Dear Fellow "Mom" Friends in North Carolina,
Please stop asking me to "Get out and vote FOR the marriage amendment" and that "You believe marriage is between one man and one woman."
It makes me lose respect for you. It makes me think you aren't very intelligent. It makes me think you're insensitive, and that you would feed my children to yours if you had to.
An incredible post. I couldn't have articulated it better myself.
Anyone who supports a bill like this is a hypocrite, though they would never see it that way.
Great choice for reblogging, TwinDaddy.
And you summed up the problem with folks who choose hate/fear-mongering over acceptance. They all just need to get a life.
What, exactly, is hypocritical about supporting this bill?
Did you not read the post? If you still don’t get it then explaining it will be a waste of my time.
Of course I read it. The author attacks religious objections to same-sex marriage, but does not actually call anyone a hypocrite. You did. I think I know why you say that same-sex marriage opponents are hypocrites (something along the lines of: opponents want religious freedom but use their religion to object to same-sex marriage), but I don’t want to assume.
Please let me know exactly why you consider same-sex marriage opponents hypocrites.
I had a comment from someone, (I will put a link below) who made a further point that marriage is a civil agreement and we would never think to discriminate against other legal agreements based of gender. Oh, just look at her fab comment…http://www.blogher.com/letter-nc-supporters-marriage-amendment
Yes, marriage is (sort of) a civil agreement/contract*.
Discrimination is not inherently wrong — it is only wrong when the basis of the discrimination is irrelevant. For example, employers discriminate between qualified candidates (who have an appropriate education, work experience, etc.) and unqualified candidates, but are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc., since none of those are relevant to a person’s ability to do the job.
While gender is irrelevant for most contracts (your commenter gives the example of partners going into business) marriage is inextricably linked with children and therefore gender does matter.
Your objection to same-sex marriage opponents appears to be based (entirely?) on religious arguments against same-sex marriage. You are right to object to such arguments since religion cannot alone justify a public policy in the United States. However, there exist many examples of secular arguments against same-sex marriage which are valid as justifications for a public policy like opposition to same-sex marriage. I have compiled a short list of a few for you.
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/ The first one is explicitly titled as a secular case. It is based primarily on statistics and the first of the three main arguments links marriage to children (which no same-sex couple can produce). The only mention of religion is to point out a list of instances where same-sex marriage does restrict religious institutions, but this is not the same as “find[ing] a Bible verse to justify it”.
http://aristophrenium.com/mathew/australian-senate-considers-marriage-equality-bill/ This one is in response to an Australian bill. Again, the only mention of religion is to give a list of instances where religious freedom as well as freedom of speech have been curtailed in the name of “gay rights” (and shows that your statement that “if you don’t like it based on your religious beliefs then don’t let them get married in your church” is overly simplistic). Marriage is again linked to children, which makes gender relevant.
http://thenullspace.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/on-same-sex-marriage/ This is my own secular argument against same-sex marriage written last year, and I have no mention of religion at all. My argument is similar to the previous one. Once again, marriage is linked to children. Feel free to comment here if you’d like to discuss specific points.
Note that all three of these arguments were written by Christians, yet we don’t trot out any Bible verses nor are we “judging based on [our] religious beliefs”.
Also, here are a pair of articles which are relevant to the discussion (in that they link marriage and children, discuss the function of marriage, and point out problems with same-sex marriage and parenthood) although they are not direct arguments against same-sex marriage:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5071
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5073
Again, the author is a Christian but argues solely on a secular basis.
Since in your article you do seem to have a lot of confusion regarding the Christian/religious beliefs and motivations regarding same-sex marriage (that Christians are “insensitive”, “judging”, etc.), here is a post on Christians’ view of same-sex marriage based on our religious beliefs: http://hcchristian.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/my-perspective-on-gay-marriage-legalization/ This is of course not an applicable argument to the public policy of same-sex marriage itself, but should provide you with some insight to your questions about Christians “judging” and handling homosexual children.
* Incidentally, with the advent of “no-fault” divorce marriage actually no longer functions like a contract. You cannot back out of a contract unless the other party also agrees to back out, and if the other party does not agree then the party who wants to back out of the contract must compensate the other party for breaking the contract.
Marriage may be linked to children, but that’s not the purpose of marriage. I’ve been married twice and been to countless weddings. I’ve attended Baptist weddings, Catholic weddings, and weddings performed by a justice of the peace. At no point in any of those ceremonies did the preacher (or justice of the peace) mention children at all. Marriage is a pact between two people who love each other and promise to love and cherish each other for the rest of their lives. That’s it. There may or may not be children involved.
When you married your wife did you do so only because you thought she was a good candidate to produce children or did you do so because you loved her and wanted to spend the rest of your life with her regardless of whether or not she is able to bear children?
Using a “secular” argument that same-sex couple can’t naturally have children, to me, is kind of a shield to hide the fact that you believe its wrong based on religious principles. Let’s face it. You probably believe that gay marriage is wrong because that’s what the church has taught you. You might have formed an objective opinion on it otherwise.
I see nothing wrong with a man promising to love another man for the rest of his life or a woman promising to love another woman for the rest of her life. I’m sure they know they can’t have children naturally, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that they have pledged to love each other ’til death do them part.
I obviously agree with the author here that laws should not (and constitutionally CANNOT) be made based on religious principles or beliefs. People trying to push through laws like this are another example of a religion trying to push their beliefs on others. They are basically saying that this is what they believe and it should be this way for everyone.
I respect the church’s right to their beliefs however wrong I think they are, but they should not be interfering in the lives of people who believe differently. And attempting to make laws that conform to their beliefs is interfering and pushing their religion onto people.
Lastly, I would wonder why the people proposing and backing this bill would waste their time doing so. How does it affect their lives if gay people get married? What harm could come from letting them do it? Other than the fact the most religions would condemn anyone from living life that way to their version of hell, what’s the foul? You say it’s considered a sin as taught by your church, but who’s ultimately responsible for holding them accountable for that “sin” in the end? Is it the church, the public, or God?
Based on what I was taught growing up, the answer is God. Which to me means that the people backing these types of bills are trying to go God’s work for Him. And therein lies the hypocrisy. They believe and preach that it’s ultimately God that will judge people at the appropriate time, yet they attempt do it in his stead.
“Marriage may be linked to children, but that’s not the purpose of marriage…Marriage is a pact between two people who love each other and promise to love and cherish each other for the rest of their lives.”
What is the purpose of marriage, then? Is it a pact between any two people? Only between two people? You can’t think of any other valid restrictions other than two people loving each other?
“There may or may not be children involved.”
In a marriage between a man and a woman there indeed may or may not be children produced within the marriage. For a same-sex “marriage”, however, there will definitely be no children produced within it.
“When you married your wife did you do so only because you thought she was a good candidate to produce children or did you do so because you loved her and wanted to spend the rest of your life with her regardless of whether or not she is able to bear children?”
I married my wife because I love her and want to spend the rest of my life with her (whether or not she is able to bear children), and because I think she is the best candidate to be the mother of my children.
“Using a “secular” argument that same-sex couple can’t naturally have children, to me, is kind of a shield to hide the fact that you believe its wrong based on religious principles.”
If this is meant to be a refutation of my argument then it is an example of an appeal to motive fallacy. My motive is irrelevant since I have given logical arguments that must be refuted on logical grounds (I’m not just stating an opinion based on my religious beliefs). You are also moving the goalposts since the post you reblogged takes issue specifically with religious arguments (I assume you agree with that since you reblogged it).
It is true that it is my religious belief that homosexual acts are immoral. However, it is also my religious belief that premarital sex — whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals — is immoral yet I do not argue that the government has the power to ban any sex acts between consenting adults because I do not have a good secular case to make that argument. In fact, as a conservative I strongly argue that the government has no business regulating sex acts between consenting adults (whether I think those sex acts are moral or not). If my religious belief that homosexual acts are immoral was dictating my political position you would see me arguing for anti-sodomy laws and the like.
“You probably believe that gay marriage is wrong because that’s what the church has taught you.”
Assumptions, assumptions…
“You might have formed an objective opinion on it otherwise.”
So anytime a religious belief is applicable to a topic, any opinion on that topic is ipso facto subjective? How do you know your opinion is objective — perhaps your dislike of the Catholic Church and the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage has lead you to support same-sex marriage, even if only subconsciously and just to spite the Church and Christians you dislike?
“I obviously agree with the author here that laws should not (and constitutionally CANNOT) be made based on religious principles or beliefs.”
We’re all in agreement here. I thought I made that very clear in my previous post.
“They are basically saying that this is what they believe and it should be this way for everyone.”
You just described politics. That is the entire purpose of politics, whether religious beliefs are present or not.
“How does it affect their lives if gay people get married? What harm could come from letting them do it?”
Did you not read the first two links I posted? Here’s a citation that’s particularly relevant to your questions: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113677/Church-forced-conduct-gay-weddings-say-lawyers-studying-Equality-Act-voted-Coalition.html
“You say it’s considered a sin as taught by your church, but who’s ultimately responsible for holding them accountable for that “sin” in the end? Is it the church, the public, or God? Based on what I was taught growing up, the answer is God.”
Yes, it is God. But we’re not trying to ban homosexual acts so no one is trying to hold homosexuals accountable in place of God. In any case, just because God holds people accountable for their sins doesn’t mean we as humans can’t reason that it’s worthwhile to restrict certain acts by law. Or are we wrongly holding thieves accountable in place of God?
Yes marriage is only between two people and it’s sole purpose to to declare your love to your partner and make a promise that you will love, cherish, and respect them until the end of your life. If something different happened on your wedding day I don’t know what to tell you, but that’s what’s happened at every wedding I’ve attended. See here. There is absolutely no mention of kids. Perhaps the church states that a marriage should produce children, and if so that renders your “secular” argument illogical because it’s now a religious argument.
“I married my wife because I love her and want to spend the rest of my life with her”
And who, exactly, are you to deny that right to anyone else? Answer me that. You are no one. The people that backed this bill are no one. Who are you to tell anyone that they are not allowed to marry the person they love like you love your wife? Forget the bearing of children. That has nothing to do with it. People don’t marry other people solely based on their reproductive capability. If you consider that a logical argument then your logic is faulty.
You, sir, by supporting a bill, or any bill, such as this are denying the right for certain people to marry that person they dearly love and its despicable. Imagine just for a second, that you were not allowed to marry your wife. That it was against the law. What a shitty feeling, right?
“Or are we wrongly holding thieves accountable in place of God?”
Sooooo….you’re comparing gay marriage to thievery? Nice. Not an apt comparison. If a gay couple gets married no one is hurt and no one is wronged. If someone steals from you, you could possibly get hurt in the process and your property is wrongfully taken. Huge difference.
If you could prove to me that allowing gay marriage is in any way detrimental to anybody, then maybe I’d see your “logic.” And your link is not sufficient in the least. You know as well as I that if gay marriage were made legal (and it is in 6 states) that churches would not be (and are not in said six states) required by law to marry gay couples. If the church was forced to do so we’d have been hearing about it endlessly while they shout “religious freedom” until they’re blue in the face. I can’t speak for England since I don’t live there and don’t know their laws, but I highly doubt they would impose that requirement on their churches either.
“In any case, just because God holds people accountable for their sins doesn’t mean we as humans can’t reason that it’s worthwhile to restrict certain acts by law.”
And just what is your reasoning that makes banning gay marriage worthwhile?
“Yes marriage is only between two people and it’s sole purpose to to declare your love to your partner and make a promise that you will love, cherish, and respect them until the end of your life.”
So I have you on record supporting marriage between blood relatives as long as they love each other? I’ll assume you meant two adult people so as to exclude children. Or can children marry, too?
What about arranged marriages? The individuals may not love each other but they bind themselves to a legal contract (ostensibly) for life.
And why limit marriage to between two people? If restricting marriage to couples composed of one man and one woman is arbitrary and discriminatory, so too is restricting it to just two people. To paraphrase you: “who are you to tell anyone that they are not allowed to marry the person they love like you love your wife” just because they already have a spouse?
Marriage does a lot more than declare love and respect for a partner until life. Here’s a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States Note that I don’t have a problem with allowing same-sex couples to set up legal contracts with each other granting each other the rights and responsibilities of marriage that are applicable to same-sex couples (e.g. visitation rights). That’s still not a marriage, though, since not all rights and responsibilities are applicable (e.g. there are no children within the marriage, so there is no need for joint parenting rights, child support and custody, etc.).
“You, sir, by supporting a bill, or any bill, such as this are denying the right for certain people to marry that person they dearly love and its despicable.”
Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike have the same restrictions on marriage: you can’t already be married, you have to marry someone of the opposite sex, and you both have to be consenting adults.
Again, your statement supports polygamy, “marriage” between blood relatives, “marriage” between children, etc.
“Sooooo….you’re comparing gay marriage to thievery?”
No, my point is that we humans can align our laws with religious beliefs if there is an appropriate secular reason.
“If you could prove to me that allowing gay marriage is in any way detrimental to anybody, then maybe I’d see your “logic.”…You know as well as I that if gay marriage were made legal (and it is in 6 states) that churches would not be (and are not in said six states) required by law to marry gay couples.”
Not yet. Same-sex marriage still has very little support among the American population and rarely passes when put to a vote (as North Carolina just demonstrated). The UK and other foreign states are simply farther along. If it’s anything like the UK, churches will first be required to perform same-sex marriages on church property (though not officiate…at first — http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356490/Gay-lesbian-couples-right-marry-church.html?printingPage=true) on the grounds that not marrying them in the church would be discrimination. Then they’ll have to officiate.
I know you don’t care about religious freedom, but let’s not entertain the fiction that same-sex marriage won’t “affect [same-sex marriage opponents'] lives”.
“And just what is your reasoning that makes banning gay marriage worthwhile?”
I’ve given you multiple secular arguments against same-sex marriage, including mine. There are plenty of points for you to argue against.
You, sir, are now putting words into my mouth. I said only what I said what you inferred from my statement is NOT having me on record of anything else.
I’m not even going to get into all of the other things you mentioned because they’re not relevant to the discussion at hand.
You counterpoints are weak and you still have not proven anything. There is simply no chance that churches will be forced to marry gay couples. You saw how long proposal to force them to cover birth control lasted. It just won’t happen.
This debate is now over. You have not and will not convince me that there is any merit to preventing gay marriage and I have no desire to keep banging my head against a wall talking to you about it.
I will be the first to admit, I am totally a simpleton. Most things in life are of surface value. Most people are judged without ever getting to really know someone. About the only time I find things to be really “fuzzy” are when people are discussing personal relationships. I know plenty of people with “opposite anatomy” that are in bad relationships and probably shouldn’t be a parent. The fact that they were “one man and one woman” just simply probably put one more stupid person we all have to deal with. Anyone can be a parent. I will share something for you to read.
http://allthatmakesyou.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/mothers-day/
I have never been to a wedding ceremony where the person officiating said, “And now please drop your pants and lift that dress, I need to be sure before I pronounce you man and wife.” It is a fuzzy situation as well when you have people that are born with two sets of anatomy. Ohhhhh….Can they marry themselves?
I love your conviction, but in my opinion, your wrong. It is that simple. A lot of people were wrong yesterday. May God bless you with children that have a specific gender, and straight children and grandchildren, and that one day he will touch your heart and realize that this is discrimination . I mean this all with respect. How do you feel about interracial marriage, women voting, blacks owning property? You really do not have to answer. At my age I have formed my opinion, probably much like you. I am working on the next two generations. Honestly, I was born with an open mind. It was forced upon me with my circumstances and I am thankful because it is what made me.
-Abbie, allthatmakesyou.com
“About the only time I find things to be really “fuzzy” are when people are discussing personal relationships.”
I have no idea what you mean by “fuzzy”, why the word is in quotes, or what this has to do with the discussion at hand.
“Anyone can be a parent.”
But only a couple composed of one man and one woman is necessary and sufficient to reproduce. A same-sex couple is neither necessary nor sufficient.
“I have never been to a wedding ceremony where the person officiating said, “And now please drop your pants and lift that dress, I need to be sure before I pronounce you man and wife.””
Is this supposed to be a serious argument?
“I love your conviction, but in my opinion, your wrong.”
And in my opinion, you are wrong.
“How do you feel about interracial marriage, women voting, blacks owning property? You really do not have to answer.”
These are all examples of discrimination on bases that are not relevant. Interracial couples composed of one man and one woman — unlike same-sex couples of any race — can reproduce, women are capable of acquiring the knowledge necessary to make an informed vote, and blacks are capable of earning the wealth necessary to own property. The link I provided on the Australian bill in fact discusses how same-sex marriage is not equivalent to interracial marriage, if you read it.
Straight couples can be unable to have children. Gay people can adopt. You still haven’t addressed how you will discriminate against people who are born with both male and female reproductive parts since this is your sticking point. Your doing a stellar job arguing, but that is it. Americans will one day look back on this, embarrassed. Have a nice day.
“Straight couples can be unable to have children. Gay people can adopt.”
While some straight couples are unable to have children, most can and there is generally no way for the government to know if a particular straight couple can have children or not. For a homosexual couple, everyone knows they cannot reproduce together. At most one of the adults can be the biological parent. Same-sex couples can adopt, but so can straight couples. And the issue is same-sex marriage, not adoption.
“You still haven’t addressed how you will discriminate against people who are born with both male and female reproductive parts since this is your sticking point.”
Are such people even fertile?
“Have a nice day.”
You, too.