except in a case where one partner lacks appropriate autonomy to give consent (having retardation or being a child), does not.
-Adam
I disagree on certain points for various reasons. Yes, Christianity (like Judaism) officially condemns gays (or at least gay behavior nowadays); it’s in the Bible. However, not even the many Christian sects agree exactly to what degree homosexuals/practice of homosexuality is “bad” (they disagree as to exactly to what degree the Bible is inspired by God, and how much it got corrupted in translation and transcription). There are Christians who hate all homosexuals–regardless of whether they “practice” homosexuality or not, there are Christians who believe that homosexuals are OK as long as they don’t “practice” homosexuality, and there are Christians who don’t care whether homosexuals “practice” or don’t… (These personal opinions may or may not agree with the beliefs of these Christians’ official denominations.)
Where am I going with this? Not even Christians of different stripes agree on what the status of homosexuals should be. Granted, perhaps a majority of Christian denominations is against the idea of “practicing” homosexuality. Perhaps even majority of other religions is against it as well. Still, as long as there are people in this country who are for it, it has to stand… If you’re unhappy, you can move to a country where church and state are less separated… The “practice” of homosexuality (unlike the “practice” of rape or of pedophilia) takes place between consenting adults. And since no one gets hurt, the law should not intervene.
If you’re against adultery, strip joints, homosexuality, etc., then don’t engage, attend, etc. And if you’re against abortion, try to dissuade Jessi from it (not that this need is likely to arise). If someone forced you to engage in one of the activities you consider immoral for religious reasons, then you’d have grounds for a law suit.
Churches have every right to refuse to marry homosexual couples. The state does not.
But that really won’t work in this society, as we already have an installed user base, and people want to be able to be “married” without going to a church.
The above sounds as though people weren’t already able to get married without going to church…
But at one time, many of the things I mentioned as “legal but wrong” before were considered wrong by society, and laws enforced them.
You’d have to define “society” as wells as “wrongness” because ideas about morality aren’t constant across cultures and times …For instance, the ancient Greeks were agaist abortion, but even wealthy couples often practiced exposure of unwanted infants (and these kids died more often than not). Many ancient Greeks also thought that homosexuality was for the most part OK…
You’re forgetting that one can use the Christian Bible to justify things like slavery (and polygyny)–it just depends on which passage you pick. It’s all in the interpretation. If you’re going to argue with me that the “literalists” don’t interpret the Bible, we can have an interesting conversation… Sorry, I could go on and on…
See you soon.
Although I disagree with alot of what Pete said, I’m going to stipulate most of it for the good of the greater argument I shall make.
Pete has stated that government’s job is to enforce morality. I don’t need to tell any of you that I don’t accept this in the slightest. And with good reason. Because the moral code of God-fearing Christians (or Jews, as for a long time they were the closest things to christians the world had) has evolved over time. Allow me to submit these historical facts as proof of the Evolution of Judeochristian morality:
-The polygamy and extramarital sex rampant in the Old testament between Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. None of these acts are condemned in the Old or New Testaments.
-Slavery was allowed under the jewish system and indeed under most European societies until around the time of the American Revolution.
-Under a very strict interpretation of Moses’ laws, Women who don’t marry their single brothers-in-law are immoral.
-Using the word God in speech of any form was and is still considered immoral by many Jews today, and it in fact Biblically condemned.
-Since the advent of the kosher laws, many jews have considered eating pork and shellfish immoral.
Adam’s right. Government’s job is to protect people’s autonomy, and to take as few resources from it’s citizenry in the most painlessly way possible. Stealing isn’t wrong because God said so. It’s wrong because it infringes on the victim’s autonomy. I have a highly acclaimed book on the subject at home if anyone’s interested called “It’s Nobody’s Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consentual Crimes in a Free Society”
The only other point I’d like to address is you’re discussion of a secular instituion. There *is* a purely secular institution by which the government can give people the benefits of marriage. It’s called a “Town-Hall Marriage”. I hate using you as an example, Pete, but I’m not married, so I can’t really use myself. So I’ll pose to you a short and sweet cross-examination I hope you (and anyone else who agrees with Pete’s line of reasoning) will take time to reflect on.
1) You refused to move into an apartment with your wife until after you were married, correct?
2) Hypothetically, if the state lost your paperwork and could not give you a marriage license until a month after your planned ceremony date, would you have postponed the ceremony?
3) Would you have postponed moving in with your wife?
4) Apart from the headaches of having to refile the papers, would this snafu have upset you greatly?
5) Why not?
6) Is it fair to say in light of your previous answers that you regarded the issuance of a DoPH (Department of Public Health) marriage license as a formality?
7) Given your opinion of the DoPH marriage license as a formality, and not truly indicative of a “marriage”, why do you object to it being given to gay couples?
What amuses me the most about all of Christianity is the transfer of the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday–to appease the people who were so used to celebrating their favorite deity, the sun god Mithra, on Sunday. It is not stated anywhere in the holy book of Christ’s followers that such a transfer would be allowed, and original Christians celebrated on Saturday, as God (supposedly) told them (Paul did say that gentile Christians shouldn’t be required to keep kosher). So the Catholic Church succumber (and it also appeased the ex-heathens’ needs to celebrate winter solstice and spring equinox by instituting Chrismas and Easter at the “appropriate” times of the year).
Protestants often laugh that Catholics don’t take the Bible seriously enough. However, the Protestant Reformation did not result in “straightening” of the pagan-inspired (and counter-biblical) adjustments to Christianity.
P.S. I know that–in a way–it makes you feel good that you have to defend your beliefs in front of a whole bunch of people who disagree with you. Nevertheless, we all (even atheists) feel like martyrs when forced to defend what we believe is “right.” It’s a universal human emotion; no one is special.
Excuse the typos. :)
Whew. You guys write a lot. :)
I’d like to respond to your comments in more depth, but I’ve got some homework due 2 days ago that absolutely needs to get done tonight. But, I promise that I’ll come back (probably sometime this weekend) and try to clarify my position, answer your questions, and respond to your comments.
I’ve got some homework due 2 days ago that absolutely needs to get done tonight.
Bad boy! Kidding… Good luck.
Well, I think everyone who’s commented on this so far knows that I agree with you.
A couple points I might add:
I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I wouldn’t say, however, that it is more wrong than premarital sex, or murder, or stealing. But I don’t think it’s less wrong, either. I don’t think that someone who engages in homosexual behavior is any more of a sinner than I am, or anyone else is.
Some people seem to think that any form of sex between consenting adults doesn’t hurt anyone. I can’t believe that. In a world where sex existed only within marriage, sexually transmitted diseases could not spread. Two married people who never have sex with anyone else cannot contract AIDS. In addition, sex bonds two people in a very real physiological way. If two people have sex outside of marriage–whether or not they are planning on getting married later–it can damage their eventual marriage.
Two married people who never have sex with anyone else cannot contract AIDS.
The above wasn’t true for a while even in this country. Now blood (and organ) banks are relatively safe here in the U.S., but they may not be in other countries. Plus, a person could make a point to stay a virgin for however long, but that does not protect her (or him) from potentially getting HIV (and other STDs) if she (or he) gets raped by an HIV+ perp. Rape isn’t that uncommon in our society. (Are we going to start blaming the raped individual for contracting HIV?)
Yes, you are right to complain about extra-marital sex in general, but it’s not just about homosexuals. Because homosexuals have been branded as “the high-risk group,” heterosexuals started feeling really safer–and commenced to screw around–and today it’s not strict homosexuals who are responsible for most of new cases of HIV…
Some people seem to think that any form of sex between consenting adults doesn’t hurt anyone.
I doubt a lot of people feel that way — most people know that the psychological effects of sex are very real. However, people have the right to knowingly harm themselves, in my point of view.
Yes, promiscuity increases the spread of AIDs. (As Eva pointed out, it’s not the only way.) You can try to argue that that directly relates to morality. Or you might take the opposite bent popular among fundamentalists that it’s a smart mechanism meant to discourage people from being promiscuous. I would disagree with both.
-Adam
I find it interesting that people use the bible to support their claim that gay marriage is “wrong”. My Lesbian cousin’s religious “wedding’ ceremony was based upon the support from gay couples in the Old Testament. Everything in the ceremony came back to: their were gay couples in biblical times that were allowed to be married and they should be now. Although many people in my family were dreading the wedding ceremony beforehand, everyone agreed that my cousin pulled it off tactfully and with grace.
1. love is not wrong. the fact that some people are gay is incidental to this point. i would hardly equate love with stealing or any other vice. that’s messed up. the nature of love transcends an institution, although for legal reasons, i’m certainly for gay marriage.
2. it seems you’re confusing the very real spread of venereal disease with the institution of marriage. that is somewhat bizarre if for nothing other than long incubation periods. i think someone else addressed the 2 married people who never have sex with anyone else cannot contract AIDS, so i won’t do this.
Also, the Reform movement doesn’t seem to be condemning gays. Far from it, actually. I’ve heard of a lot of instances lately of Rabbi’s telling their own children “I’d rather see you marry someone gay than not Jewish”. I know of two cases where the sons actually did bring home Jewish guys. There was actually a thing on the news in DC the last time I was home (probably in December) about the Reform movement’s preference of gay couples over dual-religion ones. My parents’ reaction was something along the lines of: these people are all a bunch of sheep and we’d rather see you marry a non-Jewish guy than a Jewish woman. I was personally glad to hear them say that because I’m going to marry whomever I want and the decision’s not going to be based on religion.
Response: What the bible says
Several people have mentioned that they didn’t know where I got that homosexuality was wrong from the Bible, and how I could believe it when the bible has (1) eating restrictions Christians don’t follow, (2) allows slavery, and (3) allows polygamy. (Please let me know if my paraphrase is inaccurate.) So, here is my interpretation of the Bible and why I got the conclusions I did.
When God created mankind, he created a male and a female, and designed marriage as a union between a man and a woman (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:18-25). The design of the anatomy of the body is clearly designed for male-female relationships. It also helps us to fulfill the first command we were given, “Be fruitful and increase in number.” (Genesis 1:28), although that isn’t the only reason. The roles of men and women in marriage are to complement each other (Ephesians 5:21-33).
While homosexual behavior was clearly condemned in the Old Testament (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13), it is not one of the Jewish laws that was removed with the coming of the Christ. Paul speaks of it as a perversion (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). When Jesus was asked questions about marriage, he went straight back to the defining passages in Genesis, sayng that marriage is life-long between male and female (Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6).
Now, I’d like to address some of the issues people mentioned about reasons they don’t believe all the Bible. Though faith in Jesus, we are not subject to all the Jewish food restrictions, although we do still have to obey the moral law (Liberty in Christ). Slavery was not established in the Bible, although it was regulated—I’ll look into that a bit more. But polygamy was never accepted. Many people in the Bible practiced it certainly, but it was never acceptable by God. God commanded against it (Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 17:16-17, 1 Timothy 3:2), and He was angry with those who did it (Solomon, Malachi 2:13-15, More explanation).
I know that there’s a lot more questions that you all have raised, and I will get to them eventually. Keep on watching this posting.
Most forms of Hepatitis (an STD) are also transmitable by other means, including through the blood supply, where my neighbor contracted it from.
Exodus 20:14 says thou shalt not committ adultery. Adultery is extra-marital sex. Thus, if one marries multiple women, having sex with both of them is not adultery. To stretch this to exclude something practiced and largely unpunished by God is akin to the logic that
Deuteronomy 17:16 only applies to the King of Israel, and was instituted, according to Catholic scholars, to prevent Israelite kings from being distracted from their royal duties. As such, it is likely included in the “technical laws” you describe as being obsolete through Christ (and also obsolete because Israel no longer as a King.)
1 Timothy 3:2 also only applies to a certain class of the church hierarchy, and could be seen as keeping in tradition with Deut 17:16-17. In the Catholic tradition, St. Augustine took this teaching to the next level by forbidding all members of the clergy to marry.
Even “The Catechism of the Catholic Church”, a reference guide to the Catholic flavor of Christian dogma, acknowledges that God never condemned polygamy. However, to be fair, it does state that Polygamy is contrary to the clear indication of the equaling of men and women under Moshaic law.
And in quick response to the “Liberty in Christ” article, I’d like to point out that historically, the true reason that Christians do not obey the Kosher laws (or the circumcision laws, for that matter) comes down to a schism in the early church between Jesus’ living Apostles and Saul/Paul. Paul was willing to accept people into the Christian church without putting them through the indoctrination rights that Jesus himself went through. The Apostles felt Paul was incorrect in this, and they parted ways. In the end, because the Apostles couldn’t recruit nearly Jews (or non-Jews willing to convert) as many people as Paul could (he offered salvation without genital mutilation), Paul’s view became the dominant view.
Christianity is but one religion that Americans practice (and a divided one at that). I don’t know what the “founding fathers” really thought of homosexuality–and I assure you that you don’t either. Actually, many of the “founding fathers” were rather heretical in their religious views. Many were deists; Franklin doubted the divinity of Jesus, and Jefferson–the primary author of the Declaration of Independence–even attempted to rewrite the Bible to rid it of some of its inconsistencies. They were not the good, little Christians that some people might want to believe them to be.
Anyway, my point is that the U.S.A. was designed to have a separation of church and state. As a result, you simply can’t legally impose one group’s religious views upon the whole population.
Well, I don’t know the details of the “founding fathers”, but I found a couple articles (biased to my point of view, of course, but something to consider): Founding Fathers and Slavery, Seperation of Church and State.
And I wasn’t talking about just imposing my views on everyone. People are allowed to think what they want. But I was trying to describe what I thought and why I felt that I would need to vote against it if I got any say on the matter.
In fact, this posting has turned much more into a debate on a wide variety of subjects… But people have asked questions, and I’d like to try to answer them if possible.
Yeah, I put people who say that homosexuality is supported by the bible in the same camp as the crackpots who say that Jesus was black. The polygamy thing is a little fuzzier — you could see it as God having special requirements for people in positions of responsibility; the verses seem to take issue not with the polygamy itself, but the effect of polygamy on its practitioners. To say that the Old Testament as a body of text supports polygamy is absurd, however.
Of course, I don’t use the Bible as a basis for argumentation. When people do, I throw my hands up in resignation. When people have a deep, iron-clad belief in such a BROAD, BROAAAD base of assumptions, there’s really no point in arguing.
The only chinks in the Fundamentalist armor are the presence of biblical discrepancies, which tend to be readily explained away, and the various non-PC things in Christianity, such as God’s willful and complete genocide of early cultures, which Christians seem to ignore or happily swallow in demonizing, self-righteous satisfaction.
In regards to your “Separation of Church and State” article, much of it seems to imply that influence requires laws and tax funding. There seems to be this horrible, xenophobic notion in modern society that influence requires governmental power — that the only acceptable way to approach and influence the life of another human being is to do so through the sanitary gloves of government involvement. All hail socialism. For everyone’s sake, just tithe, get your tax deduction, and do it yourself. I wish secular society had infrastructure to parallel the elegance of the church in this regard.
If homosexuality is wrong, then why did God create gay people?
“the ‘text’ supports polygamy”? no. that would be an aburd statement. But if God was willing to kill Onan for masturbation, and an entire city for being gay, and left Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, and everyone else who practiced polygamy unscathed, there are only so many conclusions that can be drawn.
I wasn’t attacking your statements. With minimal certainty, I’d say that the text puts it in the Not Recommended category. And yeah, I stand by my use of the word ‘text’ in this fashion. It’s the contemporary thing to do. :)
Haha… To allow the holier-than-thou to feel even holier?
[R]egarding religion, the First Amendment was intended to accomplish three purposes. First, it was intended to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion, or the giving of any religious sect or denomination a preferred status. Second, it was designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government. Third, it was so constructed in order to allow the States, unimpeded, to deal with religious establishments and aid to religious institutions as they saw fit.
Sure, not major problems with this interpretation.
But I’m sure you’d raise hell yourself if, say, you had kids and they somehow would up in a school that’s, say, 80% Hindu (not likely, but not impossible either). What if the classroom had a picture of Vishna next to the American flag? And let’s say that the teacher told the kids to pray. I bet you’d oppose even if the prayer was silent because you felt that your kids were coaxed to pray to “pagan” gods–and the goverment has no right to force them to do that.
Today this country is more diverse than it was at its inception. Granted, originally, we had a bunch of Native Americans, but sadly they were hardly viewed as people. Yes, the European settlers may have shipped off some Bibles to them (along with some pox-infested blankets), but they were also quite busy butchering them. So much for your “Christianity.”
I’d like to think that this country has learned something from the mistakes (and atrocities) it committed (but–in defense of America–every country that’s well off today has plenty of skeletons in its proverbial closet).
Getting any bells as to why public institutions are trying to stay religiously neutral nowadays? Perhaps not everyone wants to have Christianity shoved down their throats? I certainly don’t, thank you very much (and certainly never via an institution supported by the government). Remember that the U.S. doesn’t have an official religion? Deal with it–or move.
Because he is a sadist and needs to see someone suffer?
Or perhaps there is not God? ;-)
I firmly believe that homosexuality is primarily, if not entirely, a learned behavior. So God created people, and some of them became gay. God did not create gay people any more than he created murderers. Human beings have the potential to do many evil things, but even though they may be tempted to do these things, they can cultivate the self-control necessary to avoid them.
There’s considerable scientific evidence that homosexuality is at least partly genetic. Fortunately, science doesn’t always have to succumb to “beliefs.”
In case you haven’t noticed, a whole lot of people came to this country in search of religious freedom.
My sentiments exactly :)
Unfortunately your belief has no basis in fact. Why would someone attracted to the opposite sex choose to be gay?
To put it directly, the key reason you believe that homosexuality is a learned behavior is that it coincides with your Christian faith, isn’t it? When you read learned-behavior explanations, they appealed to you over genetic explanations for that very reason, did they not? Such bias is a bane to meaningful scientific discourse. Don’t be surprised or dismayed when Christians are willfully sidelined in such discussions on that account. An agenda is a terrible thing to deal with. There’s a reason that authors of scientific articles are required to publish information about who funds them.
In my personal experience, I’ve found that Christians tend to handle this issue by claiming that everyone has an agenda. “It’s the evil evolutionist agenda!” “It’s the gay agenda!” Whatever helps you sleep at night. A possibility isn’t necessarily an agenda. Unfortunately every possibility that runs contrary to “God’s word,” seems to get tagged as such.
The problem with the bible is that people can use it for a basis to reason whatever they want. For instance, that same cousin of mine decided it’s ok to steal as long as it’s from my parents. My parents thought they could trust her with a bank account for me while she was acting as my tour guide in Israel, because she was training to be a Rabbi. It ended up being a bad idea and for family peace, because I returned, my mom asked me why my cousin said the entire account was liquidated, when I knew the day I’d left there’d been $1000 left in it. Furthermore, she’d spend my parents’ money to a) buy herself stuff without asking and b) take her friends out dinner with us and get them to pay her as well so she’d get extra money on the side. I couldn’t believe it, though it did teach my parents to NEVER trust her again, or to give her another cent.
Also, as a side note, I have personally read Old Testament passages discussing homosexuallity – both for and against. I had an entire 2 hour Sunday school class on the topic, during which we examined passages and discussed them.
That’s because so many different scientists get bunched together into it–even though they have nothing to do with one another and don’t really care to get to know each other.
Granted, there are “evolutionary biologists”–and I’m one of those. But astrophysicists, “regular” physicists, geologists, etc., have nothing to do with each other or with biological evolution–and yet we all get lumped into the same great “Axis of Evil.” :)
If only this phenomenon were unique to this situation. Communist Russia had the same problem when they adopted the view that parents who learn behavior have children who are naturally more physically adept to that behavior. The quintessential example of this belief in practice is giraffes gained long necks NOT because the ones with longer necks were better fed and therefore healthier, better mates, and passed the long-neck genes onto the next generation, but because ALL giraffes had to stretch their necks to get food and therefore ALL giraffes had children with longer necks. (see Lysenkoism). Stalin and his regime determined that this hypothesis would better suit the ideals of Russian Communism. So they only sanctioned research into this theory of evolution, denied the existence of genes, and sent dissenting scientists to the Gulag. Luckily for Russia, within 10 years, Lysenko’s experiments proving this were proven to be fluke results, and Russia abandoned its pursuit of that hypothesis.
Unfortunately, this Outcome-based research is fairly prevalent in modern society, and affects both ends of the political spectrum, from the far Left with second-hand smoke and nuclear winter, to the far right with Young-Earth “geology” and Creation “Science”.
Another recent example of this kind of “research” led to the false claims that Iraq possessed WMDs. It’s pretty easy to get the results you want if you throw out any contradictory evidence.
Though faith in Jesus, we are not subject to all the Jewish food restrictions, although we do still have to obey the moral law
How does one separate the moral laws from the amoral laws? In my experience, the answer to this question is so difficult and precarious that it almost always leads to the conclusion that the line is arbitrarily drawn. And if it is, why isn’t an arbitrarily-drawn line that dismisses the commandments against homosexuality equally valid?
And how come didn’t ever-so-Bible-loving Protestants move the Sabbath day back to sabado, Saturday, where it rightfully belongs? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Sabbath day is a moveable feast… It appears as though “literalist” Christians don’t take everything in the Bible too literally–just the bits that suit their ideas of “goodness” and “morality”.
I–and probably the rest of the respondents who disagree with you–don’t necessarily want you to “buy” every single detail of every little comment. Personally, I don’t care what you believe.
[Similarly, the rest of us have the right to believe anything we want. The only limitation to exercizing one’s First Amendment rights comes in when your actions impinge on the right of other citizens (or even residents). You have a Constitutional right to kick your neighbor in the balls, but this right ends where his balls begin.]
The only thing I’m trying to convince you of is that people in this country have lots of different beliefs and opinions–and they have the right to have them, which means that no one has the right to shove his/her morality down everyone else’s throats.
There is a difference between consentual homosexual sex and stealing (if theives asked for permission to steal, they wouldn’t be thieves). And even if homosexual sex were directly harmful to the individuals engaging in it, they have the right to harm themselves (particularly if the definition of “harm” is based on religious ideas, not on reality).
…Just look at the variety of responses you’ve been receiving.
Heha, “consensual,” not “consentual.”
My take (i just got back so i was kind of out of the loop, but i would still like to comment) on this subject is pretty simple and straight forward:
I do NOT believe being homosexual is wrong. Nor is it wrong to be attracted to somebody outside of a marriage. For me to act on any such attractions though (were i to have an affair, or for that matter have an affair with another woman) is wrong for ME because my morals do not include those acts. BUT for other people it is only wrong if they feel it is wrong themselves. If not, then that is their belief system and their choice.
LEGALLY though, if we are making marriage accessible to gays, who cannot procreate on their own, we must make it accessible to other people as well, such as mother and son (for example). Just for the simple reason that the gays are giving their reasons as that they want visiting rights, and tax benifits and such, and a mother and son should be entitled to that if that’s all that marriage entails legally.
So, my opinion (a bit of a jump but you’ll all see it) is that marriage should be abolished completely legally. We should have civil unions. You should be able to join yourself legally to any other person in the world. However, religiously you would have to get married according to the laws of your church. My church (im catholic) would for example not marry two gays, but that should not stop gays from joining themselves legally. If you’re still reading this thread, please comment.
I agree completely that “marriage” should have nothing to do with the goverment whatsoever. There would be some legal issues to solve, though, as far as inheritance and such, but I don’t think it’s impossible.
I credit you for not holding other people to your beliefs, morals, and otherwise, standards, as so many others out there do. I would say it’s akin to: if you think abortion’s wrong: DON’T HAVE ONE! It’s that simple – there’s no reason to make it illegal for everyone, especially since rape is so common. There’s also no reason to go so far as to BOMB abortion clinics and kill because people are so pro-life (that one just makes no sense to me).
You should look up Reconstructionist Judiasm. Some people maintain it’s no longer Judiasm, but they’ve been long time (at least since the 70s, probably earlier)supporters of Gays, Lesbians, and Transexuals. Close friends of my family had a religious ceremony joining them as a couple in a Reconstructionist Temple the same year my parents got married (1975). My cousin’s religious ceremony was also conducted by a Reconstructionist Rabbi. It was the most Feminist wannabe Orthodox wedding I’d ever been to Sounds strange I know – but most Orthodox traditions are really deragatory against women; my cousin included them and “changed” their meanings. Thus, it’s “Reconstruction”.
The abortion debate is unique in that it’s one of those few debates that even a principled civil libertarian can waffle on. The most “free” society in contemporary thinking is the one that puts NO RESTRICTIONS on an individual except that he can’t restrict or harm another autonomous individual (without his consent).
But even children can’t be defined as strictly autonomous, can they? But they have some autonomy; you can’t just kill them. So when is autonomy granted? Second trimester? Birth? Once the child develops self-awareness? And then how would you justify the line?
Example Line Justification #1: When the child is no longer strictly dependent on the mother for life (birth), then it gains some autonomy. (Permits abortion until birth.)
Example Line Justification #2: When a fetus’s brain begins performing more than strictly autonomic functions, then it gains some autonomy. (Permits abortion until, I don’t know, second trimester?)
Example Line Justification #3: When a child becomes self-aware, then it gains some autonomy. (Permits abortion/infanticide until, oh, 9 months?)
Example Line Justification #4: When the embryo becomes a self-replicating, genetically complete entity, then it gains some autonomy. (No abortion.)
Once you accept a line, you’re forced to recognize any destruction of the entity as murder. We have laws against murder. One can’t stand idly by and watch another autonomous social being get murdered, can they? Hence the bombing.
Or does the fact that there’s a question at all mean that no laws should be passed? Bad logic. How many people need to question it? What if crazy Joe thinks that you’re not autonomous until you’re 6, and killed all his children with abandon? Are you going to say it was wrong to incarcerate him? I think of the 4 Justifications given above, none is necessarily more reasonable, so the reasonable man argument doesn’t apply.
It’s not as simple as you’d like to think, good Julia.
That said, I’m pro-choice.
-Adam
If astrophysicists are trying to defend the big bang, or if geologists are trying to determine the age of the earth, they could very easily be working for the “evolutionist agenda.”
If you are going to waffle on abortion, you have to be careful. The abortion position that I absolutely hate everytime I hear it “I’m against abortion because it kills a human life. But I’ll make an exception for women who are raped.” How does the fact that a woman was raped change someone’s opposition to killing a child? That’s the most unprincipled, indefensible stance of them all.
Cohabitating nuclear relatives (mothers & sons, fathers & daughters, etc etc.) already have all those rights. Non-cohabitating parents and children don’t have the financial benefits, but they do have the rest of them (hospital visitation, ability to terminate life support if necessary, etc.)
The problems with justifications 1-3 is that they have applications to entities other than unborn children. If an elderly or injured person is dependent on life support, can they be killed under justification #1? Would it not be murder to kill a severely retarded person, or a person in a coma, if one subscribed to justification #3? Could severe encephalitis be a reason to kill a baby under justification #1? Under justification #1, would it be permissible to end the life of an 8-month old fetus, which could survive if labor were induced?
Agreed.
What if crazy Joe thinks that you’re not autonomous until you’re 6, and killed all his children with abandon?
Then at least there’d be one one left who would carry half of his genes–as well as his convictions into the future. Terrible for his kids, but not necessarily terrible for the general public. ;-)
Most systems–including central nervous system (e.g., brain)–start forming around the end of first trimester. Some people believe that human life starts at conception. While this sounds beautiful and inspiring, it’s not very practical. Why? Because it’s not easy being a fertilized egg and surviving in the uterus at all. About 30% of all fertilized eggs never manage to implant in the uterus, and are flushed with the next menstrual period (the 30% is regardless of whether the would-be mother takes oral contraceptives or not). As a result, 30% of “babies” die naturally.
That’s why, in medical terms, pregnancy begins at implantation because that’s when the blastocyst starts having a good chance of making it to term. Interestingly, implantation (if it occurs at all) occurs 6-9 days after fertilization in all placental mammals–regardless of the actual time of gestation.
P.S. I’m pro-choice as well.
“Christian Scientists” believe that any medical intervention is immoral because it interferes with God’s will. …Not that I subscribe to that idea.
If a person on life support is, say, brain-dead due to a traumatic accident, sadly, there’s no reason for keeping him/her alive (other than to harvest organs that may save lives of other people). Similarly, a terminally ill person on life support should have the right to decide how long he/she wants to hold on (barring mental deficiencies, and the decision should be made under no–or minimal–influence of painkillers.
Agreed.
You’ll have to leave Justification #1 alone. I’m referring to anatomical independence (even if machines are required). There’s a very real, biological breach after birth. It’s up to you to determine if that means something. I have to give props to your last question though; that warrants additional delineation.
As for coma or whatever else, that’s very much like a person dying. The person’s will (because he once had one) is to be respected, because his body was once his property. If there’s a strong chance for recovery, one could easily assume what the man’s will would have been. If there’s a small chance, and his will is unknown, the decision is left to the next of kin, akin to inheritance.
With regards to the severely retarded person who couldn’t even develop self-awareness? I’m going to have to waffle on that one. Really, the person might as well be a hydrotropic plant. But it *seems* so human that killing such a thing would make me sick.
-Adam
The reason #2 has always been such an appealing test to me is that it’s the test we use to declare someone dead. If we use it to tell if old people are alive, why not use it to determine if young people are alive?
And scientifically, this occurs in about month 4, 5 at the absolute latest.
If two people have sex outside of marriage–whether or not they are planning on getting married later–it can damage their eventual marriage.
Some people don’t wait long enough to have sex–and some people who have sex don’t want to get married at all. I’m not saying it’s “right,” but they have the right to make their own decisions and even to screw up their lives. And while sex becomes the sole meaning of life to some, it doesn’t to others. You’re also speaking as though married people never cheated one one another. Hopefully, it’ll never happen to you, but you can’t be sure that it’ll never happen. One year’s experience of being together hardly counts when you (hopefully) have 50+ years left on this planet. Wake up, you still don’t have too many responsibilities, and life is still fun and exciting. But things can change–for better or for worse.
That said, one person’s testimony of “love hangover” hardly a valid case makes. You’d have a poll a whole lot of people on their experience with sex–pre-marital, post-marital, or both if applicable–to find out what’s damaging to whom. Granted, according to you religious views, it is damaging to one’s prospects of eternal life in heaven. Not everyone is obligated by the Constitution to share your religious views, though.
That’s some deliciously persuasive logic, Tom. Hmm…
Perhaps the moral of the story is, “If you’re going to get an abortion, get it as soon as frickin’ possible.”
Your later questions assume previous answers that I’m not sure I’d give.
1) That is correct.
2) I don’t know. I’d have to discuss it with Jessi, of course, but I think we might have postponed it, especially if we had enough notice (say, a couple weeks), which I think we did since I think I picked up the license a couple weeks before the planned ceremony. But your hypothesis is far-fetched, I think… The delay from filing to license is just 3 days, so I’m not sure how a month’s extra delay could result. (I know, you just asked the question for argument’s sake.)
3) If for whatever reason the ceremony was going to be before the official-licensing, I think I would consult with the pastor about what would be appropriate. It is primarily a marriage before God, and I considered us married at the moment the pastor declared it, not at the moment he happened to sign the state paperwork (presumably later that day, but possibly later that week). But he put the effective date on the paperwork, so if we got the paperwork on a later date for whatever reason and then the pastor signed it stating us as married as of 6/28/2003, then I think that I would be happy with a decision to have moved in that evening.
But it’s an interesting question to think about.
I don’t think that I thought of the marriage license as merely a formality. It was a government recognition of our marriage.
I agree that prayer in schools to any God or gods shouldn’t be “coaxed” by teachers. But children should be allowed to pray if they want to.
And I agree that people have the right to different religous views. I’m trying to explain through this whole post what my particular views are. You are welcome to think differently.
God created people with free will. People have the right to choose to follow God or to not follow God. People often make poor choices. I believe that homosexuality is one of those choices. But people do have the right to make it.
As I think I said elsewhere, I know others have different ideas. They can. I was describing my ideas, and I don’t think that anywhere I said “Everyone else has to believe what I believe too.”
Well, I say something like that in my third-to-last paragraph of my original post, and I think that it’s probably the most correct approach. But it likely won’t work, which I guess makes it a less correct approach.
*sigh*
This is a complicated thing to try to decipher. I put this post together while I was trying to figure out exactly what the solution was, and I’m still really not sure.
Assuming that it is, in fact, a choice–and to what degree it is a choice hasn’t been settled yet.
Thank you for admitting, though, that even if it is merely a choice, people have the right to make it. :)
Sorry, you’re right. It was Jessi who hinted that.