If You Don’t Like Gay Marriage, Don’t Have One
A simple philosophy that is so mindbogglingly easy to follow, yet the religious seem to be up in arms about gay marriage, and they get worse every year. Somehow the religious seem to think that they came up with this great idea called “marriage” and that is has been violated by homosexuals. The truth, as it so often is in these cases, is completely the opposite.
Marriage predates verifiable recorded history, essentially a social extension of the mating procedure for reproduction. The Greeks and Romans had marriages, both opposite sex and same sex. There were no civil ceremonies, only an “agreement” for husband and wife, or husband and husband, wife and wife accordingly.
So what violated this traditional standard of marriage? Oh that’s right…it was the Christians.[1] In 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans banned same-sex marriage. In 390, three other Christian emperors, Valentinian II, Theodoisus, and Arcadius, made homosexual sex a crime punishable by death (burned alive because Christians are so merciful).
As I write this, religious fundamentalists across several different religions are rallying together to support a California proposal that effectively bans homosexual marriage. Marriage, they reckon, should be up to the religions, not the state. I ask, why can’t you have it both ways?
It would be simple. Define a state marriage that has all the perks of “regular” marriage, allowing anyone to marry anyone. Let the religions decide what they want to do about marriage within religion. There would be no difference in opinion either way. Religions would still reckon that state marriages weren’t governed by God, whilst the religious homosexuals forced to take a state marriage as their only option would argue that they were.
It has worked in the UK for the last few years, and there is no reason why it couldn’t work anywhere else. Secularisation is the only sufficient train of thought that respects the wishes of all groups. It calls for a separation of church and state. The state cannot control the church and the church cannot control the state. A very simple relationship that allows people to either align with one or both, depending on what they want to do.
So yes, let’s be traditionalists. Let’s take marriage back to its original status: An agreement between two people to be loyal and faithful to each other for the rest of their lives.
Possibly Related Posts:
Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read!
Follow me on Twitter!
100% agreement. State sponsored gay marriages does not mean that churches and other religious institutions have to start wedding homosexuals. They are still free to discriminate to their hearts content. But, of course, this is not what this is all about. It is about Christians imposing their own brand of morality on everyone else and expecting us to take it sitting down.
James
27 Aug 08 at 8:26 am (GMT)
You mean there are civil gay marriages in the UK? I hadn’t heard about that.
At least according to the wikipedia, there aren’t. There are civil unions for everyone, and civil marriages only for opposite sex couples. Still a bit of a difference, don’t you think?
Why can’t it be called the same?
“In the United Kingdom, civil partnerships have identical legal status to a marriage, and partners gain all the same benefits and associated legal rights; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. Partnership ceremonies are performed by a marriage registrar in exactly the same manner as a secular civil marriage.”
(Got from the article of the Wikipedia “Same-sex marriage”)
Viridiana
27 Aug 08 at 9:18 am (GMT)
Viridiana,
Yes it is true that the UK calls them “civil unions”. I sill refer to them as marriages and so do a lot of people. Civil unions are the same thing as state marriages though, so I can’t complain.
Adrian Hayter
27 Aug 08 at 9:27 am (GMT)
If they are the same thing as state marriages… why are they called different?
I’m from Spain and when the law of same-sex marriages was going to be approved, guess who were the ones complaining about the name… Religious people, of course. They seem to think the word “marriages” can only refer to religious marriages… I still think that using another denomination is a kind of favour we do to them.
Viridiana
27 Aug 08 at 9:34 am (GMT)
Unlike the USA, the UK is not truly secular. Calling them “civil unions” managed to not piss off the religious that much.
Adrian Hayter
27 Aug 08 at 9:37 am (GMT)
But the fact that when they were instituted there was hardly a peep out of the religious says a lot about UK culture. We may be partly theocratic but the actual population is pretty much ‘live and let live’ whether religious or not.
AlexMagd
27 Aug 08 at 9:47 am (GMT)
“Unlike the USA, the UK is not truly secular.”
I’m assuming you’re being sarcastic, right? ‘Cause obviously the US has a problem with separating church and state or else we wouldn’t have God on our money, in government documents, and would get over the problem of gay marriage.
I envy the the progressive thinking that exists in many European countries.
RBV
27 Aug 08 at 10:10 am (GMT)
RBV,
I stand by my statement. Sure, the USA still has a lot of religious influence, but the government is secular and recognizes the separation of church and state. Anytime someone tries to break the first amendment, atheist activists come along and thwart it. You have a secular constitution.
The UK still has a national religion, the “Church of England” and its Scottish, Welsh, Irish counterparts. Our Royal Family have to remain religious in order to inherit the throne, and they control whether the government is in session or not. Admittedly they could never abuse their power and are practically useless.
The UK are not a secular government. We are progressing towards true secularization, but the church is still very much involved with government.
Adrian Hayter
27 Aug 08 at 10:20 am (GMT)
I’m just saying that it’s SUPPOSED to be secular, but isn’t really. It’s still one nation under God. It’s still in God we trust. The huge problem IS that we close our eyes and say it’s separate thereby accepting the ways in which it isn’t.
RBV
27 Aug 08 at 10:38 am (GMT)
Really an eye opener article, Adrian. Good catch, that one about the greeks and romans’ same sex marriages. I’d never guess by my own. Another shot at the moral superiority claim by the christians…
Luis Dias
27 Aug 08 at 10:58 am (GMT)
[...] what violated this traditional standard of marriage? Oh that’s right…it was the Christians.[1] In 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans banned same-sex marriage. In 390, three [...]
If You Don’t Like Gay Marriage, Don’t Have One « Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptic blogs of the day
27 Aug 08 at 4:10 pm (GMT)
To me, the ideal would be a civil union through the government that gives the various secular benefits (tax-related, what happens when you die, etc) and then “marriage” being whatever you want it to be.
So you could get married with a traditional Christian ceremony or a Wiccan ritual or some sort of secular gathering, but you’d need to get the union on top of that to actually give a governmental benefit.
That would open up some other possibilities, too. Say there are two widows in a senior complex that become close friends. Maybe neither had kids and the rest of their family has died. It could be beneficial for them to get a civil union even though they have no romantic feelings for each other. Maybe they just want the other to have the right to govern pulling the plug if they go into a coma.
To me, the policy in England doesn’t go far enough. Just remove “marriage” from the government entirely and now no one is stepping on anyone else’s toes. People still get legal protections and everyone can argue to their heart’s content on whether other people’s “marriage” is valid or not without changing that.
Shawn Fumo
27 Aug 08 at 4:37 pm (GMT)
The same-sex marriage debate is dead in my opinion and most people think it should be legalized in the USA aside from some fundamentalist hold-outs.
The real issue facing the next generation is the discrimination against the law-abiding upstanding polyamorous groups who just want to love and be loved in their own way in peace. Why can’t a group of men marry a group of women? Or a man marry 10 women, or a woman 10 men, or a man 10 men, or a woman 10 women, or mix-and-match? Seriously … these people need our support.
The cool part is that I’ve figured out a solution to all of these issues. Everyone should marry everyone. Think how it will simplify everything! We’ll have one HUGE ceremony and a wedding party like nobody’s business. And the wedding night … one for the books!
VFD
27 Aug 08 at 6:35 pm (GMT)
why all the bother about gay marrage gay priest if he
can do the job let him do it let them marry they are
just people doing no harm infact what about a gay
bishop bet they would do a bloody good job
dave
27 Aug 08 at 6:48 pm (GMT)
“To me, the ideal would be a civil union through the government that gives the various secular benefits (tax-related, what happens when you die, etc) and then “marriage” being whatever you want it to be.”
Then ALL marriages, heterosexual and homosexual, should be called civil unions. Otherwise we find ourselves right back at “separate but equal” and we all know how well that worked.
Liz
27 Aug 08 at 6:55 pm (GMT)
I really don’t understand why religious people are so threatened by the idea of two gay men or two lesbians getting married. They’re not doing anybody any harm. religious people seem to be completely incapable of minding their own damn business. VFD, I’m sure you think you’re very funny but I can’t even get a damn date so shut up.
greghousesgf
27 Aug 08 at 6:57 pm (GMT)
Your one and only source is wikipedia.
Why not look up wikipedia’s sources, and quote those, instead?
Id like to know if what im reading is true, because EVERYONE has an adgenda.
Peter
27 Aug 08 at 7:01 pm (GMT)
Why not go read the Wikipedia article, which covers the topic in far more detail, and includes the references you speak of. The references are both from books / recordings, so you would have to get access to them to check that the facts are correct anyway. I have a certain trust of Wikipedia on these issues, which is why I feel that it can be used as a source. The staff there are very quick to correct vandalism and correct things these days; they have learned from experience.
Adrian Hayter
27 Aug 08 at 7:30 pm (GMT)
Government should not be in the business of sanctioning personal relationships between adults of any orientation.
Jim
27 Aug 08 at 7:46 pm (GMT)
You are just a sicko.
Dr Small
27 Aug 08 at 8:33 pm (GMT)
Hey VFD, where are you getting your statistics from regarding MOST US citizens supporting gay marriage?
RBV
27 Aug 08 at 9:30 pm (GMT)
Apart from teaching us that you are a bigoted asshole, have you anything to add to the discussion at hand?
Luis Dias
27 Aug 08 at 9:51 pm (GMT)
I helped put a website together about him:
http://thesmallannoyance.com
Dr Small and I go way back, and none of it is pretty. Kisses Dr Small! xoxoxox
Adrian Hayter
27 Aug 08 at 10:08 pm (GMT)
HAHAHAHA! Love the tribute to the ass clown.
RBV
27 Aug 08 at 11:11 pm (GMT)
Hi RBV, thanks for your interest. I didn’t make any claims regarding, “most US citizens supporting gay marriage,” but if I were to find such statistics, I’d go straight to wikipedia, of course. :-)
greghousesgf: I feel your pain. Try eHarmony, unless you are interested in same-sex, in which case I’ve heard chemistry.com is a productive route.
VFD
27 Aug 08 at 11:47 pm (GMT)
Since we are sharing interesting facts anyway:
It has also worked for the Netherlands.
On 1 January 1998, registered partnerships (Dutch: geregistreerd partnerschap) were introduced in law in the Netherlands. For the law, registered partnerships and marriage convey the same rights and duties, especially after some laws were changed to remedy inequalities with respect to inheritance and some other issues.
Marriage, as defined by the civil law, is currently available to same-sex couples in six countries. The Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also legal in Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain, along with two states in the United States, Massachusetts and recently California (for status in California see California Proposition 8 (2008)). In 2005, Spain became the first country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage (including adoption rights) on equal terms and under the same law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Also
28 Aug 08 at 12:25 am (GMT)
Interestingly enough I have gay friends who don’t want to get “married”. They want a ceremony and full legal recognition, but they are not so keen on “marriage”. Something to do with the connotations of marriage and the religious overtones that go with it.
I tend to think that Shawn’s idea, where the ‘civil union’ is the legal entity, and then you can get “married” on top of that if you wish; has a lot of merit.
Oz Atheist
28 Aug 08 at 12:44 am (GMT)
Liz, in the plan that I mentioned, the law would only recognize civil unions period. It’d be up to the couple whether they wanted to refer to it as marriage in conversations, whether to have a ceremony on top of it, etc.
It’d be interesting to see if a significant amount of couples would start to refer to themselves as unions, perhaps becoming a “politically correct” type issue (Oz brings up an interesting situation).
But there’s no easy answers because for instance a gay couple could get a religious ceremony via a Unitarian Universalist church, someone could have a secular ceremony (or none at all) and still call it marriage, have any ceremony and still call it a union, etc.
Shawn Fumo
28 Aug 08 at 7:25 am (GMT)
My Civil Partnership was a beautiful day, and being a relatively new atheist I was glad to not have any Religious aspects to the service
Freelance Guru
28 Aug 08 at 7:44 am (GMT)
Well I’m glad I’ve stirred a bit of debate :D
@Freelance Guru
Congrats and all the best!
Adrian Hayter
28 Aug 08 at 9:04 am (GMT)
VFD, according to all the statistics I could round up, it’s not “most,” which is why I asked. Just because Cali is up to 51% doesn’t meant that most of America feels the same. I wish it did, but eh…how I’d love to get of the bible belt for so many other reasons as well.
RBV
28 Aug 08 at 9:14 am (GMT)
“Let’s take marriage back to its original status: An agreement between two people to be loyal and faithful to each other for the rest of their lives.”
Yes, well - that’s nice and everything, and Disney would approve. But wouldn’t it be more practical, especially for civil ceremonies, to make it what it already is: a legal contract between two people to pool their financial resources; and the creation of a legal entity that the state will treat as having legal and financial rights in common?
It’s this, surely, that gay partners are most interested in, as it provides tax, insurance, inheritance and other legal benefits that are presently unavailable to them.
They can already formally swear to remain ‘faithful’ - ghastly concept - or to wear matching clothes forever, or any other unlikely and impractical undertaking they might wish to make publicly. They can probably have it notarised, with financial penalties if they desire. What they can’t do is ensure that the rest of the world will give them the insurance claims, pensions or inheritance their partners wish them to have.
Chris Davis
29 Aug 08 at 12:18 pm (GMT)
That is the most obvious,most logical conclusion i have ever seen on this debate.
Once religion permeated marriages it gave the nutters the excuse they needed to define marriage under their version of god.
Yet marriage exists outside religion so in all they have no right to pressure govts to control whom marries and whom does’t.
Religions have for centuries cried persecution yet they often like to do a little persecuting of their own, especially when it comes to homosexuals or anyone else that refutes their inane belief structure.
Jason
30 Aug 08 at 4:00 am (GMT)
@Jason, #33
At the risk of banging on, I must reiterate my whiny little protest. When I married my partner, it was a legal undertaking made necessary by nationality issues. Our previous twenty-year relationship was only peripherally relevant to the marriage, and we both regarded most of the ‘vows’ we gave at the ceremony as largely irrelevant to that relationship. They were simply necessary to complete the ritual.
And in the twenty years since - during which we have stayed together happily - those vows have continued to have no impact. Neither of us regards being ‘faithful’ as a prerequisite for our ongoing affection.
Nor would anyone else undertaking marriage be advised to rely too much on vows of fidelity. The data shows that - in practical terms - everybody screws around: it’s good for their genes. About half get found out, frequently destroying a functional relationship.
It’s time Hom Sap woke up to the fact that we’re not sexually monogamous, and started dealing with it instead of killing each other.
CD
Chris Davis
30 Aug 08 at 1:17 pm (GMT)
Four judges legalized same sex marriage-
From San Francisco has come disparage
For, in 2000 marriage was defined
As between a man and a woman, twas outlined
What was voted on and passed by 61%
Has to be recomposed and needs our endorsement
As world history’s sacred institution
Must be placed in our state’s constitution
Though we feel for those in sexual exclusion
To embrace their union as marriage is delusion
For our children we cannot define this as mainstream
Though gays want acceptance and higher esteem
We’ve given them all the rights of marriage
And, sadly they still fight on and dare edge
To infringe on what God has ordained
And, for their small numbers society’s more pained
But, what of our creator- who said, “Thou shalt not”?
And of our founding father’s and of all that they fought?
We’ve commandments for how we should live
And, we can’t grant things that aren’t ours to give
I feel for those of gay circumstance
I know they want romance and an equal chance
I’ve counseled them for the antibody test
And, I know that their feelings are hard to rest
Please do not call this bigotry or hate
For I am concerned about our futures fate
Let’s focus on family and build its foundation
For there lies the future of our good nation
Let’s not redefine marriage or tear it apart
But, pray for it with every depth of our heart
And unite and fight for the noblest cause
For the purest of standards of our God’s laws
kelly miller
30 Aug 08 at 6:56 pm (GMT)
[...] presents If You Don’t Like Gay Marriage, Don’t Have One posted at The Atheist [...]
Carnival of the Godless # 99 « Oz Atheist’s Weblog
30 Aug 08 at 11:16 pm (GMT)
You can’t put sense into a content-free assertion by making it rhyme, and you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.
Have you noticed that - apart from frequent references to your imaginary friend - you never explain why these things can’t be done? If fictitious superbeings are all you can adduce in support of your argument, you picked a funny place to do it. And my fictitious superbeing sez you’re wrong.
But thanks for playing…
Chris Davis
31 Aug 08 at 7:43 am (GMT)
My god says that people who debate with poetry should be sacrificed over the sacred flame.
RBV
31 Aug 08 at 8:45 am (GMT)
Haha! it’s like sayin, if U like gay marriage, have one. No offense. It takes a gay guy to like gay marriages
TMA
1 Sep 08 at 8:51 am (GMT)
Seems both u guys are missing out thr point here. We don’t have to oppose homosexuality, cos God tells us 2 do so. Do u know why sex exists? For reproduction. Of course, everytime ppl have sex they don’t mean to reproduce. It’s like when we eat food we seldom think of nourishment. We’d rather eat, cos the food is tasty. But sex exists, cos of the reproduction that can be caused only by a sexual interacton between a male and a female. But homosexuality is unnatural, it has no logic, it has no cause. It’s a mere mutated behaviour of mentally disturbed ppl. In the west homo sexuality is not only legal, but it is glorified. I think they have special priviledges straight ppl don’t have. This happened merely, cos the judiciory is gay. Those lawyers and judges had unsuccessful family lives. They got addicted to this sadistic behaviour as stress relief, just like alcohol or drug addiction, so they legalised and glorified this. Even psychiastrists had to stop consulting the ppl with this condition, cos of this. Now they have a great power over the society, they have the freedom to do any sadistic thing in the name of homosexuality. If u oppose it, U’re sued. Homosexuality is like eating crap. Eatin crap will not giv u any nourishment or taste, but food will. That’s y we’re designed to eat food not crap. If someone eats crap, needless to say, ab’t his/her mental condition. It’s the same 4 sex. Imagin, one day if all of us are ruled by these psychopaths
P.S-Pls, don’t sue me I’m merely expressing my idea
TMA
1 Sep 08 at 9:22 am (GMT)
I wish it were that simple. Man seems to think that mankind has advanced so much. Truth is that they are backwards.
Solitaire
1 Sep 08 at 10:40 am (GMT)
@ TMA #39
Yes, you’re only expressing your ideas. And they’re incompletely thought-out ones.
By your logic, we should ban sugar-free and diet food, because they’re short on nutrition. Brilliant - let’s all suck more sugar!
Has it not occurred to you that if homosexuality were truly deleterious to genes -human or animal - natural selection would have long since done away with it? And yet it has not - and why would that be?
Male homosexuality at least is now known to be almost certainly genetic in origin. The precise details of the genes involved have yet to be fully elucidated, but they’re there. And when expressed in males, they result in same-sex attraction. Which reduces to approximately zero the chances that the genes will be passed on - so how do they propagate?
To find the answer, one need merely look at the effect of the same genes when expressed in females. In order for the ‘gay gene’ to spread, despite the reproductive deficit produced by males, there need only be a counteracting reproductive benefit in females.
Which is not all that difficult to arrange: these women could be more attractive, more fertile, more horny - any number of factors that would tend to make them more likely to produce more, healthier, better resourced offspring. This appears to be what is happening.
So be warned: if a limp-wristed son would be a problem for you, best avoid the woman who’s your current dreamboat. Though if her genes are running true to form, she probably already hooked up with a millionaire whose dying to fill her up with babies.
CD
Chris Davis
1 Sep 08 at 12:23 pm (GMT)
I’m curious as to the number of gays and lesbians who are atheists. Is there a connection there somewhere? Or perhaps I’m just over thinking. Logically, I can agree with your point of view Adrian. This is one area I’m often torn with as a Christian. The world is filled with hypocrisy and contradictions, no matter what faith (or no faith) we are. I kinda like to follow that whole “Judge not lest you be judged” thing that no many seem to follow this day and age. I agree with a few of the comments up there. Gays are not hurting anybody, and how many philandering cheating straight adulterers have come to the pulpit and condemned those who I absolutely believe do not choose what sex they desire. He who is without sin, etc and so on. I’m not without sin, nobody is, I’ll never understand how anybody who believes in Christ and all He stands for can sit in judgment of anybody. If it’s a sin, they’ll find out someday, just as the rest of us will for our own. I understand you don’t accept sin, I’m speaking (or trying) on behalf of how we Christians are supposed to believe and behave.
As a Christian, I do believe it is against God’s laws. But you know what? It’s not my business, just as my own life’s issues are my own. However as a human being who lives in this world and has a strong sense of right and wrong, equal rights, I DO believe gays should not be denied the basic rights of others.
Darlanne
2 Sep 08 at 12:16 am (GMT)
Two cheers for you, Darlanne, for trying to be a good Christian - though perhaps you should tear your eyes away from the Sermon on the Mount and take a look at some of the other things you’re supposed to believe are ‘against God’s laws’.
Eat shellfish? Wear mixed fibres? Suffer children to speak out against their elders? Or perhaps you’re with those who believe the New Covenant has swept such things aside - in which case the injunctions against same-sex abomination goes the way of the rules about screwing goats, and you don’t even have to make sure you slaughter the goat afterwards.
I have to say I don’t recognise the correlation of atheism and homosexuality you describe, and I know a shit-load of atheists. Perhaps it’s because the US Christian Taliban are driving so many good people away from the church - but that’s their problem. Elsewhere in the world, fewer people care.
Just to add to your stats: I’m as rabid an atheist as you’re ever likely to encounter, and I’m irretrievably hetero. I know this because I tried screwing guys, and it just felt weird. Seems to me this constitutes no special advantage to me: I’m missing out on 50% of the possible partners I might have, of a gender with whom I otherwise get along rather well. Bummer.
CD
Chris Davis
2 Sep 08 at 1:13 am (GMT)
Yep Chris, shellfish is an abominable food to God according to the Bible, along with pork of course (something many Christians don’t follow). And as enticing as it is to respond item by item and verse by verse as to that list up there, this is where I won’t let myself be defined or grouped in with anybody but my own beliefs.
Btw, while I know you covered many biblical no’no’s up there, here’s a refresher … This is what Christianity is: It is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God and that eternal salvation is through that belief. That is what I believe. That does NOT mean that I blindly follow others or believe what I’m told to believe. I search out for myself (ahhh a free thinking Christian, run for your lives hahaha). If it makes sense to me, or it’s something that I just can’t “shake” feeling otherwise, then that’s what I believe. There are many answers NONE of us yet have, no matter how big and smart we all pretend to be. Searching and being open is the only way to find that truth.
I actually didn’t seek out this blog. I *think* I found it searching out Wordpress or some geeky thing. I found it interesting. I like to learn how others think. And while I may not AGREE, it’s not my place to judge it, so long as it isn’t pissing in my own cheerios. And yet I as a Christian am very often treated very much the way most atheists and other opposing “groups” despise being treated, with assumptions and stereotypes. I have no respect for that, whether it comes from a non believer or a believer just like myself. I could probably easier spend the day shopping with a peace loving atheist than a loud, rude and judgmental Christian. And vice versa.
As for the atheist gay issue, as I said, it was a “hmm I wonder” comment. “Stats”? Did you not read where I clearly stated I could very over thinking? Again assuming, stereotyping. Too many people on both sides of the argument are guilty of it. I’ve no idea on that random thought and don’t intend to begin a research study, but I certainly didn’t assume everybody atheist was gay, geesh Chris. ;)
I guess in my view, it’s pretty obvious nobody is every gonna go “oh hey you know what? you’re right! God IS real and I’m dusting off my Sunday hat right now.” OR go “yeah EH forget it … that Jesus dude was bogus.” Very little debate ever actually changes people’s minds.
And yes I love the Sermon on the Mount. Am I not allowed to like that? Believe that? Or is it just atheists and over zealous Christians allowed their beliefs without question?
Wow I’m really craving some shrimp now, thanks!
Darlanne
2 Sep 08 at 6:43 am (GMT)
Ah, yes - ‘Free Thinking Christians’: the ones who create their own religion from the kit provided by the mythology, deciding by fiat which bits God was serious about, and which were only suggestions. Or jokes, perhaps, to fool more rigid, hidebound thinkers than they.
Actually, there a quite a few such independent spirits. Most of ‘em base their ersatz religion on ignorance of what scriptural doctrine actually says, picking and choosing from the little they do know the parts that fit their instinctive morality. Of course, it’s a measure of religion’s weakening hold that they can get away with such things: in earlier times (and different fantasies) they’d burn for such heresy.
So, you built yourself a Lego belief-system from the parts you liked. Nothing unusual there, many people do it - because orthodox, doctrinaire Christianity is morally repugnant to modern moral sensibilities. But it does kinda makes you personally responsible for the constituents of your weltanschauung. So how come you decided that homosexuality is one of the rules God is serious about?
Nothing to do with personal distaste, I hope. I mean, that would be terribly contrary to the instructions of he who said Judge Not; Love Thy Neighbour, and extolled the virtues of Charity, wouldn’t it? Mind you he said a lot more about needing to hate your parents and ditch your spouse and kids; and how the OT laws still applied; and that women should shut up and obey their male masters; and that unmarried sex would send you straight to hell. See anything you like in those items, or are you ignoring them?
In short, you get a point for not actively implementing your prejudice, but don’t congratulate yourself too much. Those who just despise Negroes are better than those who actually beat them, but that doesn’t make them nice people.
CD
Chris Davis
2 Sep 08 at 11:09 am (GMT)
lol dude … I LOVE Christ. Dig it? Eh apparently you don’t. I wish I could give you your own brownie button for politeness and non bitterness but WOW, eaten up much?
Seriously no matter what you believe, lighten up. Life’s too short. Why spend it berating what others believe? How is that in ANY way making you different than the equally venomous group of rabid Christians who go around condemning everybody? It’s like yeah, can’t stand those who stand in judgment, but what the hell, I’ll join em. ;)
I don’t agree with your beliefs. You don’t agree with mine. Am I sitting here insulting you over it? Ehhhh no I’m not. Whether I’m a Christian or believe in the fricken tooth fairy, it’s all about treating others as we want to be treated. That’s what everybody seems to be missing.
And I am a nice person. A good person. Not perfect, ohhhhh no way. Full of flaws, yep. But I’d rather sit here and work on my own human errors than spend such a huge chunk of precious time and life pointing out others. How does that make YOU grow as a person?
As far as creating our own religion. What the hell is wrong with that? First we are condemned for following blindly like sheep, then we’re also condemned for searching out and believing as we choose to believe? Seems you just like to “condemn” to me.
And btw we’re all ignorant. Each and every one of us, in some way shape or form. I don’t have all the answers and neither do you. I’d rather be the type of person to actually SEE that, and accept it … otherwise I’m just sitting here marinating in my own stuck and stubborn mindset.
I certainly don’t agree with you. If asked directly, if it’s you who is ignorant or foolish, I’d definitely say yes, but thus far in this little exchange of ours, I’ve tried to treat you as I would like to be treated. It’s seriously not that hard. You should try it sometime. Christians, atheists, muslims alike, the world would sure be a nicer place.
That said, so what if my beliefs are “morally repugnant” to you? Yours are to me as well, so what? What does it accomplish in life to dwell on it?
And I don’t despise atheists. I don’t despise or “hate” anything but prejudice and intolerance itself. I don’t care what color or creed you are. You don’t know me, you don’t know my life or what’s in my head, just as I don’t know yours. I’m not going to sit and assume you are a terrible person inside because you don’t believe in God. I’ve known some terrible Christians, my best friend is a muslim. And you know what? We argue about a lot but religion ironically isn’t one of them.
It’s all about choices. We can wake up in the morning and start our day filled with hate and intolerance of anybody who thinks differently than us, or we can focus on the good in the world. There’s already too much evil in it already … and why? Cuz we’re all HUMAN beings.
And you can throw at me all the intellectual words, philosophical big talk that you want. That’s not what fuels my heart or my drive to make it through this life. It’s just words. And yep so is the Bible words. It’s what we do with those words we believe in that matters. I don’t believe EVERY single thing in the Bible. It was too touched by man. I believe how I believe and nothing you go “research” to use as a weapon is going to change that. Just like I wouldn’t bother sharing the Good News with you. Probably should. Perhaps it’s wrong of me that I don’t live my life in that way. Live and LET live. God it’s so simple, really. ;)
Darlanne
2 Sep 08 at 9:03 pm (GMT)
Darlanne, there is a contradiction in you words. You’ve said you do accept that the disgust expressed in what you call “God’s laws” is proper, but you also embrace the liberty of the individual which is in conflict with such.
Accepting the words written by one, translated several others, and then interpreted by yet another is hardly a way to live a responsible life.
I encourage you to exercise your ability to reason and come to your own conclusions. I do not object to the Christian concept of revelation, but do object to those who accept the opinion of those who precede them as what qualifies.
Those who precede you are no more divine than your or I.
As your stated positions, on the present topic, are proper, I’m certain you can reach a grander moral position that that taught and propagated by so many who would have you believe they speak for the Christ, but don’t know him.
Ben Abbott
3 Sep 08 at 1:09 am (GMT)
Thanks awfully, Darlanne, for pointing out that you’re not like me, but I already knew that. We’re easy to tell apart: you’re the passive aggressive one.
And you’re quite good at it. I’m sure that, if this interchange has any kind of audience, they think I’m a rotten old meany-guts for picking on such a fluffy little bunny-rabbit as you. How could I be so cruel?
(If you find yourself welling up at the sheer brutal injustice of it all, head over to the LolCat Bible for a spiritual break.)
Back? OK - so according to you there are two ways one can live: you can follow orthodoxy blindly; or you can ’search out and believe as you choose’, AKA ‘make up whatever suits you’. Well - no, actually. You’ve apparently not considered a third possibility:
You can find out what the bloody facts are. Reality is not composed of opinions. The facts have evidence to support them, and that evidence can be found. The value if Pi can’t be influenced by a vote - nor by Scripture, despite the Bible’s insistence that it’s 3.
I note with dismay your Luddite dismissal of knowledge. “We’re all ignorant” and “don’t have all the answers” you say. Fair comment, but from this you appear to deduce that nothing can be known, and learning is futile. In character, but bollocks. There’s a helluva lot you could know: you’ll find evidence-based hard data to cover practically everything you need in order to live a rational existence - if you’re prepared to do the work and not simply rely on ‘belief’ in whatever takes your fancy. As empiricism is apparently new to you, here’s a short, dense lecture you might try.
One final small point: you have, you say, ‘tried to treat me as you would like to be treated’. What, I wonder, do you call that? Fairness? Magnanimity? You’re missing an important aspect: how would you feel if a psychotic masochist decided to treat you as she would like to be treated, and started slicing your face off? To be truly nice to people, if that’s what you desire, you should treat them as they wish to be treated.
But perhaps you meant what you said. Your posting is filled with descriptions of how tolerant, open and forgiving you are, and by implication how beastly others who are not like you - i.e. me - must be. As I say, you have the passive-aggressive thing down pat. Well, shocking as you will doubtless find it, there are more people than you realise who would rather throw themselves under a train than be anything like you at all. The fact that you surely have no clue why that might be is one of the reasons why you’re so dangerous.
CD
Chris Davis
3 Sep 08 at 9:48 am (GMT)
I’m a Buddhist, so can I be, “so dangerous,” like Darlanne? I always wanted to be dangerous.
VFD
3 Sep 08 at 6:11 pm (GMT)
And they say women over analzye? Yikes. It’s amazing how I’m entirely transparent after a few comments on a blog. Actually the funny thing is, normally this type of exchange would rile me up, or it used to years back anyway. I used to “feel the wrath” of anybody speaking for me or assuming things of me. Maybe I’ve come to a point in life that it just doesn’t matter. What matters is how I live my life. And so far I don’t have anybody in my life saying anything about me like that. Hmmm passive aggressive. Because I’m able to express my opinions without being rude and obnoxious? It’s called civility and being able to agree to disagree. If you’re gonna analyze me, let me help you out:
I’m impatient, I procrastinate, I sometimes curse, and I get grocery store rage. Those are just off the top of my head. Oh and I’m not passive. I absolutely can be aggressive if the situation merits it. I speak my mind and I’m not shy about it. What you’re missing is that, unless somebody is reaaaallly affecting my life in some way, I try always to express those opinions respectfully.
Your example of the masochist is an interesting one but yeah doesn’t really apply to the moral majority now does it? I can’t imagine using Ted Bundy to prove any of my points but I give you some points for making it an interesting argument.
The difference here is obvious. You REALLY care what others think and believe. For some strange psychological or emotional reason, it absolutely outrages you that anybody believes differently than you. I don’t share that. If an argument is made respectfully, of that fact that I’m a human being just like them and have the right to my own beliefs, I’ve NO problem with it. So far you’ve managed to do that without too much insulting. I DO care if somebody out and out mocks or makes fun of God. That feels as if somebody just socked my little sister or daughters in the face. It feels personal. But on the whole? No, I don’t care what you believe. Would it be nice if we all believed the same? Sure. But then what would any of us here on a blog have to debate?
All that said, you are entirely free to believe how you like, and if that includes painting me with one stereotypical brush, that’s your right. But you believing it doesn’t make it real or correct, anymore than you think mine are correct. Facts are fragile things. For any argument there are several facts, some contradict each other, be it about religion, politics, men vs. women.
Bloody facts are what? Can you prove God doesn’t exist? If that could be done, well we wouldn’t even have the word “atheist” now would we? It’s like with anything else, there are two sides of the argument and then there is the truth. That “truth” is what I believe we are all here to seek. It’s a personal journey. I don’t actively go around making it public. So I’m under no obligation to society, you, or otherwise to prove or disprove anything sweetie. It’s called faith for a reason. Sometimes it’s tested. A WHOLE lot for me lately, that’s for sure. But maybe my own lesson in coming here is … it’s making me realize that no matter how difficult life is, my faith is strongly in tact. So I actually thank you for that. No, really, sincerely, no passion and no aggression. ;) I don’t know why it’s so difficult for you to accept that maybe there are decent Christians in the world. There’s plenty of us. Just like I’m sure there are MANY very good people who don’t believe as we do. Now you can twist that around, disect it, go look up all your fancy words and intellectual citations and arguments, but it’s just not that damned complicated.
Ben, thank you for your input. A contradiction. I’ve thought on that a while and really tried to see if you have a point. I’ve come to the conclusion that I am a contradiction in many ways. Actually more in regular life than faith, but EH maybe you have a point. That doesn’t however change the fact that I believe with ALL my heart and soul that Christ is the Son of God and through Him I will have salvation. So I’m not quite sure exactly what it is anybody is wishing me to “see”? It’s in there guys. Embedded deeply. And let me take a moment to express something I’ve always actually wished to express, as an argument I see often times between believers and non believers:
I’ve seen the argument that Christians are weak for believing and we use our faith as a comfort tool. It’s just a crutch and a “nice thought”. Now I am not inferring that anybody here has said that, but I wanted to touch on it anyway. I don’t agree with that sentiment. To the contrary, in many ways it’s a much easier thought that when we die, that’s IT, over, poof, dust to dust. For me it’s a lot more challenging to imagine this enormous God up there, ready to have me account for all my life. Cuz I don’t know about you guys, I’m one imperfect person. So, with that notion, often times in my life I have tried to NOT believe, just to release myself of that dwelling on any pesky scary afterlife. Guess what? It never worked. No matter how hard I tried to push God away, He’s there. It’s not IN me to not believe, so if you guys are trying to convert me, bless your hearts but it’s just not gonna work. Jesus is in my heart, even if at times that is NOT always a comfy thought.
Ben, I don’t speak for Christ. You just hit on one of my pet peeves. My mother is often guilty of saying “God would hate this” or that, etc. Yeah that’s one entity I won’t ever say I speak for. There’s plenty I know. There’s plenty I’ve sought out. But there’s plenty I don’t know. So as for exercising my ability to reason and come to my own conclusions. That’s exactly what I’m doing. I just don’t happen to agree with the beliefs here, and that should be okay, yes?
I’d like to ask a question, if anybody can answer directly. I don’t agree with your beliefs, but I can walk away and accept you believe that way. I don’t go to bed and lose sleep over it. Why do I get the feeling, especially with our meany-guts Chris here, that it’s just NOT okay with you that *I* believe how I do? Why does that bother you so? You don’t even know me. I find it hard to believe it’s cuz you care about my eternity, since you don’t believe in one. So where is the danger in my believing as I do?
VFD, thank you for that. You can be the Buddhist Thelma to my Christian Louise. :D
LOL I can’t wait to tell my boyfriend that I’m dangerous. WEEEEEE. *Feels tough*. Incidentally he has struggled with faith now for a long time. While i love him very much and wish for him to believe, even him I don’t try and “convert”, so please tell me how I’m dangerous? *Intrigued*
Whew this was a long one! My apologies to the blog owner for hijacking his post. I guess I am dangerous, yikes.
Darlanne
3 Sep 08 at 10:45 pm (GMT)
VFD: I’ve considered your question carefully and the answer is no.
CD
Chris Davis
4 Sep 08 at 12:59 am (GMT)
I would like to address the original question of why there is such a strong objection to gay marriage by so many.
In all states, all marriage is a function of the state. It can be performed by a minister who is sanctioned by the state, but the couple must still have the completed state documents.
If the state allows gay marriage, then the state is giving “official” recognition to a relationship that is anathema to true homophobes. If, and when, gay adoption becomes a real possibility in states, you will see the same kind of outcry for this state-approved function - just different reasons why god doesn’t like it.
I have been around for many decades in the deep South and have come to this conclusion: it is not about marriage, per se; it is misogyny.
From what I have heard around the country and certainly in the South, there is nothing worse than a man who gives up his “god-given entitlement” to be the penetrator to take on the “woman’s” role. This is extremely threatening to many men. Better an ax murderer than effeminate! Then there is much anger over lesbians who remove themselves from the “pool” of available mates (possibly not like dick?). Another threat.
Of course, gay marriage would not impact straight marriage at all! And, of course, that is not the real issue, which is, once again, to keep any official recognition from homosexuals. After all, who could we harass, belittle, maim, and kill if we acknowledged homos as actual people?
OneCrone
7 Sep 08 at 7:54 am (GMT)
Just wanted to let you know Norway changed a law recently, allowing gay couples to get married..
mICHAEL
13 Sep 08 at 9:26 am (GMT)
While I Think that state sponsored marrgies would be great the topic of seperately but equal come to mind.
Mind you it would be between religion and state (two thing that should never mix there is some reasoning behind it.
Ben
14 Sep 08 at 10:32 pm (GMT)
I don’t care if a guy marries a goat. The whole thing is about money. People can do whatever they want, just don’t ask me to pay for it. Like a married tax exemption, death benefit or whatever. You do what you want….You pay for it…..simple.
Barry
27 Sep 08 at 12:50 am (GMT)
If you follow a consistent philosophical approach to marriage, the only sensible outcome is to keep government out of the marriage business altogether.
What proponents of ‘gay marriage’ fail to see is that they are simply expanding a problem rather than solving it. The problem is government meddling into the free relationships established among free individuals. If we are rational we see that for example, polygamous marriage should be as legal as any kind of marriage, yet you don’t see advocates of getting government involved into ‘gay marriage’ mentioning this.
Apparently even when people claims to want to make the system more ‘fair’, ends up wanting to make some people more equal than others, that is why the only solution is to get government out of this business and let people arrange whatever legal (though contract law) relationships they freely choose.
Uriel
4 Oct 08 at 2:47 am (GMT)
I completely agree with Uriel. A nice illustration in fiction of zero gov’t involvement in marriage is in Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
For some reason my wife disagrees w/me & thinks allowing gay marriage somehow discriminates against religious people. I don’t think she gets the point, and hopefully after she reads this post she’ll change her mind.
This issue is just one example of why the Libertarian Party should become viable in the future. Those in favor of socially liberal issues such as this should not have to hitch their wagons to the Democrats’ ruinous Marxist leanings on economic issues.
Mean Jean
30 Oct 08 at 6:03 am (GMT)
oh, dear, Darlane pulled out the ‘you can’t prove god doesn’t exist’ trick…
Corky
7 Nov 08 at 3:20 pm (GMT)
Well looks like fear and ignorance prevailed over reason in California this time…
Milan Sperka
8 Nov 08 at 12:24 am (GMT)
@ #59
Like many of her ghastly ilk, Darlanne considers that anything she believes is true by default.
While anything she doesn’t believe requires ironclad proof before it can merely be considered.
There is a usable rule of thumb, however…
CD
Chris Davis
8 Nov 08 at 6:40 pm (GMT)
[...] you supported the ghastly proposition 8 in california, or the other propositions which have now enforced legal discrimination against people of different [...]
Keith Olbermann Deserves An Award - The Atheist Blogger
12 Nov 08 at 7:12 pm (GMT)
Totally agree, no one can tell you or give you permission to love who you wanna love. Props.
Kala
14 Nov 08 at 4:24 pm (GMT)
I am so tired of this. I have considered all the repercussions of this “Gay Marriage” issue and have come to the conclusion that nobody “gets it”. Below are three arguments AGAINST gay marriage that are more intelligent and clearer than others. Go and read all of the con arguments that you can find and then read the following arguments against Gay Marriage and I think you will agree that my arguments are at least as intelligent if not more intelligent than any being proffered by anyone else:
#1. Because.
#2. God said “no”. He talks to me. I know. (send money)
#3. If gays can marry each other, they’ll be have gay children who will have gay marriages and more gay kids and pretty soon, ungays will be in the minority and then it might be our marriages that are a sin in the eyes of god (It is a sin. He talks to me. I know.) and a moral travesty capable of destroying the very fabric of society.
b
Bill
16 Nov 08 at 8:02 pm (GMT)
@Bill
#1 is not an argument.
#2 is not backed up by anything.
#3 is not even supported by biology…not just because gay people cannot have children with each other, but because upbringing has no effect on sexuality.
Adrian Hayter
16 Nov 08 at 8:25 pm (GMT)
I have two gay son’s I love and restpect them in their relationships.we are all a family. But Gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of God. they have had civil union’s in their like commitements.
But they realize God made marriage for a man and a woman. they agreeand are happy living their life. why try to fight over what the people have spoken on. we don’t want it.
I want my son’s treatrd fairley. But not to go againest God word.
Sue
19 Nov 08 at 4:31 am (GMT)
That’s right, Sue! So you be sure and stone those li’l tykes to death if you catch them working on the Sabbath. Or eating shellfish. Or wearing clothing of mixed threads. Or cutting their beards.
Or is it just the parts of the ‘word of God’ that hapopen to match your own disgusting bigotry that you uphold?
Chris Davis
19 Nov 08 at 11:50 am (GMT)
Definition of bigotry:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
Look in the mirror lately Chris? Because that’s also you. And not just intolerance but downright hate. You say that I believe anything is true by default and yet I’m pretty sure if God Himself came down right now and said hey Chris, I’m REAL, you’d turn your eyes away and deny it. It’s fine if you don’t want to believe in God, or can’t, or find it absurd, whatever suits your life and heart. But the only “ghastly” attitude I’ve seen here in these comments is yours. You are NO different than those you set out to tear down and despise. It’s sad really because no matter what, we all have to live in this world together, regardless of what comes after. Negativity breeds negativity and nothing else. Nothing good, nothing productive. It breaks down any real true communication as to how two sides with opposing beliefs can make any real progress as to making this a better world.
Not one single time did I tear you down for you not believing as I do. And Sue was expressing her own beliefs and I thought she did that without being “disgusting” as you called her. She believes it’s wrong in the eyes of God. YOU don’t accept that and yet you demand with a lot of ugliness that everybody put down their bibles and not believe. I don’t know how you don’t see the hypocrisy in that.
As for the topic of this post … I live in California. I’m a Christian. Guess what? I didn’t VOTE. And why? Because while I stand by my faith for my own life, I also don’t believe I should impose it on others who do not believe as I do. Therefore, I felt it was the right thing to do, to not vote on the matter. Whereas, I’ve no doubt that if we had a proposition come out this next election that involved anything anti-Christian, you’d have voted yes all over. And that’s just as wrong.
These are the types of attitudes that demand tolerance and acceptance but give NONE. Nothing gets solved that way but two constant lines drawn in the sand.
Darlanne
19 Nov 08 at 12:49 pm (GMT)
Well, stap me vitals, it’s Dachau Barbie! Well done you for growing some testicles - it’s nice to hear you actually express your spite directly for once. I think I’ll take some credit for that, whether you like it or not.
Which is where you’re PRECISELY wrong. I’m a keen student of truth, evidence and the scientific method, and if such an event were to occur I would without hesitation conclude that - despite the overwhelming evidence against it - an outside context event had occurred. I would try at once to discover the explanation.
Unfortunately for your thesis, the odds are stupefyingly high that it would turn out to be an hallucination brought on by substance abuse. It wouldn’t be the first time.
So - you demand tolerance of me. Tolerance, in point of fact, for someone else’s beliefs - though I’m sure you’re on all fours with Sue, sharing as you do the same delusion. You ask me to tolerate … Sue and your INTOLERANCE of others.
And you do this, hiding behind your protestation that the intolerance here is God’s, not yours. You LOOVE pooves - can’t get enough of them. But God, you maintain, is a bit of a homophobe, despite being the entity responsible for their very existence.
No, actually. I don’t tolerate intolerance, especially nasty, scheming, vindictive, conniving intolerance tricked out in pompous, righteous livery like yours.
There was a line in a film: ‘Kiss my ENTIRE ass’. I believe it applies here.
CD
Chris Davis
19 Nov 08 at 4:28 pm (GMT)
Oh please … Just because I have attempted to treat you with some fairness and kindess in previous comments does not mean I’m some wilting flower. But you just take that credit if it makes yer day. ;)
If you don’t tolerate intolerance then how can you look at yourself in the mirror? How can you claim to be tolerant? Tolerance is being accepting and respectful of others and what they believe. Your angry words contradict that statement. OR is it that you insist on tolerance for your beliefs but don’t see a need to follow that same rule?
You’ll take credit for my own words but not your own. Of course you would, because they were allegedly “spiteful” and that seems to be your kick.
“Unfortunately for your thesis, the odds are stupefyingly high that it would turn out to be an hallucination brought on by substance abuse. It wouldn’t be the first time.”
“So - you demand tolerance of me. Tolerance, in point of fact, for someone else’s beliefs - though I’m sure you’re on all fours with Sue, sharing as you do the same delusion.”
That ain’t tolerance dude. That’s called mocking.
“You ask me to tolerate … Sue and your INTOLERANCE of others”
That’s almost laughable. I don’t know Sue so I can’t speak for her … but there is nothing intolerant with how I conduct my life. Other than having a problem with intolerant peeps themselves.
Live and let live.
And you pretty much summed up my point with that last comment. Good job! :)
Darlanne
19 Nov 08 at 9:17 pm (GMT)