gay marriage

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: gay marriage - 11/07/2004 05:53

This issue is one that I find very interesting and always imprefectly solvable. Personally, I don't get all riled up about gay marriage and would probably opt on balance to allow it if it was up to me alone. At the same time there are aspects of gay rights (if you can lump all of this under that umbrella) that I guess I am not completely at peace with. There was a piece on NPR a week or so ago that featured a guy who decided to that he wanted to be a dad and paid ~$100K to hire surrogates and now has twins. There was something I found almost creepy about the story -- a sense of self indulgence that made me say "Hey, who says you have a right to trade $$$ for kids?" -- 'course then I have to remind myself that lots and lots of heterosexual couples go through similar exercises paying for fertility services, surrogates, etc....

....I also have to remind myself that I know a couple of lesbian couples who have the nicest and most well-adjusted kids that I know of, so it seems like their efforts with respect to child-rearing didn't go to waste. I don't happen to know any gay male parents. Happenstance, that, so no anecdotall informaltion there.

I am interested to read mwest's comments:

1. Religion has a pretty good claim as definer of marriage. Marriage is documented as a religious institution far before organized government comes on the scene. Then you also have to deal with the fact that overwhelmingly people still turn to religion to conduct marriage services.

I'm no expert, but it would seem that whether we are talking about Puritan New England or Spain or Italy or England (or wherever) religion injected itself into formative governments and helped define many laws including those around marriage.

Notice I've said nothing of Christianity... only religion. Most of the dominant world religions forbid homosexuality. If the US was predominantly Muslim the same arguments would be raised against homosexual marriage.

But using various divinely-inspired religious concensuses (what *is* the plural of concensus?) as a yardstick -- as a norm -- doesn't seem very trustworthy to some of us. Sodomites in Saudi are beheaded based on that particular religious yardstick. For some of us, the persistence of various irreconcilable religions is a puzzle and the fact that some of them frown on gay marriage or other things seems immaterial. I *really* don't mean to taunt you, but it is extremely interesting to hear you cite what seems like ecumenical anti-homosexual-marriagism at a time when Christian and Muslim worlds seem to be engaged in a huge cultural and political collision.

2. Civil Unions don't upset most religious people.

Now here's a place where I could be totally wrong because I don't hang out with a lot of people I would consider religious.... but I really have the sense that if you put a plain thumbs up/down referendum in front of the strata of folks I might characterize as "really religious" -- one question that asked "Do you approve of civil unions between gay people?" -- I was thinking that the vote would be 9 to 1 opposed. That was just my impression. Where did that come from? Well, I didn't exactly see many of the nation's religious out there collecting signatures or otherwise fighting for civil unions in places like Vermont. It seemed like they were too busy fighting against them. Maybe this perception is a result of skewed perception of who is "religious".

I have no desire to keep people from getting proper health care. I also recognize the need of the state to protect the rights of individuals taken advantage of in the dissolution of relationships even if I don't agree with the relationships to begin with. Civil Union statutes could easily deal with these issues.

I think I mostly agree with you here. It might be considered gross heresy by some of our gay readers, but in the vein of separation of church and state, I would be pleased if we just gave "marriage", whatever that is, back to churches and dealt with legal issues of partnerships strictly on a civil (union) basis. That's just Jim the atheist talking.

I heard a radio news report some weeks back about a gay (Methodist?) minister who was being tried by a church court and I remember readng about Catholic tribunals having to do with annulments. I always have to think "Hey, if you want to recognize and submit yourself to such things, that's great." but, boy amd I ever glad that our political systems (mostly, in some places) have evolved to where those types of things are separate and optional. If marriage went that way, I think it would be swell. That way, religions can make up any sort of extra rules they want (like no sex on Fridays) without weighing down the legal system.

3. Separate but Equal references fall bitterly short. If I was a black man and I heard a homosexual make the comparison, I would be livid. The two populations have almost nothing in common. Homosexuals have never been counted as 1/8th of a person in the census. Homosexuals have never been forced to pick someone elses food. Homosexuals have never been forced into separate schools by the government and then forced to integrate through busing and picket lines. Homosexuals in short have no claim to that sort of rhetoric and should be ashamed of any claims of similarity between their position and the plight of African Americans prior to the 1960's.

While people have been killed for being queer in this country, they haven't been lynched that I am aware of or sent systematically to gas chambers, so I'll admit your point. But, but, but, even if you are a bit offended at what you perceive to be some folks strained comparisons of oppression, what bearing does that have on what people's right's should be?

I remember taking care of a guy in 1979 who had Guillian-Barre syndrome --- pretty completely paralyzed, cause unknown (though GB was thought to be preciptated by various viral illnesses). He was in his 30s. This was a Catholic hospital. It was not at all obvious that the gent was gay. His parents came to visit. ICU rules, family only. Nice folks, terribly concerned. After a few weeks, they brought with them "a friend...really part of the family" who we slowly figured out was the patient's partner of 10+ years.

In at least a few respects, I'm glad it is not 1979 anymore.

Anyhow, what I don't get is why religious folks get so riled up about this and want to pass constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. OK, BBS Canadians: You have gay marriage. Has Canada suffered as a result and how?

Posted by: mschrag

Re: gay marriage - 11/07/2004 13:19

I think the unfortunate root cause in a lot of this is the duality of the word "marriage". It has completely separate legal and religious meanings that are (obviously) not necessarily in check. If you replace any reference to legal "marriage" with "marriage-legal" and religiou marriage with "marriage-religious", then I think this resolves your concern. They are different words with different meanings and different restrictions in each context. I think fukinjim is right that things would probably be a lot easier if the government just abandoned the word "marriage" in all contexts and just renamed the whole thing Civil Unions.

Posted by: Dylan

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 10:33

Here's my question: why do you care if two gay people get married?

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 10:52

Does anyone honestly think that if marriage was removed from the government and replaced with civil unions (regardless of sex of partners) and marriage was deemed strictly a religious term that homosexuals would cease to want to be married?

I'm truly asking the question to get your opinion. Personally, for many people, I think the issue goes much deeper than just equallity under the government.

Posted by: Dylan

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 11:00

Quote:
Does anyone honestly think that if marriage was removed from the government and replaced with civil unions (regardless of sex of partners) and marriage was deemed strictly a religious term that homosexuals would cease to want to be married?

I'm truly asking the question to get your opinion. Personally, for many people, I think the issue goes much deeper than just equallity under the government.

I agree the issue goes deeper and I do think some gay couples would continue to push the limits of what equality means. But, as a practical matter, my gay friends would accept the victory for their legal rights and be content on this matter.

Posted by: mschrag

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 11:41

Quote:
why do you care if two gay people get married?

perhaps the best question of all, actually ...

Posted by: djc

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 12:41

Michael,

You say you support the concept of civil unions, but want to reserve the right for religious institutions to control the concept of marriage. What you don't say is whether you expect that those religious institutions would all adopt the same policies, which I think they would not. I can think of several groups, such as the ELCA Lutherans, Unitarian Universalists, certain reformed branches of Judaism, etc that do support and perform gay union ceremonies.

So, in your world, I could go to the county courthouse and get a civil union to my partner, and I could go to the church of my choice and get a marriage ceremony. How does that really differ, legally, from what Massachussets is doing today? I guess I don't get it.

I also would point out that the Federal Marriage Amendment would make your vision an impossibility. Do you support the FMA?

--Dan.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:13

Quote:
Why is the word so important? Does your "marriage" become less valuable if the word is used to describe the partnership of gay people? If so, then your issues aren't with gay people.

My issue isn't with gay people at all. I believe that marriage is something God instituded within specific guidelines. Like anything else God has given us, proper usage yields blessing and improper usage is harmful, even if we don't see it. I don't like the idea of homosexual marriage because I see it as being harmful to people.

As for why the word is important to me, in a perfect world everyone would realize that the two insitutions of marriage are not the same (governmental and religious), however this just isn't the case. In fact, in the post you're responding to I had to explain the difference between them and why religious marriage is important to me. But more importantly than that, decisions about marriage that the government makes absolutly effects the way that people view the religious institution of marriage. No Fault divorce happens in the church all the time because the state allows it, yet it is explicitly ruled out in scripture.

I don't want the government to make broad pronouncements on things I believe. Those things should be left to the church.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:18

Quote:
Does anyone honestly think that if marriage was removed from the government and replaced with civil unions (regardless of sex of partners) and marriage was deemed strictly a religious term that homosexuals would cease to want to be married?

I don't think that removing marriage from the governmental would resovle the issues, but I do think it would put the disagreement in the proper arena. Questions about sexuality and corresponding religious beliefs cannot be truly be addressed in the legal realm, but between churches and other religious forums I think we're a lot more likely to make progress.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:21

Quote:
What you don't say is whether you expect that those religious institutions would all adopt the same policies, which I think they would not.

I don't think they would, but at least then it would be a level playing field. You don't have the governement saying "marriage means x".

Posted by: djc

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:24

Quote:
You don't have the governement saying "marriage means x".

I don't know of any case where a government has required a religious institution to perform ceremonies they don't believe in. Massachussetts certainly does not. Again, where's the problem?

--Dan.

Posted by: Dylan

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:24

Quote:
I don't like the idea of homosexual marriage because I see it as being harmful to people.

Harmful to who? In what way?

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:39

Quote:
Harmful to who? In what way?

Harmful to the gay couple. Probably harmful to their familys and others around them.

Once again, though, this is a personal belief that will be difficult understand outside of the context of my faith.

Any behavior against what God has put forth is harmful. Sometimes this can be experienced in very real and physical ways (Going to jail for stealing), other times it is the spritual breaking of fellowship with God. Whether one believes in the latter does not mitigate its effect. I realize that the homosexual couple probably doesn't care what I think about God or their relationship with Him, but if my beliefs are correct (and of course I think they are), then there IS harm, whether the couple realizes it or not. People do all sorts of harmful things to themselves without realizing it and that is what I think happens in the homosexal relationship.

Posted by: djc

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:48

Quote:
Harmful to the gay couple. Probably harmful to their familys and others around them.

Once again, though, this is a personal belief that will be difficult understand outside of the context of my faith.

So, as a byproduct of your faith, you feel I am harming myself, my partner, and our respective families. My faith, and my personal beliefs do not support that. Do you favor laws that force your beliefs on me? Does your religion trump mine? Why?

I'm not directing this next comment at Jeff, Michael, or anyone else here in particular. I have a very direct interest in this situation. The lives of me, my partner, and our collective family are directly impacted. It's personal, and I take it very personally when people who have no direct stake in the issue want to use their religious beliefs to override mine.

--Dan.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:56

Quote:
Do you favor laws that force your beliefs on me?

Nope. I prefer the law to stay neuteral on the issue, which is what I'm advocating. I'm saying the law should neither deny or allow gay marriage. Personally I'm opposed to gay marriage, and the preceding post was my rational why (which was the question you asked).

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 14:16

Quote:
I have a very direct interest in this situation. The lives of me, my partner, and our collective family are directly impacted. It's personal, and I take it very personally when people who have no direct stake in the issue want to use their religious beliefs to override mine.

Dan, my last post was a response before your edit. While it still holds, I'd like to address this issue a little more personally since I've been speaking pretty generally.

If my religious beliefs are true, then whtever the law says doesn't matter much. Actually, the truth affects you even if I don't believe it. If they aren't true then you're right to ignore my concerns. The only thing that trumps religious belief is the truth.

I don't think that my beliefs should trump yours as far as the law is concenred. What the government should be interested in is making sure you and I have equal opportunity for health care, to form the relationships we find fulfilling, and persue whatever we think will make us happy. I truly believe you and I should both have all of these things.

You and I are engaged in a fundamental difference of belief where the stakes are very personal and very high. I'm guessing that my beliefs are highly offensive to you (they would be if I were in your shoes), and there's probably nothing either of us can do about that. I only hope you can understand that I truly care about your well being and don't bear you ill will.

Posted by: djc

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 14:32

Jeff,

Quote:
I'm guessing that my beliefs are highly offensive to you (they would be if I were in your shoes)

Actually, no. I don't get offended by opinions such as yours. In reality, I think we agree on just about everything, once we get past the question of morality of gay relationships. I don't waste time worrying about peoples opinions on that anymore. Life is too short to worry about how other people think or feel. Ultimately, the only way to change minds on the topic is to live your life the best way you can, and to demonstrate that preconceptions often have no basis in reality.

I fully support our respective rights to disagree regarding the morality of gay marriage, and to subscribe (or not) to a faith in harmony with our own morals and values. I also agree that the government should regulate unions between same-sex or opposite-sex couples identically, whether referred to as marriage or not. And we also agree that the FMA is not the right approach to solving any of these questions.

I have no issue with you or your beliefs at all. It's the people who want to write discriminating constitutional amendments that I have a problem with.

--Dan.

Posted by: Dylan

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 14:39

Quote:
Nope. I prefer the law to stay neuteral on the issue, which is what I'm advocating. I'm saying the law should neither deny or allow gay marriage.

I'm confused. Does this mean you do or don't think homesexuals should be allowed to legally marry?

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 15:16

I think we should get rid of the legal concept of marriage altogether. Which isn't going to happen, of course, so then I support Civil Unions as the next best step. It's unsatisfactory across the boards, but it gives homosexuals the legal rights that come with marriage and keeps from redifining something many religious institutions hold sacred.

edited to take the foot out of my mouth on a certain word usage. . .

Posted by: Dylan

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 15:20

In theory, I agree. But those options aren't available today. Do you think that a homesexual couple should be allowed this afternoon to get a marriage license?

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 15:29

I'm not sure what you're asking. Right now (if I understand things correctly) homosexuals aren't legally able to marry. It takes time to change things legally, so exploring options like Civil Unions, redifining marriage, or abolish legal marriages altogether are all we really have to talk about.

Posted by: ithoughti

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 17:57

Ugh.

Didn't we have this discussion months ago? Seriously I don't understand what the big deal is. Who does this hurt? There are NO victims. The amendment that is being proposed would be the first to TAKE AWAY people's rights, that's just plain wrong.

I live in Massachusetts and my lesbian aunt was married on May 17th, as soon as the vows were completed, a huge bolt of lightning came down from the clear blue sky and smote her on the spot. Oh wait, nope that didn't happen.

Trust me, Jesus didn't give a fuck who she married. So why do you care what she does with her life?

Spend more time worrying about your own life, not everyone else's.

Posted by: peter

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 18:00

Quote:
smoted

Smite, smote, smitten. Not smoted. Where did you go to wotansday school?

Peter

Posted by: peter

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 18:11

Quote:
by the way, what's wotansday school?

Like Sunday School but with more smiting.

Peter

Posted by: DLF

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 18:43

Quoting Dan:

Quote:
Life is too short to worry about how other people think or feel.

And then:

Quote:
So why do you care what she does with her life?

My whole problem with most organized religions: They spend way too much time assessing the "healthiness" of others' lives, thoughts and feelings. Wait a minute: that's my whole problem with most government institutions, as well.

Posted by: djc

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 20:38

Quote:
Didn't we have this discussion months ago?

Umm, yeah. But this time Yz33d's not here to join in.

--Dan.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 02:29

Quote:
1. Religion has a pretty good claim as definer of marriage. Marriage is documented as a religious institution far before organized government comes on the scene.

And gay marriage is documented within some ancient religions, too, so using "marriage was defined before governement" is not an argument that can carry any weight. According to one source I've seen, the intolerance toward gay marriage coincides with the rise of Christianity in Rome.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 02:35

Quote:
My girlfriend and I would probably apply for a Civil Union if it existed, we've been together for 2 years, and have no marrige plans, mostly becuase of the religious connotations.

Civil Unions do exist (for straight couples). A bit of info for Minnesota. Note the first two groups of people listed under "Who may perform a marriage ceremony?" No need for religion to play a part at all...

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 02:43

Quote:
My marriage to my wife is NOT dependant whatsoever on what the law says. If they dissolved the concept of legal marraige entirely (which I've said before is a step I'd probably support) we'd still be very much married in every sense that we are now. I view marriage as a spiritual covenant, and that this type of covenant dates before there WAS such a thing as government. I realize that this is not a perspective we'd ever agree on

I agree with this perspective on marriage. What I don't understand, is why you believe you (or Christians in general) should be allowed to deny gay people the right to make that same spiritual covenant, if they (and their religion -- Christian or not, and not all Christian churches have an issue with gay marriage) have reconciled homosexuality within their religious framework?

If it's simply because homosexuality is sin, then feel free to cast the first stone.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 02:46

but it still seems wrong for the state to even be involved

Well, then... how about a system of marriage where the participants can choose either state or church marriage or both, depending on their beliefs.

Choose church only marriage, and you are married forever in the eyes of God, but you forfeit all protections offered by our civil and legal systems. No familial health benefits; no community property nor child custody rights should the marriage fail.

Choose state only marriage, you get all the state protections and benefits, but at the risk of (depending on your belief system) death everlasting at the end of your corporeal existance or even burning in hell because you lived in sin with your partner.

Choose both, and get the best of both worlds.

Whose interests would be damaged by such a system?

tanstaafl.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 02:50

Quote:
I don't want the government to make broad pronouncements on things I believe. Those things should be left to the church.

I'd hope that you not let either make broad pronouncements on what you believe. Is there any significant difference between letting one large body pick your beliefs versus letting another large body pick them? It would be sad to think that you've let anybody, other than yourself, make that choice for you.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 03:02

When I met tanstaafl in Fairbanks back in February he mentioned that I was missing an interesting thread on the BBS about gay marriage. I never managed to backtrack and read it and it sounds like maybe some of the same turf is being covered here. Good. I think it is worth it. Oh, and whatever my notions of separating marriage from civil law...I am not holding my breath. Changes like that would move at a glacial pace. My ashes will have been sprinkled over the stage at the downtown Deja Vu by the time marriage has been extricated from legal statutes.

Jeff: I'm guessing that my beliefs are highly offensive to you (they would be if I were in your shoes)

The civility with which deep disagreements are expressed is something that continues to set this BBS apart. I may be one of the least polite folks here in that regard, but it is gratifying to see others express themselves so calmly.

Jeff, I will challenge you in a moment, but I suppose I should insert the usual qualifiers first. I think that there are people whose sexual affinity is weak, indeterminate and/or negotiable. I'll admit that there are maybe a few folks who repented of being homosexual, forced themselves back to straightness, and who are happy and back where they belong (you may imply from my phrasing that I am guessing that there are a lot of these converts who are unhappy and repressed).

While I have since converted to a practiceing Isexual, I can say that I *knew* that I was a heterosexual by about the age of 10. No question.

Jeff: I don't think it's right that a gay couple should not receive benifits because they made a choice. The choice, I believe, is an unhealthy one, but that doesn't need to be augmented by the state.

What you write here, with respect to "choice" sounds very, very familiar. I hope it is not insulting to say it sounds like a "party line" but it really does.

I can't say "some of my best friends are gay" because as it happens that isn't the case. I do know a hell of a lot of gay people and have worked and continue to work with many...and I guess I have paid attention to what non-heterosexual folks have to say about their situation. Anyhow, this notion of "made a choice" just flys in the face of reality. When Jim was figuring out that he liked girls at age 11, his classmate Charlie (not his real name) was figuring out in the strongest terms that he liked boys a *lot* better. Frankly, when bazillions of people like Charlie say "I knew I was gay at age 11" and the response is "no, you made a choice and a choice that is unhealthy", I think that is very disrespectful to Charlie and no amount of "but we care about you" really erases that.

Good grief I don't know why I am the one making this point when there are probably folks much more qualified to so, but....

Jeff, I *strongly* challenge you to reexamine this notion of "made a choice" -- take some active steps to examine its validity. What to do? March into gay bars in San Antonio? Interview patrons? Maybe this challenge is insulting in and of itself. Maybe you have done all that, but what you suggest in the notion of "choice" just doesn't square with any reality I have encountered.

'Course my reality...well.....

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 03:35

I *strongly* challenge you to reexamine this notion of "made a choice"

I would like to amplify just a bit what Jim has said here.

Jeff, if you really feel that homosexuality is a choice, consider this: What conceivable inducement could I offer you that would persuade you to "choose " to find another male sexually attractive? Even if I were empowered to offer you the one thing you desire more than anything else in the world, i.e., an absolute guarantee of life everlasting in God's kingdom if you could make that "choice", and at the same time promise you the torments of Hell if you couldn't... you would not be able to do so.

Is it such a leap to believe that homosexuals would find the converse to those "choices" just as repugnant and impossible?

Think about it...

Aside: What a fantastic community we have on this bbs, to be able to engage in a "hot topic" discussion like this and retain friendliness and civility throughout. I truly believe that for a group our size, we are unique on the world wide web.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: peter

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 07:37

Quote:
When I met tanstaafl in Fairbanks back in February he mentioned that I was missing an interesting thread on the BBS about gay marriage.

Over here. It was a good'un.

Peter

Posted by: mschrag

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 11:22

I KNEW I had seen this before ... I did a search on "gay marriage" and it came up blank, though. I was obviously searching for the wrong phrase ... Oh well, it's important enough to have the discussion over again

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 12:03

In light of the subject, here is a thought-provoking article from a fundamentalist magazine that I subscribe to.

Posted by: peter

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 12:11

Quote:
In light of the subject, here is a thought-provoking article from a fundamentalist magazine that I subscribe to.

With what point? That because one person (with a tragically damaged childhood) has been confused enough about his sexuality to bat for both teams during the course of his life, that therefore all gays are abuse victims who could be batting for the other team? Is that what passes for logic in fundamentalist magazines?

Peter

Posted by: JeffS

Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 12:26

Disclaimer: this discussion is moving beyond the legal issues surrounding gay marriage and focusing on my personal beliefs. This is important to say because my views on legal marriage and Christian marriage are different. Also, when I say "Christianity", I recognize that I am speaking about a specific set of beliefs that are not held by all organizations who use the title. I hold to the teachings of what I call "Evangelical" Christianity, which affirms the orthodox teachings of the church and recognizes the bible as the only infallible standard of truth. I just want to make it clear where I'm coming from, because there are plenty of churches (like my mother's) with differing views on homosexual marriages.

To start with, I have two basic premises that guide my beliefs about homosexual marriage:

1) Christianity is true.

2) Christianity teaches that homosexual acts are sin.

For me to agree that homosexual acts are not sin, one or both of the preceding statements would have to be disproved to me. So while we can talk about the nature of choice (which I think it will be beneficial), ultimately my beliefs stem from what I think God teaches.

Now to your question:

Quote:
Jeff, if you really feel that homosexuality is a choice, consider this: What conceivable inducement could I offer you that would persuade you to "choose " to find another male sexually attractive? Even if I were empowered to offer you the one thing you desire more than anything else in the world, i.e., an absolute guarantee of life everlasting in God's kingdom if you could make that "choice", and at the same time promise you the torments of Hell if you couldn't... you would not be able to do so.

First off, I don’t believe that “going straight” has gotten anyone entrance into heaven. The bible is crystal clear that heaven is given to people on the basis of faith alone; i.e.: that they trust in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ as the solution to their sin problem. Yes homosexual acts are sin from a biblical perspective, but so is lying, lust, cheating, stealing, drunkenness, gluttony, promiscuity, and an endless list of other things. Because of Christ’s death on the cross, none of this is strong enough to keep anyone out of heaven including those who peform homosexual acts. Understand that I am as guilty as anyone else here and commit sin on a daily basis- some sin which I know to be wrong and other sin that I have misunderstood. I am incapable of keeping myself pure of sin, though God has released me in some areas and continues to work in me for others. It is only in the grace and forgiveness of God I have hope, for I have demonstrated my failure at righteousness time and time again.

The bottom line: it is no easy task to struggle against our sin nature. I did not have sex before I was married, and that was a constant struggle, especially during the time in which I was engaged and I knew my fiancée and I would be together that way in only a few (very long) months. Most of you do not consider this an issue, but for us it was and it was not an easy thing. But that was one area in which I had success- by the grace of God. In many others I have fallen short, but even in the struggle I honor God by recognizing I am not who I need to be and must be renewed by His continuing grace.

And please note: I haven’t said that homosexuality is a choice, though I did say homosexual marriage is a choice. I’m not completely conceding the former, but I find it likely that homosexuality isn’t a choice. We live in a fallen world where creation is not what it is meant to be. In a perfect world I would not struggle with lust, pride, or any of the other sins that plague me. To answer Doug’s question before he asks it (because we’ve had this discussion before), there was never a time I chose to be heterosexual; I just was. But knowing that I liked women was a different thing than sleeping with them. My choice before marriage was not to have sex, and that was a choice I had to make over and over. Even now, not lusting after women who are not my wife is a choice I have to make again and again.

Part of the Christian life is to struggle with sin. This glorifies God because it shows our love and devotion to Him. Ultimately those who trust in Christ will be healed of our sins and inequities so we can spend eternity as we were meant to: in a sinless, love relationship with our Creator. For now we live in a fallen world where we struggle with sin, disease, war, death, and all things that make this life a dim shadow of what is to come. But a lifetime is miniscule in comparison to the eternity that the Christian faith looks toward.

Could I find men sexually attractive to please God? Not without his help for sure. But if that were what he required His grace would be sufficient to cover me. All that I could to would be to have faith and struggle.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 12:37

Quote:
The civility with which deep disagreements are expressed is something that continues to set this BBS apart.

Amen. I keep waiting for this thread to get locked due to the sensitive and personal nature of what we're discussing, but it never does because most people post with respect and restraint. I am truly grateful to those of you who tolerate different ideas (especially mine) because it's certainly been a benifit to me. If you were to go back and read all of my posts (which I don't recommend!), you'd see that many of my ideas have changed- many times because of a better understanding of outside viewpoints. Not that any of us will ever be on the same page, but at least we're better educated.

This is one of the most tolerant places to exchange ideas in the world and that's something I value immensly. People are respected here, even when their ideas are not.

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 13:44

Quote:
With what point? That because one person (with a tragically damaged childhood) has been confused enough about his sexuality to bat for both teams during the course of his life, that therefore all gays are abuse victims who could be batting for the other team? Is that what passes for logic in fundamentalist magazines?

Rather an article from an "insider's perspective" who claims that his homosexual lifestyle was a destructive choice. He also claims that the "tolerance" and "freedom" doors don't often swing both ways.

Posted by: peter

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 13:58

Quote:
Rather an article from an "insider's perspective" who claims that his homosexual lifestyle was a destructive choice.

Yes, it certainly sounds as if he's happier now. Which is good -- but tells us nothing about any other person. It wouldn't be hard to dig up inverse stories, about people feeling relief and wholeness after having finally walked out of hetero relationships based on pretence or on self-denial.

Quote:
He also claims that the "tolerance" and "freedom" doors don't often swing both ways.

Is tolerance of intolerance a virtue? Is intolerance of intolerance a vice? Not that it's valid in the first place to judge a viewpoint by the behaviour of a very few of its adherents. Every movement has its nutters.

Peter

Posted by: Dylan

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 14:27

Quote:
1) Christianity is true.

2) Christianity teaches that homosexual acts are sin.

For me to agree that homosexual acts are not sin, one or both of the preceding statements would have to be disproved to me

When were the above statements proven to be true to you? As an athiest, this is something that I don't understand. If you show me a book written by some guys a couple of thousand years ago, I feel the burdon of proof is obviously on you to demonstrate the book is true - not the other way around.

BTW, I do want to say I appreciate your thoughtful responses in a thread where you are being ganged up on. I've had similar discussions with two different evangelical Christians recently and I've gained a much better understanding from you then I did from them.

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 14:35

Quote:
Not that it's valid in the first place to judge a viewpoint by the behaviour of a very few of its adherents. Every movement has its nutters.

Agreed. Since the definition of intolerance is "unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs", it seems that both sides suffer here. I don't forsee much of a middle ground on the road ahead.

Posted by: Dylan

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 14:48

Quote:
Agreed. Since the definition of intolerance is "unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs", it seems that both sides suffer here. I don't forsee much of a middle ground on the road ahead.

I think the middle ground is "I don't like your views but I won't try to legislate your life". One side is willing to accept this middle ground and the other isn't.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 14:57

I think the issue over intolerence of intolerence is one of a misdefinition. People tend to define tolerence as "considering all opinions equally valid". I don't think that's the definition around here, but it gets used a lot in other circles. All ideas aren't equally valid, but people should be equally respected, regardless of how invalid their ideas are. That is the true definition of tolerence: "all people should be equally respected whatever their thoughts or opinions." In this very thread it is quite clear there are ideas some don't feel carry much value. But we all are sensitive to the fact that there are people behind those ideas and we value those people.

Saying "I think idea x is wrong" is not intolerent. Saying "because you believe idea x means I can treat you like garbage" IS intolerant. Unfortunately many people treat the first statement as being intolerant, and then when an objection is raised simply recite the "I won't tolerate intolerance" mantra. The fact this doesn't happen hear (or very often at least) is one reason I love discussions on this BBS.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 15:12

The more I hear of this discussion, the more I want to ask one question.

It is a very simple question, it does not require an answer in essay form. It's a simple yes or no question.

This question is posed to any and every person who believes that gay marriage should be either made illegal, or should be given a different legal definition than a hetero marriage...

Your reasons for supporting such legislation, when you really dig deep, when you look behind all of the semantics, and issue-skirting, and spin doctoring...

Are your reasons religious ones? Yes or no.

Think carefully before you answer. Really think about it. When you strip away all of the noise, all of the legal and legislative mumbo-jumbo, and concentrate on what you've really got against gay people getting married, in the end does it come down to "because I believe that homosexuality is against the will of God"?

If you like, we can phrase the question another way...

Is there anyone who supports legislation against gay marriage, who has a fundamental root reason for that belief, which isn't somehow (when you really dig past the surface) based on a religious source?

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 15:15

Quote:
When were the above statements proven to be true to you?

In short, through experience, research, and soul searching. I examined the claims of Christianity and came to the conclusion that as a faith system it best fit the world around me and explained my personal experience better than any other option- including the rejection of religion all together.

Quote:
As an athiest, this is something that I don't understand. If you show me a book written by some guys a couple of thousand years ago, I feel the burdon of proof is obviously on you to demonstrate the book is true - not the other way around.

The burden of proof may be on me from your perspective, but not from mine. That is to say, I understand you don't see the proof you'd like to have regarding faith and so you'd like more if what I say is true. And I'd like to provide it if possible. However, from my perspective I can honestly say I KNOW it's true. I realize that doesn't carry much weight with you or anyone else, but I can't unlearn what I've experienced only because other's haven't experienced it too. Think of an episode of Star Trek where they're force to violate the Prime Directive and take people away from their homes to save them from some danger. There's no way they could ever explain the reality of spaceships, warp travel, aliens, etc. in a way that makes sense to the primitive civilization. And the burden is indeed on the Enterprise to do what they can to prove it, but if the civilization still can't understand the truth that they are in danger there are still very real consequences if they don't leave their planet.

That is the frustration for me. It would take an absurd amount of proof to demonstrate Christianity as a hoax to me: it is my only hope and the truth that has not ever let me down. Yet I realize that none of the this adds up to proof for you, even as it does for me. The only option I have is to live my life consistently with my values and my beliefs and hope others have the chance to expeirence what I have.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 15:20

Yes, my beliefs about gay marriage come from a religious source. Just about all my beliefs do in one way or another, especially all of my political ones.

Posted by: lectric

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 15:42

Quote:
I feel the burdon of proof is obviously on you to demonstrate the book is true

Nothing can ever be proven true. Things can only be proven false. Only after standing the test of serious scrutiny over time is anything ever considered "true". On the converse, proving someting is false is easy. One instance where there is a breakdown and something is now false.

Even things like gravity are not considered to be "True". They are just generally accepted as such since they've stood the test of time without being disproven.

That being said, I feel the burden is on you to proove the Bible is wrong. Many christians have been made trying to do just that.

Posted by: peter

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 15:42

Quote:
I examined the claims of Christianity and came to the conclusion that as a faith system it best fit the world around me and explained my personal experience better than any other option- including the rejection of religion all together.

Did your personal experience cover the whole of Church doctrine (i.e. in the case of a fundamentalist church, biblical doctrine), or was there a point where you thought, "Hey, really quite a lot of this seems to fit the world around me; let's just assume that the rest of it does"? In particular...

Quote:
Think of an episode of Star Trek where they're force to violate the Prime Directive and take people away from their homes to save them from some danger.

...did your personal experience cover this whole idea that everyone -- not just those in the middle of personal crises -- is in "danger" if they're not "saved"? Earlier on you were talking about intangible but clearly grave harm that gays were experiencing and indeed causing for others; was this idea of harm one of the things you gained personal insight into, or did it kind of come along for the ride with the rest of Christianity? It's very clear how helpful all the "God is love" part of Christianity can be to those who are down (which, with that "it's my only hope" comment, sounds like it's sometimes you), but it's never very clear to me how some of Christianity's other ideas got popular.

The harm thing is important because it represents the limit of tolerance: it shouldn't matter to anyone else what your ideas are, unless you're using those ideas to harm others. The real deadlock here seems to be that one side genuinely believes that not affording gay people equality under the law causes harm, whereas the other side genuinely believes that being supportive to them causes harm.

Peter

PS. I'll echo too the sentiment that it's really great to be able to have this discussion in such a civil manner... I hope you aren't feeling too "ganged up on", or at least not in a hostile way. I hope I'm not coming across as combative; the fundamentalist position is one I don't understand well, and I'm only being tenacious in asking you about it because I'd like to understand it better...

Posted by: Dylan

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 15:53

Quote:
However, from my perspective I can honestly say I KNOW it's true

And that's what Osama thinks, too. I'm not saying that to take a cheap shot at you. Intolerance and persecution and war are a continuum. History has shown time and time again that these are what result from a culture of intolerance. Ultimately, a culture of religious and social tolerance will lead to a better world for your children to live in. Do you really think otherwise?

Posted by: Dylan

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 16:03

I'd say we have pretty damn strong evidence of evolution which disproves the Adam and Eve story.

So in the absence of evidence you will choose to believe whatever you are told? I think there are invisible leprechauns that move my car keys at night. The real kicker is these crafty dudes know when someone is trying to track them and then they won't evidence themselves. (They're quantum leprechauns.

) By your logic this statement must be true since the burden of proof is on demonstrating it is false and that's not possible.

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 16:52

Quote:
Are your reasons religious ones? Yes or no.

Yes.

Posted by: DLF

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 17:04

Thanks, Dylan. I now understand the elusive "invisible leprechaun" position much better.

Posted by: genixia

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 17:07

Quote:
I'd say we have pretty damn strong evidence of evolution which disproves the Adam and Eve story.

But can you prove that God didn't create dinosaur fossils just to test our faith? Or that he didn't create animals with similar genetics to us for the same reason?

No one has lived long enough to prove that evolution really happens. No one can prove that the 'evidence' wasn't planted by the planet builders or isn't part of our imagination.

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 17:10

I pulled my definition straight out of Webster's. Based upon that definition it would appear that both sides are guilty for different reasons.

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 17:11

Quote:
Are your reasons religious ones?

Yes.

Posted by: DLF

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 17:20

While I can appreciate wanting to boil things down to a yes/no question, Tony, I already pretty much knew the answer to that one. My single question would be at least kinda binary: "Should U.S. laws exist based on religious or theocratic doctrine alone, or should our laws reflect first and foremost the needs of our society and its citizenry?" Sure it's a leading question, but hey, I make no claims of lack of bias.

Posted by: mschrag

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 17:27

Quote:
But can you prove that God didn't create dinosaur fossils just to test our faith?

I think the thing for me with religion is that it ultimately seems to be a NoOp (i.e. sort of a dead end). In every culture, when science "runs out" people turn to religion. What is the Sun -- oh it's God. Why do the planets go around eachother? Oh, it's god. With each generation of scientific development, it seems that "God" gets pushed further and futher away as we continue to explain the universe scientifically. You can always take the argument of "God made it that way to test our faith", but when you continue that argument, it seems to me ultimately if God was so clever as to make everything He did be explained by science, then the God part doesn't really matter. By God not mattering, I mean if all his existence is is holding up science as it advances further and further, then what is the point? It doesn't seem to get you anywhere, and in fact it seems to me to be a bit of a crutch -- Why continue searching if it's just God back there? Sure you can say that the searching is "understanding God", but at that point, replace the word "God" for "science" and you have the exact same thing. It just becomes a linguistic game at that point.

When it comes down to it, I am not religious because religion has zero effect on my life. I can be a good person, and I can do good things without the fear of going to Hell if I don't. And the same goes for the part about not needing the carrot of Heaven either. Personally there's just no room for a God construct in my life -- seems to me there are more important things to attend to. And if one exists, I think He would agree with me

Posted by: Dylan

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 17:31

Quote:
But can you prove that God didn't create dinosaur fossils just to test our faith? Or that he didn't create animals with similar genetics to us for the same reason?

I don't even know how to respond to this. When it boils down to self proving arguments like this then there is no point in continuing the discussion. This line of reasoning gives equal validity to every statement possible.

Posted by: Dylan

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 17:42

mschrag, you've articulated how I feel exactly but in a way I've never been able to quite express. I'm saving your post.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 17:43

Thanks, Dylan. I now understand the elusive "invisible leprechaun" position much better.

That one should go in the alt.empegtheism FAQ.

Posted by: genixia

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 17:48

Quote:
This line of reasoning gives equal validity to every statement possible.

Exactly. But this reasoning has perfect validity. To be sure, it shifts the discussion away from religion and into philosophy, but the point that I was trying to hammer home is that to a Christian, faith is far more important than belief.
In fact it is an important tenet - if we could prove beyond any doubt that God existed and that Jesus dies on the cross then we would _all_ be no more than slaves to God's will. By not giving us tangible and non-irrefutable proof, God is asking us to make a choice to have faith, and it is that choice and faith that will redeem us.

To a Christian, no amount of 'damn strong evidence' is going to overturn that faith unless that evidence is completely irrefutable.

Posted by: peter

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 17:57

Quote:
No one can prove that the 'evidence' wasn't planted by the planet builders

That it's an inventive and funny science-fiction novel shouldn't blind anyone to the fact that Strata is also one of the great works of humanist philosophy.

Peter

Posted by: tfabris

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 18:32

Quote:
While I can appreciate wanting to boil things down to a yes/no question, Tony, I already pretty much knew the answer to that one.

See, that's just it. As long as the answers are all "yes", the only possible truly logical outcome to any discussion on the topic is "shut the f*ck up, then, and stay out of the law books, because we have separation of church and state."

But that's not why I asked the question.

I asked the question because I'm genuinely hoping for someone to answer "no", at which point we can have a truly interesting discussion about their reasons. A discussion that can be based upon things that would be defensible and truly relevant to the law.

We can go around and around about religious topics until the end of time. That discussion never has an end or a resolution. I'm looking for someone who has a good non-religious reason to outlaw gay marriage.

If no one can come up with one, then we're back to STFU and separation of church and state again.

Posted by: peter

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 18:45

Quote:
As long as the answers are all "yes", the only possible truly logical outcome to any discussion on the topic is "shut the f*ck up, then, and stay out of the law books, because we have separation of church and state."

But that's not terribly helpful, because, as Ferretboy implies, if someone's truly pious then all their reasons for everything are religious. Guess what, I bet if you asked Ferretboy whether it was for religious reasons that he thought murder was wrong, he'd say yes. Religions are in fact reasonably unanimously opposed to murder. But that's no reason to strike the murder laws from the books because they're religiously-inspired.

You could try asking "Would you still be against gay marriage if Christianity were not true?", but don't expect quick answers from anyone to a counterfactual based on the opposite of what Ferretboy has already more-or-less stated is Axiom #1 of his personal truth-system.

Peter

Posted by: tfabris

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 18:53

Quote:
But that's no reason to strike the murder laws from the books because they're religiously-inspired.

Fallacious argument, not relevant; there's a whole host of perfectly good non-religious reasons that people shouldn't kill one another. It's possible for morality to exist in the absence of religion, just as it's possible for immorality to exist in its presence.

My question still stands. Can anyone honestly say that they have non-religious reasons for wanting to outlaw gay marriage?

Posted by: djc

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 18:56

The interesting thing to me, is that in the context of current events, this whole discussion is really moot. The senate will likely vote on the FMA tomorrow. It will fail to get 2/3 vote, and it will die. It will never make it to the states for ratification, and everyone knows it.

This is a political powerplay, a classic example of divisive politics meant to force senators on the record one way or another, which can then be used as a bludgeon at election time. As with the war, and other hot-button topics of the day, this administration has proved one thing: they are masters of dividing issues into black-or-white polarized positions that make no room for middle ground. Four years ago, they campaigned on a platform of "compassionate conservatism," with their plans to put partisan politics aside and to unite the leaders and the people to make true progress.

Every campaign uses some variation of that theme, of course, but they really pushed it. Once in office, they have taken what I believe to be unprecedented steps in a number of areas to polarize both the congress and the public opinion in an unprecedented and dangerous way. I don't believe in such tactics, or in the tyranny of the majority. We need to at least make some effort to find something resembling a consensus in the middle ground. Issues such as these are complex, and often call for in-depth public discussion and debate, and the exploration of solutions beyond the simple, inadequate, flawed legislation we're often left with.

--Dan.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 19:06

Absolutely agreed.

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 19:19

Quote:
If no one can come up with one, then we're back to STFU and separation of church and state again.

In reality the "separation of church and state" implies that government has no means to run the church, not the other way around.

Posted by: mschrag

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 19:37

I'm assuming you're kidding, but just in case. The first part is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It means that Congress cannot pass laws that are religious in nature -- meaning the otherway around is covered too. The second part is the free exercise part, which is the government running the church.

Posted by: djc

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 19:39

Quote:
In reality the "separation of church and state" implies that government has no means to run the church, not the other way around.

Winks aside, clearly that's open to debate. I think the majority of population that doesn't subscribe to your particular faith would rather not have it dictate our government policies, thank you very much.

--Dan.

Posted by: djc

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 19:56

You might be interested to read a bit of legal analysis of the First Amendment, including the three tests used by the courts to determine violations of the Establishment Clause:

Quote:
The first two standards were part of the same formulation. 'The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution."

I think a case could be argued that the primary effect of the FMA would be an advancement of religion, especially if the proponents of the FMA clearly state that religion is the basis for the content of the amendment. Now, these tests are applied to legislation, not constitutional amendments, but it would leave us with amendments that would arguably be at odds with each other.

Here's a nice quote from Jefferson, too:

Quote:
In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.'

--Dan.

Posted by: peter

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 20:33

Quote:
Fallacious argument, not relevant; there's a whole host of perfectly good non-religious reasons that people shouldn't kill one another.

That was my argument. I wasn't arguing for murder to be legalised, I was saying that asking believers your question doesn't well distinguish between theocratic and humanistic laws.

Quote:
It's possible for morality to exist in the absence of religion, just as it's possible for immorality to exist in its presence.

You and I believe that; it's not clear whether a fundamentalist would, at least insofar as it concerns their particular religion. Certainly no fundamentalist worth the name will be building their personal morality on such considerations.

Perhaps a better question would be "Do you believe that allowing gay marriage will have tangible bad consequences for this mortal life?" If an action has bad consequences only intangibly or in the afterlife, then the place for a prohibition on it is in religious doctrine. For everything else, there's temporal authority.

Peter

Posted by: tfabris

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 21:05

Quote:
I was saying that asking believers your question doesn't well distinguish between theocratic and humanistic laws.

Agreed. I was trying to ask the question of everyone, not just "believers". I'm honestly trying to find out if there are any arguments for outlawing gay marriage that don't boil down to religion.

Quote:
If an action has bad consequences only intangibly or in the afterlife, then the place for a prohibition on it is in religious doctrine. For everything else, there's temporal authority.

Yup. I'm just trying to see if anyone's got decent arguments for the latter.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 00:14

Quote:
See, that's just it. As long as the answers are all "yes", the only possible truly logical outcome to any discussion on the topic is "shut the f*ck up, then, and stay out of the law books, because we have separation of church and state."

Tony, I just don't think that's true. Seperation of church and state is precicely WHY this is an issue. I truly feel like a sacred rite of the church is being redifined by the state, which is NOT seperation of church and state. Once again, if this were baptism we were talking about I think you'd understand better why the church is upset over this.

I realize there's disagreement over whether the concept of marriage originated with the church, but while that question is open it can't be as simple as, "the church has no say because the state owns the concept of marriage."

As for discussing marriage without involving religion, I don't truly believe there would be the concept of "marriage" if it weren't for religion. Of course, that's because I believe the concept origionated with religion. And I realize that people are going to immediately point to coupeling in animals as a non-religious example of marriage, but I don't see the government legislating dating relationships.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 14/07/2004 00:20

Peter (and others),
I really feel like I keep dancing around the issue of how I came to believe what I do. Frankly I haven't had the time to sit down and do it right, nor do I have time right now, but I'll try in the near future. You and others are asking some great questions and I'd really like to do them justice.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 00:52

Tony,
Peter has well represented my thoughts in his posts, but to take it a little further it seems to me that you think religious beliefs are not valid for the basis of law. If this is the case, what kind of source is valid for determining law?

My point is, you might not think my religious views are valid, but just because they are religious in nature doesn't disqualify them. In the same way, the fact that your views might not be religious in nature doesn't disqualify them either.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 01:05

Quote:
It's possible for morality to exist in the absence of religion.

I'd disagree with this, as would many secular philosophers. Of course many philosophers would agree as well, but I just wanted to point out this is not a Christian only viewpoint.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 02:11

Jim,
Let me clarify a little (since I've been hammered for this before). What I'm not arguing is that only Christians can be moral. And yes, this whole thing depends on how you define morality. However, my basic argument is that unless humans figure out how to live for ever and transend even the life of the universe we're in, or there is some external judge of our actions, ultimatly all we do has no meaning since nothing we do permenantly effects anything. It then follows to me that if there is no meaning to life and our actions have no ultimate consequence, anything percieved as "good" or "bad" is really only a temproary perception, for in the end all there are are actions without real result. And if there is no "good" or "bad" then there is no morality.

It sounds silly to say, but until we achieve eternal life or unless there's some external being to our existense, even murder isn't really wrong. For ultimately all will be dead, violently or not, and the experiences of our lives will be meaningless. Some have said that the purpose of life is to influence positively those who come after us, but that only works out if someday someone achieves a lasting result with their lives: ie- transends a temporary existense. Otherwise it's "turtles all the way down!"

I've said all of this before and it's been recieved quite negatively, which I understand because it really isn't positive stuff, but it should explain my thoughts on why morality is dependant on there being a God or some impending transendence of humans in the future. I believe if there is a God then morality exists for the Athiest and Christian alike (and since I do believe in God, I also believe in morality), but I also believe that if there is no God, morality cannot exist because there is no real "right" or "wrong" when all is said and done.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 03:17

Jeff, first let me say that my hat's off to you for managing and earnest, honest response when you have amoral louts like me taunting you (that was a joke!). Seriously, though, hat's off.

Let me clarify a little (since I've been hammered for this before). What I'm not arguing is that only Christians can be moral.

I was pretty sure the implication was there, but let's move on...

And yes, this whole thing depends on how you define morality. However, my basic argument is that unless humans figure out how to live for ever and transend even the life of the universe we're in, or there is some external judge of our actions, ultimatly all we do has no meaning since nothing we do permenantly effects anything.

It is interesting to hear you say this in all earnestness. I can't nor shouldn't put words in your mouth, but what you say here sounds familiar -- echoes many late-night conversations I've had. Like I've said, I find the persistence of religion in cultures through time puzzling. To the extent that I understand the phenomenon a little bit, though, I defintely see religion as a continued search for meaning.

Your "ultimatly all we do has no meaning since nothing we do permenantly effects anything" is considered, I think, the perennial question of mankind :

Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing

As a life-long depressive, this question of meaning is always hovering over my shoulder..."What's the point, Jim?"

Ask the question often enough, though, and you can come to the conclusion that the question is pointless...or at least not helpful.

Does my life have meaning? I am not sure. I may *yet* go work for some NGO and try to keep some poor African kid from dying of cholera. In the meantime, I am going to my favorite niece's wedding this weekend in Worcester and hope to have a good time. I suspect that she and her handsome beau will have litters of children very, very quickly and will do their best to raise them as moral little people, all the while asking "What is the meaning of all this?" on occasion. They have, I think, become somewhat dissilusioned with the pedophile-ridden diocese where they reside, but if they regain some loyalty to all that -- and find some eternal meaning there -- I would not be surprised.

It then follows to me that if there is no meaning to life and our actions have no ultimate consequence, anything percieved as "good" or "bad" is really only a temproary perception, for in the end all there are are actions without real result. And if there is no "good" or "bad" then there is no morality.

Your logic is internally consistent and valid, I think. I don't accept the "there is no meaning to life" part, though, I guess that I prefer to "park" that issue, though, continuing to wonder "Hmmm, what might the meaning be?" whilst trying to observe some semblance of morality that I finde described on dictionary.com.

It sounds silly to say, but until we achieve eternal life or unless there's some external being to our existense, even murder isn't really wrong.

Oh, I don't know. As an empiricist, I can say that if you murdered me, I would be *really* pissed!

For ultimately all will be dead, violently or not, and the experiences of our lives will be meaningless. Some have said that the purpose of life is to influence positively those who come after us, but that only works out if someday someone achieves a lasting result with their lives: ie- transends a temporary existense. Otherwise it's "turtles all the way down!"

I have to figure out that turtles reference!

I've said all of this before and it's been recieved quite negatively, which I understand because it really isn't positive stuff, but it should explain my thoughts on why morality is dependant on there being a God or some impending transendence of humans in the future. I believe if there is a God then morality exists for the Athiest and Christian alike (and since I do believe in God, I also believe in morality), but I also believe that if there is no God, morality cannot exist because there is no real "right" or "wrong" when all is said and done.

Jeff, you may feel free to take this the wrong way -- to interpret this as condescending -- but I don't think that what you have expressed with respect to life and meaning is much different from what many thoughtful people have struggled through over the ages. People just differ in how they sort that out.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 05:10

Quote:
As for discussing marriage without involving religion, I don't truly believe there would be the concept of "marriage" if it weren't for religion. Of course, that's because I believe the concept origionated with religion.

That's as may be. But right now I'm talking about the current "state" part of marriage, not the "church" part. It's possible for two people to get married purely through state paperwork at the courthouse, having nothing to with any religion at all. No clergyman, no church, no ceremony. This is to the best of my knowledge. Am I wrong?

Somewhere earlier in the thread there was a statement something like "what if we could have a state marriage that was separate from a religious marriage", and I wasn't sure if that was meant as sarcasm, because that's what we've got right now as far as I know.

So you're continuing to discuss religious reasons and avoiding my original question, which still stands. Does anyone who opposes gay marriage have a good non-religious reason for it?

Posted by: peter

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 07:19

Quote:
Once again, if this were baptism we were talking about I think you'd understand better why the church is upset over this.

And conversely, if baptism conferred special legal and societal rights beyond those entirely internal to the church, then I hope you could understand why we atheists would want that disestablished just as marriage has been...

Quote:
I realize there's disagreement over whether the concept of marriage originated with the church, but while that question is open it can't be as simple as, "the church has no say because the state owns the concept of marriage."

Marriage is documentedly well-established in the Code of Hammurabi, before either Judaism or Christianity originated. I don't see any room for disagreement there except from the "Scripture is correct and therefore any conflicting archaeology is incorrect" crowd.

Peter

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 08:50

Turtles All The Way Down

Posted by: mschrag

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 10:17

Quote:
It's possible for two people to get married purely through state paperwork at the courthouse, having nothing to with any religion at all. No clergyman, no church, no ceremony.

This is 90% right. We had a justice of the peace basically "swear us in" and then she *READ FROM THE BIBLE*. I was really pissed off about that. That was her own special religiously heavy-handed touch though. In the case of the church ceremony, the minister is able to serve in the capacity of the justice of the peace, so s/he is granted that ability by the state. However, the ceremony itself is PURELY pomp and circumstance and has no meaning other than to the witnesses. I don't believe the justice of the peace actually had to read anything -- I think she was there as a notary/witness, but I'm not actually positive about that. It may be that she's supposed to just verify that the whole thing isn't a sham.

On a side note, can I point out that people always talk about the "sanctity of marriage" and yet something like 50% of marriages fail? I think half the people should probably pretty much sit down and be quiet about the whole sanctity thing for a little while and think about what they've done.

ms

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 11:29

Quote:
Somewhere earlier in the thread there was a statement something like "what if we could have a state marriage that was separate from a religious marriage", and I wasn't sure if that was meant as sarcasm, because that's what we've got right now as far as I know.

I don't think the marjority of Americans view the two as seperate, whatever the lawbooks say.

Posted by: djc

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 11:43

Jeff,

Quote:
I truly feel like a sacred rite of the church is being redifined by the state

I find that in many of your posts, you refer to "the church" as if it is a monolithic institution with a single set of values. I know you live in a state where fundamentalist Christian churches dominate the religious landscape, but in other areas, that's not the case. Fundamentalist churches here in Chicago are among the minority, and I think there is an entire spectrum of religious thought, of which your church is a single data point.

Ultimately, this is why I believe the issue should be left to the states to decide. Why should southern churches determine law for more liberal states in the north?

--Dan.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 12:17

Sorry, I'm not being clear. By "the church" simply referring to religion in general, as opposed to "the state". I fully recognize that other religions (or churches) may allow gay marriage and that it is completly within thier rights to define marriage that way. I just don't think the state should do it. To me THAT'S a violation of church/state separation. Your next thought is going to be- why should the state define marriage as "man and woman", and as I've said before I don't think the state should have ever been involved in the first place. But since the state DID get involved, it seems unfair to change the meaning now.

Let me tack this on as a thought that I haven't really been clear on: I think gay marraige is going to happen. I am a little upset by it because of the whole "redifinition" thing, but ultimately it's not the end of the world. I don't support legislative morality, and this includes homosexuals: if a homosexual person decides not to persue a same-sex relationship, I'd rather this be an honest act of faith rather than bowing to the pressure of society. So none of my beliefs about legal same-sex marriage come from the idea that I want to somehow keep people from sin by forcing them into submission of my worldview; they come from a defensive position of feeling attacked.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 13:05

Quote:
This is a political powerplay, a classic example of divisive politics meant to force senators on the record one way or another, which can then be used as a bludgeon at election time.

Dan, while I think the discussion of the underlying issue is worthwhile, I wanted to back up also chime in with "Absolutely agree." and thank you for summarizing this so well.

I can hear the ads now..."Bob Limprist, he voted with *Ted* *Kennedy* to defeat the FMA! Limprist voted against body armor for our troops, and he *even* sponsored a bill to let *terrorists* attend our state colleges -- *tuition-free*!! Bob Limprist! What kind of senator is *that*?"

Posted by: tfabris

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 14:32

Quote:
I don't think the marjority of Americans view the two as seperate, whatever the lawbooks say.

True, but irrelevant.

I'm still waiting.

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 15:04

And you'll probably keep waiting. Claiming that would be tantamount to proclaiming one is a homophobe. Now that Yz33d is gone, I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to do that.

Posted by: mcomb

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 15:34

Quote:
I don't think the marjority of Americans view the two as seperate, whatever the lawbooks say

I wonder if that is really true? Personally I have no problem distinguishing the two and I don't understood the importance of the viewpoint that one camp or the other "stole" the term. Its just another word that means different things in different contexts to different people. Its quite clear to me that any laws that refer to marriage must by definition be using the legal meaning of the word and not the religious one. Of course as Tony mentioned the only viewpoint that can come from that is STFU and keep your religion away from my laws (or vice versa).

-Mike

Posted by: tfabris

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 15:52

Quote:
Claiming that would be tantamount to proclaiming one is a homophobe.

I'm not trying to bait anyone into getting flamed, I'm genuinely trying to find out if there's a good reason for it that's not religious in nature.

I mean, no one's cited any reasons yet, good or not. Even if it was a supremely stupid and bad reason like "the gender is a field on the marriage license form and it would cost millions to have all the forms redone to be gender neutral", at least that's something tangible that we can sink our teeth into and resolve, one way or the other. I was making that one up as an example, of course, I don't really think it's a possible reason or even worthy of discussion.

I'm just looking for a way to discuss the topic that doesn't keep coming back to "it should be against the law because God said so." That discussion will never resolve.

Posted by: loren

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 16:10

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5437330

Proposal died in the Senate

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 16:14

Quote:
I'm just looking for a way to discuss the topic that doesn't keep coming back to "it should be against the law because God said so." That discussion will never resolve.

I think the discussion is more like "it should be against the law because the law shouldn't (re)define something that is within the realm of religion". Not that we'll resolve that discussion either . . .

Posted by: mschrag

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 16:15

Thank God

Posted by: ninti

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 19:01

Quote:
By "the church" simply referring to religion in general, as opposed to "the state". I fully recognize that other religions (or churches) may allow gay marriage and that it is completly within thier rights to define marriage that way. I just don't think the state should do it. To me THAT'S a violation of church/state separation.

Oops, I think you just got caught there. So only YOUR religion's version of marriage should be sanctioned by the state then? Only your religion has the right to define the institution, and even other religion's definitions should be banned if they disagree.

Well, where to start? I have stayed out of this conversation this time but I want to weigh in because no-one else is saying what I am going to say.

First of all marriage was not created by religion. Many other animals mate for life, without the benefit of religion, and I think it stands to reason that early pre-homo sapien human species did so long before their brains got thinking about religion and they formalized it in that framework. Of course since I am sure you don't believe in that, or the fact that Judaism is not the first religion in human history and that those early peoples' had marriages just fine without ever hearing of your god, so those arguments will mean little to you.

Second, external morality is an illusion. The only morality is that which is built into us for the benefit of the survival of the species, or more specifically the survival of the family and clan groups which we have surrounded ourselves with until just recently, and even more specifically than that, the survival and reproduction of the genes of that group that our similar to ours. Morality was not put in us by some god; it evolved to make it possible for us to live in a group instead of only concerning ourselves with just ourselves because in a group we have better odds of surviving as a whole. It has been built up by millions of years of evolution through natural selection; those that were 'immoral' got ostracized and died. This has been proven by studies of primates that have discovered they have very similar concepts of right and wrong, though unspoken; most of the things we associate with morality; empathy, self sacrifice, the concepts of fairness and sharing and rules and the consequences of breaking them, all are in them without the concept of morality as we know it or some god. Without these evolved behaviours, their society would not exist, nor would ours. Religion has snaked its way into these concepts and re-enforced them with made-up external threats for the purposes of control, but without any concept of religion a society and the people living in it would still follow these precepts.

Anyway, I doubt that argument will mean much to you either. But I just wanted to state that I have a framework of morality that stands up fine on its own without being propped up by some god, and is much more internally consistent without having some of the logical flaws that an imposed morality does.

Edited to fix some typos

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 19:12

Quote:
But I just wanted to state that I have a framework of morality that stands up fine on its own without being propped up by some god, and is much more internally consistant without having some of the logical flaws that an imposed morality does.

All morality is based upon some sort of guide - a rule or a plumb line by which it is measured. I'm assuming that the "common man morality" that you refer to is based on today's society or culture. Unfortunately, the idea of using society as a guide is flawed, as society (and those who influence it) are not consistent. The idea behind a spiritual morality is that it is based on an unchanging force or being. Thus the conundrum that is vexing this conversation: if those who claim to be Christians adhere to the Bible as absolute, unchanging truth, there is no way they can accept homosexual marriage as a valid institution.

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 19:21

Quote:
I'm assuming you're kidding, but just in case. The first part is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It means that Congress cannot pass laws that are religious in nature -- meaning the otherway around is covered too.

It depends on the intent that the founding fathers had when writing that particular sentence. Unfortunately, we are left with the job of choosing between the two potential meanings...

1. That Congress may not respect or pass laws concerning or favoring a specific religion, or...

2. That Congress may not pass a law instituting a state-sanctioned religion such as there was in England at the time.

I tend to lean towards the latter considering that many of our Forefathers fled the Old World in search of religious freedom. It would also explain the copious amount of religious expression that is dispersed throughout our founding documents and creeds. Either our Founding Fathers were hypocrites in the greatest sense of the word, or we have been mistranslating the phrase to fit our own desires.

Posted by: lastdan

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 19:21

should the "boy's club" allow girls? not if you asked me.
should the church allow same-sex marriage? if it's their policy not to, well that's up to them.
should the state make it illegal? I, like Tony, would love to hear any good reason why.

I think farretboy has made an outstanding attempt to explain why the church has it's reasons. however I think this issue clearly shows just how un-clear the line is between church and state.
for the church to say "that's not marriage" reminds me of crocodile Dundee saying "that's not a knife".

for anyone to say that "dinosaur bones", or any other physical evidence that discredits the bible must have been planted to test faith, is just wacky. imho.

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 19:23

Quote:
I think the majority of population that doesn't subscribe to your particular faith would rather not have it dictate our government policies, thank you very much.

On the flip side, I'd rather not have someone's liberal agenda dictating government policies. Looks like we're in the same boat.

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 19:29

Dinosaur bones don't discredit the Bible.

Posted by: ninti

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 19:32

> Unfortunately, the idea of using society as a guide is flawed, as society (and those who influence it) are not consistent.

Flawed in what way? I would state, in fact, that it is demonstratably true that morals are NOT absolutes, but do have some common basis across the human species.

The common argument against moral relativism is that if morals are relative there can be no real morals at all. But taking things from a scientific evolutionary standpoint, morals are right or wrong depending on how they affect the society. Not coincidentally, this is EXACTLY how morals are really defined and used in the real world, despite people's supposingly basing this in religion. As society changes, so do the details of what is immoral or not. It is NOT unchanging, which should be obvious to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history.

Posted by: ninti

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 19:38

Quote:
Dinosaur bones don't discredit the Bible.

True enough. They just discredit a literal interpretation of the the Bible, and make you go through a lot of mental gymnastics to reconcile the two without throwing the entire Bible in doubt.

Posted by: mschrag

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 19:58

Quote:

1. That Congress may not respect or pass laws concerning or favoring a specific religion, or...

2. That Congress may not pass a law instituting a state-sanctioned religion such as there was in England at the time.

For your #1 I want to point out a crucial distinction -- The distinction is that of a law that FAVORS a religion, and the law that IS ENTIRELY RELIGIOUSLY FOUNDED and IMPEDES on the rights of those that are not a party to that religion. There is a huge difference. It's one thing to give clergy a tax break -- while I don't necessarily agree with it, it's a relatively minor concession. It's quite another thing ENTIRELY to ban the behavior of a group of people based on a law that has its only basis in religion. That is, I should think, an obvious violation of any intepretation of the First Amendment. That's because to pass a law that is based purely in religion that decreases the rights of a group of citizens IS TO ESTABLISH A RELIGION. By all accounts, you've got a State Religion -- I don't know how else you could possibly define a state religious institution except that you have a government that enforces religious law.

Posted by: mschrag

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 20:13

Really interestng link:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

They break down the first amendment into tons of subcategories and cite case law explaining how courts have interpreted the various scenarios and subcategories. Seemed apropos.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: gay marriage - 14/07/2004 20:28

Quote:
Unfortunately, the idea of using society as a guide is flawed, as society (and those who influence it) are not consistent.

Ah, and who ever said that the effort to develop and maintain morals would *not* be flawed? That it would somehow be perfect --100% consistent? (OK, I'm answering my own question here: fundamentalists.) There is a reason ethicists have jobs.

Quote:
The idea behind a spiritual morality is that it is based on an unchanging force or being.

And which of the myriad, ever-evolving unchanging forces and beings should we pick to provide our 100% consistent, no-thought-required morality?

Quote:
Thus the conundrum that is vexing this conversation: if those who claim to be Christians adhere to the Bible as absolute, unchanging truth, there is no way they can accept homosexual marriage as a valid institution.

It would seem that even those folks continue to have debates about what the "absolute" interpretations are. Shades of grey interpretation sneaking their way into the absolute. What a pickle.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: gay marriage - 15/07/2004 03:10

Quote:
All morality is based upon some sort of guide - a rule or a plumb line by which it is measured. I'm assuming that the "common man morality" that you refer to is based on today's society or culture. Unfortunately, the idea of using society as a guide is flawed, as society (and those who influence it) are not consistent.

As others have mentioned, why is that a problem? Without that changing plumb line, we'd still be in a state where girls with pierced ears are immoral, interracial marriages are immoral, torture is moral, stoning people to death is moral, nudity is moral, masturbation is immoral, women showing the skin on their ankles is immoral, and on, and on, and on.

Quote:
The idea behind a spiritual morality is that it is based on an unchanging force or being.

Which is a fine idea, but is meaningless as a method of determining how humans ought to behave, because no-one can agree on what it is.

Quote:
Thus the conundrum that is vexing this conversation: if those who claim to be Christians adhere to the Bible as absolute, unchanging truth, there is no way they can accept homosexual marriage as a valid institution.

And they ought to still be running around stoning people, too, but they're not.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: gay marriage - 15/07/2004 20:51

Quote:
And they ought to still be running around stoning people, too, but they're not.

I've always wondered why we never got to have a proper goat sacrifice in the temple, but I suppose you can't have everything.

I just slogged my way through this whole thread, and it's quite impressive to see all the arguments on both sides. I think a big part of the problem is the overloading of the single term "marriage". Marriage has (to some) a spiritual meaning. Marriage is also a legally sanctioned contractual relationship between two parties that effects one's legal rights as well as one's opportunities with third parties (e.g., spousal benefits from work).

My understanding of how Mexico does it is that "marriage" is a purely religious process that has no civil meaning whatsoever. When two Mexicans want to get married, they will typically have a religious ceremony and then head down to the courthouse to have a civil union. (Not that Mexico allows homosexual civil unions, but they do have a very strong idea of the separation of church and state.) In many respects, I think that would be the best outcome here as well. The government can sanction civil unions, and churches (or temples, or mosques, or amusement parks) can sanction marriages. The former imparts certain benefits and obligations before the law. The latter imparts spiritual benefits and obligations before your diety.

Hitting on some other topics that came up when reading through this thread...

Tony asserts that anti-gay-marriage sentiments seem to all be religious in nature, and therefore aren't appropriate for state policy. Part of the good and the bad of our system of government is that state policy is set, indirectly, as a function of the will of the people. And, the will of the people is informed by, among other things, their religious beliefs. To that end, it's entirely within reason for the people to desire not to give state-sanctioned benefits to same-sex couples, to undocumented immigrants, or various other categories of people. Things only get interesting if you try to reach for lower-level principles and apply them to higher-level policies. If your principle is "equal rights for women, minorities, and people with disabilities or different sexual preferences", then that principle leads you to oppose many current forms of state-sanctioned discrimination. If your principles are elsewhere, then you'll feel differently.

Ultimately, what we're seeing in the national debate is a clash of principles, and that's why certain issues never seem to leave anybody satisfied. Issues like gay marriage or abortion just press those hot buttons and people polarize according to their principles.

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: gay marriage - 16/07/2004 10:21

Although I suspect we're on opposing sides of the issue, I'd like to say "Well said, Dan".

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: gay marriage - 16/07/2004 12:50

Quote:
Although I suspect we're on opposing sides of the issue, I'd like to say "Well said, Dan".

Agreed.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: gay marriage - 16/07/2004 12:58

Yes, Dan. Very well put.

gay marriage

gay marriage - 10/07/2004 20:09

Re: gay marriage - 10/07/2004 20:15

Re: gay marriage - 10/07/2004 21:41

Re: gay marriage - 10/07/2004 23:46

Re: gay marriage - 11/07/2004 00:44

Re: gay marriage - 11/07/2004 00:57

Re: gay marriage - 11/07/2004 01:11

Re: gay marriage - 11/07/2004 01:56

Re: gay marriage - 11/07/2004 02:07

Re: gay marriage - 11/07/2004 02:46

Re: gay marriage - 11/07/2004 05:53

Re: gay marriage - 11/07/2004 07:27

Re: gay marriage - 11/07/2004 07:47

Re: gay marriage - 11/07/2004 13:19

Re: gay marriage - 11/07/2004 14:42

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 10:33

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 10:46

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 10:52

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 10:54

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 11:00

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 11:41

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 12:41

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:13

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:18

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:21

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:24

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:24

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:39

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:48

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 13:56

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 14:16

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 14:32

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 14:39

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 15:16

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 15:20

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 15:29

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 17:57

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 18:00

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 18:02

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 18:11

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 18:43

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 20:38

Re: gay marriage - 12/07/2004 20:59

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 02:29

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 02:35

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 02:43

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 02:46

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 02:50

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 03:02

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 03:35

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 07:37

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 11:22

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 12:03

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 12:11

Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 12:26

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 12:37

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 13:44

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 13:58

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 14:27

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 14:35

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 14:48

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 14:57

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 15:12

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 15:13

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 15:15

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 15:20

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 15:42

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 15:42

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 15:53

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 16:03

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 16:52

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 17:04

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 17:07

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 17:10

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 17:11

Re: gay marriage - 13/07/2004 17:20

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 17:27

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 17:31

Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity - 13/07/2004 17:42