Friday, December 7, 2012

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?



5 comments:

  1. Random thoughts:

    Whether or not marriage is a religious institution or a government institution is in my opinion a moot point. In the U.S. it is a combination and that is how we inherited it as a culture. However it got to this point, it exists in the current form because it served the needs of the individuals AND society both reasonably well and has for a long time.

    Anyone in the U.S. has the right to stand up and say, “I want to change the definition of family”. Everyone else has the same right to stand up and say, “No thanks, we are happy as it is.” If those that want to make the change are to legitimately prevail, the burden of proof that change is a good thing™ lies with them.

    If they militantly force it on others, they will be met with militant resistance. To legitimately prevail they must win the debate. Their fellow citizens may owe them tolerance, but they have to earn acceptance.

    The illegitimate course taken by many for this (and a boatload of other topics) is to claim that their rights are being violated. This is unmitigated male bovine excrement.

    Nobody has a ‘right’ to get married. Not heterosexuals, not homosexuals, nobody.

    Consenting adults having sex with consenting adults is a human right. Registering sexual partner(s) with the government for the purposes of benefits is nobody’s right. To get a benefit from the government you have to do something for the government. To get a police/fire/military retirement a person must serve acceptably and for the designated period of time that benefits the government.

    Want to make a change to millennia of law and tradition? Drop the straw man of the imaginary rights and make the case that doing so benefits SOCIETY, not just you.

    How does same sex marriage benefit the government? Since by definition it will not produce more taxpayers, laborers, soldiers etc. (children) what benefits does it bring to the government, society? Quit screaming about that the gravy you want to get FROM the government and start telling us how this change is going benefit the government and society in general to earn the gravy.

    Anything less just seems like childish whining.

    Odin

    ReplyDelete
  2. (Yay!! I’m glad to see this blog finally up!)

    I think you guys are simply asking the wrong question.The questionis not if we should allow same sex marriage...the question is why was it ever illegal in the first place? What right did  lawmakers have in deciding who was worthy to be legally joined? The fact     that we are asking the question at all means someone violated the constitutional rights  of others. Making same sex marriage legal is step towards correcting that infringement. Just like it was when they decided to overturn laws that banned interracial marriage. 

    BTW Odin: Our government is not supposed to be some all powerful all knowing entity   that we must kowtow to in order gain some     benefit. The government was always meant to be for the people, by the people and of the people. It should work to benefit us, the   notion of bowing and scraping to a government of the people is    ridiculous slave mentality and I’m sure the founding fathers wouldlaugh their asses off at the very idea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jane Doe,

    Your assumption that I am in favor of large invasive government is in error. I can agree that government should benefit the citizens, but that is quite different from providing benefits for citizens. (Generally the best benefit the government can provide is to leave citizens alone.)

    But the topic at hand centers on people wanting to register their relationships with the government to derive the benefits of such registration and changing centuries of laws and tradition in the process. It is not out of line to ask them to explain how the government and society will benefit from the changes.

    And since you bring in the Founding Father’s sense of humor, can you imagine their reaction to the idea of same sex marriage being somehow a right in the first place?

    Odin

    ReplyDelete
  4. First up, hola Odin. Great seeing you here.

    I started looking at the rights issue from different perspectives after reading your first post. To start with, I identified several rights which provide the government with no financial benefits. Freedom of speech and assembly come to mind. Then I pulled back to broaden my view, which made things a little clearer to me. Speech and assembly are zero cost, zero expense, so irrelevant from a bureaucratic financial perspective. Marriage on the other hand often leads to the production of more future tax payers, so it is a source of future revenue. Same sex marriage though does not naturally produce children but still reaps the legal benefits of traditional marriage. It is, from a purely bureaucratic financial perspective a money losing deal.

    I'm not condoning that reasoning, but it makes things a little clearer for me now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great to see you too, your posts always make me think :)

    I do quibble a bit with your statement.

    Rights belong to the people, they don't have to benefit the government in any way and in fact they are often at odds with the best interests of those in power.

    Speech and assembly are enumerated rights of which there is no question and their specific citations in the Constitution are easily found. No such citation to marriage exists. Registering one’s sexual partner(s) with the government is not a right.

    Since marriage is not a right and same sex marriage is such a huge change to society it is incumbent on the proponents to offer good and prudent reasons for their fellow citizens to make the change.


    Odin

    ReplyDelete