The topic is not something I would normally choose. I don’t like to go bulldozing in where the emotional payload is so high that little of worth gets said.
but…here I am… thanks to Parablemania, the blog.
I just can’t let it go, not when “Homosexuality has the same standing as abomination as worshipping other gods. The freedom to do the latter is a first amendment right. Immoral but legal.” is something that is being argued.
First. The abomination things are both argued from what the Bible teaches, and then put into the secular legislating platform. And this is the gist of the argument being made: that morality should not be legislated.
Now regardless of my own fully verbalized opinion on this ( I tend to be against highly legislating behaviors), the fact is that we do legislate morality. That is part of what the law does…. otherwise many laws would simply go away, if it were only a matter of taxes and of infrastructures. A large part of law is in the moral category.
I think the mistake we make is when we mix the base for that law in both the religious and secular.
We may be personally informed by our religion, but we can’t make the case to society on that basis. And we shouldn’t make the case to each other as Christians this way. It confuses things on a subject that is already very confused.
For example, how do we really define marriage in our society? I don’t think that has been established. How do we make laws on this if we keep going on the unspoken traditional definition? The way it is going now, I suppose, with lots of emotional posturing, and passionately driven vested interest.
So what if shrimp was proscribed by the Torah? Jews don’t demand that the food supply be changed, they simply set up their Kosher viaduct for eating the way they believe they should eat. Sensible.
But, excuse the pun, Marriage is whole different kettle of fish.
Marriage is something basic in society that does not have only personal implications but whole sets of laws and an infrastructure of government upheld benefits.
That is part of the reason there is such controversy around it, not just the moral implications to some people. We are talking about changing our basic understanding of what constitutes marriage and what our government will recognize legally which will impact huge sectors of our society.
For those on the side of giving homosexual marriage the stamp of approval it is a matter of saying that it is a wrong that needs rectifying. I don’t think they have made their case, though.
I have heard the arguments, and I understand their points, but it all comes down to what is marriage and what is it for? Is it just the benefits that two ( or more) individuals have when they decide to cohabit longterm? Is it for the sake of society in vouchsafing the environment of coming generations of children? Is it rooted in ideas of God, and the Bible, and preserving the religious idea of what marriage is?
Because our present ideas of marriage are still rooted in the Christian model. So I would say this needs to be addressed. If we pitch everything Christian in origination, what are we going to replace it with? Do we, as a society, really want to replace it?
I am not sure I have seen the answers to these questions before I have seen the planting of stances.
If someone worships a different God/god, what difference does that make to my laws, except for some controversies on school procedures, and those issues that the ACLU pursues? But if someone changes the whole concept of what constitutes marriage, that will impact beyond what I can presently see.
That is not a comfortable vision to take lightly. There better be some very compelling arguments brought to the table.
Often I have heard the argument given that the homosexual rights movement is the same as the racial rights movement. I don’t believe that is so.
Should we say something is immoral and then shrug our shoulders about its legality? We do this on lots of things: gambling, prostitution, and more benign matters of what some of us consider immoral. Depends on your own set of standards, but we do it all the time.
Is this in the same category? Is homosexual marriage in the same category, that is the question I am asking. I am not sure what I am being asked when the platform being served is to legalize a heretofore proscribed state. Not to legalize an action(s) but the state of a basic institution of society.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it, then get back to me with some real arguments. I would be interested in seeing those.
ilona – please read the links (and if possible the comments too) (if you’re really ambitions, the trackbacks too) in my post. There are pretty much required reading if you are to put that post in the approprate context.
the fact is that we do legislate morality. That is part of what the law does…. otherwise many laws would simply go away,
My definition of legislating morality is a lot more nuanced than that. Please read the post that kicked all this off. In the comments of that post and some others, I have shown that in my system, very few laws will “simply go away”. Prohibitions against murder, rape, pedophilia and illegal drug use all remain as they are because there is a primary civil value to these laws that is there even when you take out the moral benefits to those laws.
As I keep saying in the comments, morality can inform our laws, but they should not be the primary motivators of our laws, at least not in America as the Constitution stands right now.
We may be personally informed by our religion, but we can’t make the case to society on that basis. And we shouldn’t make the case to each other as Christians this way.
I totally agree and that is one of my arguments for my position.
But, excuse the pun, Marriage is whole different kettle of fish…Marriage is something basic in society that does not have only personal implications but whole sets of laws and an infrastructure of government upheld benefits.
Agreed. But the same holds true for religion.
If someone worships a different God/god, what difference does that make to my laws, except for some controversies on school procedures, and those issues that the ACLU pursues? But if someone changes the whole concept of what constitutes marriage, that will impact beyond what I can presently see.
And here, I think, it the crux of the issue. From this statement, you seem to think that religion has a smaller impact on society than homosexual marriage. I think precicely the opposite; I think that religion affects every aspect of your life and of society. Freedom of religion, I think, has the biggest possible impact. Homosexual marriage, by necessity, cannot have as large an impact on society.
And since we allow immorality on the largest possible scale (worshipping other gods), then to be consistent, shouldn’t we allow it on smaller scales too?
Not to legalize an action(s) but the state of a basic institution of society.
Again, we legalize other religions. Religions are without a doubt a basic instition of society. In fact, it has a bigger impact than the institution of marriage (presuming that you think that your relationship to God is of higher priority than your relationship to your spouse).
So, is homosexual marriage in the same category as other things that are immoral but legal? Yes. If other religions are immoral but legal, then homosexual marriage easily falls into that category too.
I’ve put it in my pipe and smoked it ilona, does this count as a “real argument”?
Good blog entry Ilona, though I have some added words, some in rebuttal to wink. You say Wink that:” If other religions are immoral but legal, then homosexual marriage easily falls into that category too.” What about inc*st? What about polygamy? What about sodomy? By your argument, if homosexuality is to be immorally legalized, you’re opening up the door to everything else. Our country was founded on belief in one God, though it allowed for others to have freedom of religion. As we take more and more God out of our country and definitions, the more legal sin and abominations become. While we know the outcome of this earthly kingdom, and the justice of the Judgment Day to come, that doesn’t mean we ignore justice or excuse sin to prosper now if we can do anything about it.
– Melly (http://mellydurham.blogspot.com)
Ok, just thought I’d state for the record, that society still thinks some things are wrong (even if I disagree with their line, their way out on the left field), for this comment forum wouldn’t let me post the full word “inc*st”, yet had no problem with the words: homosexuality, sodomy, or polygamy. That is the state of the world and effect of “tolerance”.
Wink, I have been following this particular thread… although I am more than glad to go to your site and review through all the things you feel are pertinent. I do think it should be understood that whether the stated view on legislating morality is more nuanced or not, I would still find fault with the particular statements that I took issue with in my blog.
My point is that whether we think it is overdone, it is still done as a foundational part of government, and that makes it unusable in this particular issue.
I do not think that laws will “simply go away”, that is not my worry, though I see how you might have inferred that in my thinking. I am saying that we cannot wish away the fact that we do and shall legislate morality. One way or another, and the question is always going to hinge on *what* morality.
“Agreed. But the same holds true for religion.”
No, I would not say that. Not all cultures have the same religion, but all cultures have the form of marriage as we practice it (union of the opposite sexes). In fact, I have never known any culture which recognized homosexual marriage, though accepting and promoting homosexual relationship ( thinking of the ancient Greeks, here). Our culture is showing that it is structurally the same without formally recognized religion, I question whether this is true should the definition of marriage change… especially without a clear secular definition of what marriage is supposed to be.
“From this statement, you seem to think that religion has a smaller impact on society than homosexual marriage. ”
I did not and would not say this. Is religion quid pro quo to marriage in this argument? They have in common that they are found in all societies. What else? -pertinent to this discussion.
“Again, we legalize other religions. ”
Do we? Actually we recognize that government does not trump ones religion. Legalizing certain religions is what caused lots of the problems and what was being avoided in our particular government.
“So, is homosexual marriage in the same category as other things that are immoral but legal? Yes.”
No. False logic…. based on your mistaken premise. The main reason we have such freedom for our religions is because it was accepted that this is outside the scope of government.
However, we are continually running into the controversy of religious tenets vs. government jurisdiction for the good of the society.
When we talk of changing the entire definition of marriage, before a consensus on what it is even defining …. that is a huge problem, Wink.
Blow a little more smoke my way…. I feel you used the old argument in restatement.
I’m blowing some rewarmed smoke back your way because I think that there is real merit in this particular line of reasoning.
“In fact, I have never known any culture which recognized homosexual marriage…”
Well, ours does. Where I live (Multnomah Country, Oregon), homosexual marriage is legal.
“Is religion quid pro quo to marriage in this argument? They have in common that they are found in all societies. What else? -pertinent to this discussion.”
They are both basic social institutions. They both have a moral way of doing them (Christianity in regards to religion, Heterosexual and between consenting adults in regards to marriage) and immoral ways to do them (any way besides the moral ways). It is currently legal to engage in both institutions in moral ways as well as in immoral ways. They are both sacred institutions instituted by God.
“The main reason we have such freedom for our religions is because it was accepted that this is outside the scope of government.”
OK. I’ll accept that. But because religion and marriage are similar in the ways outlined above, I would argue that freedom of marriage, just like freedom of religion, should fall outside the scope of government.
Just to be clear, your post just referred to this as coming from Parableman, which is ambiguous between the blog Parableman and the person Parableman (me). The post you refrred to is from Wink, and it was on my blog. I think you know that, but I’m not sure every reader of this post would.
First, Jeremy. I have your link as “Parableman” and I was referring to the blog. I’ll change it to Parablemania, and hope this clears it with you.
Wink,LOL! I can’t believe you used this:
“In fact, I have never known any culture which recognized homosexual marriage…”
Well, ours does. Where I live (Multnomah Country, Oregon), homosexual marriage is legal.”
Sounds like a circular argument to me. We should legalize homosexual marriage based on the fact that we have legalized homosexual marriage. I said I didn’t know any previous culture that has done this, and you don’t seem to, either.
“They both have a moral way of doing them (Christianity in regards to religion, Heterosexual and between consenting adults in regards to marriage) and immoral ways to do them (any way besides the moral ways). ”
Here is our major contention arising to the top again. Your view that Christianity is our society’s only moral choice on religion is not a secular view, it is your view as a Christian; while the view that heterosexual marriage is the only moral choice is true of most of society and most religions. There are exceptions and lots of controversy….. but only because this is so.
The two institutions are most certainly not alike in this regard.
And thus “But because religion and marriage are similar in the ways outlined above, I would argue ” falls apart.
I do not feel compelled to consider your view, yet. I guess the smoke gets in my eyes?
I just think that all men and women were created equal, and who gives a shit about sexual orientation.
Well, poo… I agree with your first statement… and as for the second I would say you yourself care about it and have an opinion.
The fact is that the issue is about the institution of marriage- which is nothing to poo-poo.