Same Sex Marriage Debate on Facebook II
A photo posted on facebook showing gay activists hold a sign that says, “With the divorce rate as 50% worry about your own marriage.”
What follows is the comments to this post. Notice Deuteronomy 22:28–29 comes up in the discussion.
The Poster commented:
For the life of me, I cannot understand this argument. The argument seems to go:
A: A lot of marriages end unhappily therefore:
B: The definition of marriage ought to be altered so as to include relationships which do not involve a wife.
Sort of like the argument, "Some people abandon their dogs or abuse them. Therefore, nobody should object to the definition of "dog" being altered such that Burmese pythons are included as dogs." I mite protest "there is absolutely no way pythons are dogs"
Me
If 50% of marriages end in devoice, why do they want to get married? Do they like paying lawyer’s fees? Dissolutions of same-sex relationship are actually higher than 50%.
Person 1
"Nobody has the right to properly define any sort of contract between two people unless they're part of that contract"
More libertarian nonsense. What about unconscionable contracts? What about when intense pressure has been exerted? What about contracts with minors?
What about orphaned or abandoned children whose parents have no will about them?
Me
Nothing stops same-sex people from having a marriage. The only laws in place simply do not recognize them. However, some states recognize civil unions. In short there is nothing to legalize, they can do it now if they want. The real agenda is force religious and conservatives into acceptance of their lifestyle and to bring lawsuits because they want it defined as a civil right. Pro-gay groups have already filed lawsuits against Churches and in Canada speaking at Church, as if it is a sin, is considered a hate crime. Good bye 1st amendment and hello to the fashionable police state.
BTW the government does not recognize marriages between siblings, 1st cousins, adults and minors, mothers or fathers and their children, or marriages of more than two people. All the arguments for same-sex marriage apply equally to these other forms of marriage as well. Should we allow them too?
Person 1
I'm about to throw in the towel and say it doesn't matter. To steal from Edward Peters's quip on a related subject, flawed arguments for gay marriage persist, perhaps because good arguments don't exist. The premises they are built on are so deeply ingrained and so far out of whack it's pulling teeth just to have a discussion on the subject. #nohopeformankind
Person 2
While the far-left gay marriage crusaders certainly do want to force societal acceptance of not just their lifestyle, but their marriages, more reasonable gay marriage advocates think it's reasonable for two consenting adults to enter into any contract, provided it isn't done through coercion, wasn't reached while one or both parties was intoxicated, or a slew of other things that apply to literally every other contract. I don't really think churches should be forced to accept gay marriages, but I think the government should recognize it like any other contract-- one that it will enforce.
Person 3
Any contract is between two consenting parties, and, with individuals, two persons which have reached an age of consent, and that consent must be proven to be authentic, and not obtained by force or threat of force/repercussions. If a party wishes to prove, in a court, that their consent was gained after use of force or threat of force, then the contract is void.
As to relations between relatives, I think that it's unethical just because, in most situations where it occurs with siblings or with parents/spawn, it was obtained through force, established by threat of force and maintained by threat of force, or is replete with the same psychological guilt/shame games employed by salesmen, cult missionaries, etc, and is questionable for that purpose.
And, so, those are also void.
But, I can't find any religious justification for any ban on inbreeding, pedophilia, or cousin-banging... Especially not in the Book of Genesis, or anywhere in the Bible that forms a major part of Christian theology as a whole.
Person 4
Most of the talk against gays comes from the part of the Bible that also teaches us not to get tattoos, not to let women on their periods back into the house, not to eat pork and other stuff. As soon as you stop doing all of these things, we can concentrate on what two adults want to do to prove their love.
Me
You can find prohibitions in the Bible. The principles are all there plus Jesus outlines in Matthew 19 God's view on marriage which is strictly one man, one woman, for life. In addition, for the entire 2000 years of church history this traditional marriage has been upheld, uncontested I might add. Judaism before and after has upheld the same view as well, plus every other culture and religion. Even the homosexual Spartans still kept marriage between a man and a woman. If religion and culture do not provide enough reason just remember that any same-sex relationships are evolutionary dead ends. Why should the government now overturn all that? For what 2% of the population at the most? Just so they can force their lifestyle on everyone. Zach Wahls even betrayed his true intentions in his speech when he said the government cannot define his family. A family which, by the way, he already had. The government didn’t stop his mothers from having a family. So why does he want the government to recognize it, especially since in his own words the government can’t define his family?
Traditional marriage has not been done for a long period of time for illogical reasons. Don’t misrepresent people’s position. Marriage is the solid foundation for any society. It was done to protect children, to acclimate children to people of both sexes while they are being raised in their formative years and it was to procreate and create the next generation. PS I am not saying gays can’t have whatever they want to call a family as a family.
Person 2
What makes a religious justification for opposing gay marriage different than a religious justification from doing something else that's way worse and prescribed in the Bible, like marrying rape victims? As Santorum said (rather eloquently) in his opposition to gay marriage (the only halfway intellectual one I've ever heard), if gay marriage advocates are going to say gay marriage is OK using the "people who love eachother" argument, they have to show why gay people loving eachother is different from siblings loving eachother or a group of people loving eachother; likewise, if you use a religious justification for opposing gay marriage, you have to show why the opposition to gay marriage is an OK thing to pull from the Bible, but Deuteronomy 22:28–29 isn't.
The government shouldn't be in the business of dealing with evolutionary dead-ends. If it was, it'd be totally legit to abort kids with Tay-Sachs without the more serious ethical discussion that it deserves, not to mention a series of other problems, mostly abortion-related. The government even touching what makes something evolutionarily sound with a 10 foot pole is a nice recipe for tyrannical government, something that both conservatives and liberals ostensibly agree is not a good thing.
Because something has been done for a long time is a completely illogical reason to continue doing it (though it tends to be the most consistent conservative refrain with regards to social issues). I'm sure I don't have to give examples.
Person 5
Marriage is not a contract. It is supposed to be a covenant. Contracts are based on distrust.
Me
Actually, I don't have to justify a Bible passage that is taken out of context.
Person 2
How about Deuteronomy 22:22. That's actually completely *in* context. I mean, I've read the Bible, and I do my best not to bloviate about it absent any kind of knowledge. Thankfully, I can find the full text of the King James online, and I can also read it in original Greek. Please, tell me how I took Deuteronomy 22 out of context. It seems pretty clear in context to me.
Person 3
Let's compare this to the duck test: If it looks like a family, and it acts like a family, and it lives like a family, then it's probably a family. And if it's probably a family, they might as well receive the same legal recognition as a family, and the same tax breaks.
If it looks like a marriage, or could be a marriage by common-law, or could even be a religious marriage depending on what religion you're a part of, then it might as well be a marriage.
Also, Donald... It's a book whereupon a series of sects and new religious movements have been formed based on differing interpretation. You don't have to justify any Bible passage that you feel is taken out of context, because, in the eyes of someone else, they don't always feel the need to interpret the text in the same manner you've been interpreting it in.
Person 2
All's I'm saying is that not everything in the Bible is defensible. If you're going to take it as a justification for doing something, you are, by logic, required to disambiguate it from other acts that rely solely upon the same justification. That requires using more logic, not avoiding the actual issue by calling my verse as being taken out of context.
Me
Ok Deuteronomy is not originally in Greek. Deuteronomy was a civil code for Israel that was a theocracy. Are we Israel? Are we a theocracy? Is it 3500 years ago? NO, NO. NO. Context.
Person 3, there is a science to interpreting the text. We have to go back to the author’s original intent and take the text in context. What you propose is that meaning comes from the hearer and not the speaker. This relativistic understanding decays to the point that I can interpret your post as your intent to give me one million dollars.
Person 3, Tax breaks? What tax breaks? There has actually a marriage penalty tax that is scheduled to return in 2013.
Person 2
Derp, yeah it's in Hebrew. I meant the New Testament in Greek.
"Are we Israel? Are we a theocracy? Is it [2000] years ago? NO, NO. NO. Context."
I mean...unless you're referring to Rome with regards to context.
EDIT: But I'm glad you used that choice of response-- that's kind of what I was trying to get at.
Me
Deuteronomy was written by Moses 3500 years ago. Jesus explains that God original intend was for one man and one woman for life. He even says God made provision for divorce in the law, to protect woman, because people were doing it anyway. Same thing with marriage of rape victim. It was not to promote it but as any law goes it was to deter and punish. You rape someone you are going to have to support her for the rest of your life. Deterrent and punishment. Context yet again.
Person 2
Are you taking the New Testament, then, to be more applicable due to it's creation either between 0-32 AD or 325 AD (Council of Nicea)? I guess the base question at play here is: If the Old Testament is less applicable due to its historic context, then what religious sources (other than general "tradition") do you use to bolster your argument against gay marriage?
Me
Provisions in the law to protect woman and punish and deter wrong doers does not mean God wanted or condoned such behavior. This is evidenced by Jesus explanation of Old Testament divorce in Matthew 19. In context Jesus explains in Matthew 19 that the original and only intent God had for marriage and he gets that from Genesis. God’s intent, in context of the Bible as a whole and explained to us by Jesus in Matthew 19 and understood by the church for 2000 years. Not to mention all the other logical reasons they had during that time as well.
It is all applicable in context. Jesus was kind enough to explain it as well.
Person 6
Dang...love who ever you want. Just don't try to force the world to approve of your choices.
Me
They can love who they want and I will defend their right to do so. I don’t think that myself or the State should be involved in their relationship. The state should neither deny nor endorse same-sex marriage. Personally, I will not be bullied into calling the sin homosexuality something it is not. Truth is not built on consensus or popularity. At the same time, as a Christian, I will love homosexuals in accordance to 1 Corinthians 13. Calling an action sin and still loving the sinner is not contradictory. In fact, if I truly do love them I will not hold back vital information.
Person 7
I don't think marriages ending unhappily has anything to do with wanted equal rights.
Also marriage is not definitionally between one man and one woman. That's silly and is made up.
Me
What do you mean? They do have equal rights! They can marry anyone they want and live as a family. They have the exact same rights that I do. For example I can’t marry my first cousin and neither can they. The only laws out there are by states that have passed laws prohibiting states from recognizing same-sex marriage. Nothing in any law stops them from entering into a contract or civil union etc.
It is funny how everyone wants to call it a civil rights issue. I guess they hope people don’t actually think about it. I admit many people are intimidated by it because it implies bigotry or intolerance. It is a great way for people to feel like they have won an argument, however, it is intellectually shallow.
The second post in a series exploring homosexuality and Christianity.