Topic: Same Sex Marriage

Two points of view on the topic of same sex marriage.  One view is a theist (RedneckGenius) and the other view is from an atheist (Brutal Antipathy). Read on to see if they agree or disagree on their first topic.




Dont get yer hopes up
by Redneck Genius


So the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) promises to rule on same gender marriage.

Don't get excited about this one way or another. As SCOTUS reporter for National Public Radio, Nina Totenberg puts it, "Less expected was the court's decision to review California's ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8. That case potentially could lead to a decision on whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry."

Key word potentially.

As this is my column and I get to have my say, I don't believe SCOTUS is going to issue a truly definitive ruling on this one. When it comes to incredibly controversial matters, the Supremes often split 5-4 with neither side providing an unshakeable and bulletproof opinion.

In other words, they waffle more than a short order cook on Sunday morning.

 Totenberg's report is more optimistic: "Opponents of gay marriage appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that states are free to limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. The justices said they would hear arguments on that question, but they also called for arguments as to whether gay marriage opponents have the right to be in court at all, since California is no longer defending the ban."

The Granola State ban is on gay marriage etc etc etc etc.

I submit (again) the real decision here is: Is marriage a government function or a religious function?

You can wade through the blogs and read previous postings by me on this subject.

Anyway, I have some questions for both sides, after one brief aside,

With one exception all the arguments I've heard against same gender marriage are religious. The sole exception, by a gent who was far too smart for his own good (and I mean that exactly the way I say it) said he objected because it meant the end of the human race. He said same gender couples cannot reproduce. Tru Dat, but his argument implied everyone would start batting for the same side. See above explanation and parenthetical note.

As for those who argue on religious grounds, I ask the following:

Do you have the right to force your religious beliefs on other people?

oooooooooooo. Yeah I did.

I get a hesitant "No" to that question when I ask it in person. How about you?

In person, I then ask, OK, what if their religious beliefs allow same gender marriage?

I get a face full of Biblical scriptures. Among the more rabid, I get denunciations and comments about hellfire, damnation and so forth, stopping just short of calling for a pogrom.

Islam ain't the only religion with extremists.

How about you? If you believe you should not force your religious beliefs on other people, then how can you stop two people of adult age from marrying each other regardless of their gender?

Asking the same questions of those who support same gender marriage is a bit trickier. First, the question of marriage as a government function or a religious function must be asked.

If religious, then it's a whole 'nother ball of CnH2n+2. If the religion allows same gender marriage, then I shut up. If the religion will not allow same gender marriage, then I ask: Do you have the right to force your religious beliefs on other people? On this one, at least, SCOTUS has ruled decisively - Adherents to a religion cannot be forced to perform rituals which violate their religious tenets.

The same questions can be asked of both sides if marriage is a function of government.  To wit: Should the majority rule? Does the minority have a right to protection under the law? How far does that extend?

Perhaps this is a bit simplistic, but I'm judiciously applying Occam's Razor in a slightly different fashion to pare this down. Should the people be allowed to run the government or should government run the people?

Rephrasing, do you have the right to force your beliefs on other people?





My Bible Fails to Mention the Sanctity of Marriage
by Brutal Antipathy


Same sex marriage is not something that I should ever find myself concerned with.  I am a heterosexual male after all, so why would I have a stake in it?  And yet I have this one noble feature that demands of me to look after the interests of those other than myself.  I mean of course, my misanthropy.  You see, I don't hate the human race for the fun of it.  I hate the human race for its countless acts of injustice delivered onto other humans.  I hate humanity for its willing ignorance when vast knowledge is waiting for consumption.  I hate the human race for its sanctimony and condescension in light of an ever changing face of morality.  I hate the human race for too many things to list here, but one thing is certain, my hatred compels me to do what I can to rectify the situation when I can, and to point out the problem when I can't.

It is from this perspective, one of contempt for my fellow humans, that I take an interest in same sex marriage.  I ask myself if there can be any reason other than sanctimony or stupidity that would cause people to reject the notion.  As usual, humanity doesn't fail to disappoint me, as I can see no other reasons.  Virtually all opposition to same sex marriage comes from the religious.  Old Testament verses are throw around like rice at a wedding, something I find odd from a group who insist that Jesus created a new covenant, leaving us free to disregard the Old Testament.  I've voiced this, and had the writings of Paul pointed out, to which I shrug and calmly explain that Paul was not a disciple of Jesus, never knew him in life, and should not then be taken as the word of God.  The flurry of theological observations that follow always end with me being convinced that the person I have argued with is a Paulist, not a Christian.

Just to be clear on the matter, while the Old Testament made condemnations of men laying with men (and rounding your beard, and eating shellfish, etc), Jesus said nothing at all about it.  Only after the death of Jesus did Paul go on to recount the Old Testament ban.  But hey, if you want to ignore Jesus and take the word of some guy that didn't know him, well, that's freedom of religion!

Ok, so we can, if we squint our eyes just right, see what the Bible has to say about same sex sex.  So where does it say anything about same sex marriage?  I know it is unreasonable to expect a married couple to not have sex (though a lot of green card marriages do just that), but really, where does the Bible say that same sex couples are not to marry?  For that matter, where does the Bible say that marriage is a religious institution?  If my count is correct, marriage is mentioned 19 times in the Bible.  Only 1 of those, Exodus 21, is in the Old Testament.  In none of those references is a single mention of the marriage being presided over by a priest or Rabbi.  There is nothing at all to indicate that any figure in the Bible considered marriage to be a religious institution.  The only thing even resembling a religious element to marriage in the Bible comes from Ezekiel 16 where the husband to be swears a covenant to the wife to be.  Unless we accept the woman to be a priestess, we have to conclude that this was a personal oath.  When we take bride price (dowry) into account (Gen 24:12, Exod 22:16-17 among others) if becomes more apparent that marriage was considered more of a transaction of goods than a divine institution.  Biblical marriage was a civil contract.  Indeed, all of the middle east viewed it the same way at the time.  Sumerian and Babylonian law codes show a remarkable similarity to that of the Hebrew outlook.

Where then did we get the idea that marriage was tied to religion?  The idea was first proposed by a student of John the Apostle, one Ignatius of Antioch when around 110 CE (that's AD for you religious folk) he suggested that people considering marriage should get the approval of the bishop.  This idea was slow to ignite, as it wasn't until the latter half of the 16th century that people were required to get the approval of the church.  Then Martin Luther reversed the opinion in the Protestants, declaring marriage to be a "worldly thing".  By the 17th century many states began insisting on involvement in marriage.  So continued the trend until England's 1753 Marriage Act required marriage be performed by an Anglican priest.

What we have then is a religious institution that wormed its way into a social custom, and has remained there in one form or another a mere 500 odd years out of the 5,000 years of recorded marriages.  And even then, some religious leaders have seen the need to divorce religion from marriage.  The state on the other hand, continues keeping a grip on the matter.  In America, it is the state that issues marriage licenses.  Not the Pope, not a Rabbi, not a Shaman, but a government official.  That same official can then perform a ceremony to seal the deal, though in all actuality, it is a matter of paperwork and not ceremony.  If however the couple desire a church wedding, they may have one.  Even then, it is the state, not the church, that issued the license.
The church wedding sans license is invalid in the eyes of the law.  Should the couple later divorce, it is again the state that mediates the separation. Not Pastor Bill, not Brother Bob, not Reverend Buck, but a legal judge.  Regardless of what ceremony or ritual we wish to attach to it, the final say rests in the hands of the government.

Perhaps a way to solve this is one that has been proposed before.  Let the state recognize civil unions between two people, and let the church recognize the civil union which they observe through ceremony.  If a church refuses to perform a ceremony for a same sex couple, that is within their right.  The state could simply cease referring to their civil union license as a marriage license.  From this, both the same sex couple united at a courthouse or accommodating church would be on the same legal standing as a couple united through marriage ceremony at a church. Both have the necessary paperwork, with only the ritual possibly being absent.  The "Sacred Institution of Marriage" (despite there being nothing Biblical to give us any hint that it is sacred) is preserved for the sanctimonious hypocrites, and the same legal rights are afforded to everyone, regardless of their orientation. While there is absolutely nothing to the argument that same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, this solution would allow the hypocrites to preserve their purely invented ritual, forcing them to create even more illogical arguments to reject same sex civil unions and further exposing them for the smug, theologically illiterate idiots they are.

Because when you really think about it, don't homosexuals have the same right to be miserable as everybody else?