Ruth Institute Blog

Ari,
I agree with your bemusement, mostly. My only hesitation about posting this is some blessedly innocent souls will click through the link to Chick’s pamphlets!

This is incredibly brilliant and makes an important point as well as I have ever heard it made. And I’m one of those awful exclusive Protestants! I’m going to link this tomorrow. Thank you Ari for writing this! Yes – disagreement does not imply hate. Disagreement does not imply that treating someone badly is OK. In fact, as my level of confidence in Christian truth claims increases, so does my belief in the words of Jesus, “love your enemies”. We can disagree about some things, and still treat each other with respect. I respect Ari and Dr. J very much.

Not that Ari and Dr. J are my enemies! I was just pointing out that I have to love everyone, even my enemies!

Ari, that was a great post.

I note that you seem to be very secure in your religious beliefs, just as I am very secure in mine. I think that fact helps to explain why you and I both would take only a limited amount of offense at being told that our faith practices are morally wrong, etc.

However, it is clear that some people (including some commenters on this blog) do take great offense at being told that their beliefs or actions are wrong. Could this be an indicator that such folks do not have the same security in their beliefs or worldview that you and I have?

I don’t know the answer to that question, but it is one that occurred to me.

However, it is also possible that the great offense taken at the assertion that homosexual acts are immoral could have another source. Perhaps this reaction stems from the fact that many people with a homosexual orientation have been badly (and wrongly, I believe) stigmatized simply for their orientation or sexual preference.

Thus when they hear someone assert that homosexual acts are immoral, but without condemning homosexually-oriented persons based on orientation, they automatically fit that assertion into their pre-defined template which says that any criticism related to homosexuality is a critism of the homosexually-oriented person himself or herself.

Of course, in doing so they are mistaken, in that they are hearing something that was not said. But perhaps it is at least somewhat understandable why such a mistake could be made. The only problem is that this excuse does not work for anyone who has spent sufficient time at a blog such as this one, because it seems to me that after some time, a person should be able to see past his initial incorrect assumptions.

There’s no call for making up disrespectful nicknames for people who disagree with you about the existence of a god. Or should I call you Arf?

And while I don’t know what Mr. Harris thinks (except that he doesn’t think there’s a god), I do know that neither Dr. Dawkins nor Dr. Dennett is or would claim to be a rationalist. Dr. Dawkins is an eminent scientist, Dr. Dennett is an accomplished philosopher, and both ground their work quite firmly in the observable world.

NOM ought to consider recruiting an atheist.

Ari, interesting point. But what people are concerned about are not these little, comical pamphlets but more on stories such as this one:
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/20/132147169/anti-gay-atmosphere-permeates-uganda

There is a huge difference between someone telling you to believe a different way, and wishing you dead. It is the promotion of bodily harm, the attempt to portray homosexuals as less than human, deserving of punishment.

Oh brother, are you guys dense. The issue is about condemning people for something they have no control over, and the manifestations of that condemnation. When there is an institutionalized and visible disdain/hate/condemnation towards members of a group, it creates an atmosphere that legitimizes violence and discrimination.

Even if you have a sincere belief that gay people are defective or deserve second-class treatment, that belief leads to unintended (I certain hope) consequences. Here’s a hypothetical:

1. A gay teenager decides to wear a t-shirt to high school with a rainbow flag on it. He’s not out to offend anyone but he also wants to express something that matters in his life (just last week, his close friend wore her t-shirt “Christians aren’t perfect, just saved!”). Unfortunately, some overly aggressive straight classmates decided that “these gays are going too far; why can’t they just keep it to themselves?!” The gay guy gets beaten up in the parking lot.

One of the reasons those teens felt it was ok to beat up the gay guy was because they perceive that society doesn’t like gays and that gays are second-class citizens. Gosh, why would they think society doesn’t like gays, when there are so many religious people around saying God wants them put to death (Leviticus), or that no way are we going to sit idly by and let them get married!

I hope you get the picture. Gay people get fired because some boss doesn’t want “those people” around, or they kicked out of an apartment for the same reason.

If you want to contribute to the environment that promotes hostility, violence, sometimes even suicide and murder, at least have the integrity to own it. Admit that you think so little of gay people that your treasured “traditional marriage” silliness is important enough to you that you’re willing to risk the lives of gay people. Own the fact that you are willing to keep the children of same-sex couples in a less secure family environment, because you want to stop their parents from getting married. Own the shame and embarrassment that you trigger in these children: “is there something wrong with my parents that they aren’t allowed to get married?”

“Disagreement does not imply that treating someone badly is OK.”

If only we were talking about mere disagreement, as in, “I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, and I’ll follow that belief in my own life, but if someone wants to marry a same-sex partner, that is his or her choice.”

NOM and RI want to ban same-sex marriage. Make it illegal. And the rhetoric they employ to achieve that goal demonstrates their disdain for gay people and same-sex relationships. Contributing, sadly, to continued marginalization of gay people and their children.

James Watson and Francis Crick identified the double-helix structure of DNA. Easy question.

Cosmic microwave background radiation (with Wilson at Bell Labs) and the double helix structure of DNA (with Francis Crick)!!!

I have to know this because as a theist we rely on the origin of the universe and the origin of biological information as two arguments that support a Creator and Designer of the universe and life, respectively.

The thing about Dawkins is that he doesn’t debate a lot. Out top Christian debater, William Lane Craig, has debated lots of good atheists, like Lewis Wolpert, Peter Atkins, Christopher Hitchens and so on. But Dawkins keeps ducking Dr. Craig.

I don’t see Alexander’s original comment, though, Ari.

Mark :
Ari, interesting point. But what people are concerned about are not these little, comical pamphlets but more on stories such as this one:
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/20/132147169/anti-gay-atmosphere-permeates-uganda
There is a huge difference between someone telling you to believe a different way, and wishing you dead. It is the promotion of bodily harm, the attempt to portray homosexuals as less than human, deserving of punishment.

Who on this blog, either in the blog posts or in the comments, is wishing anyone dead, promoting bodily harm, attempting to portray homosexuals as less than human, or claiming that homosexuals are deserving of punishment? I certainly haven’t seen anything that comes even close to those grave accusations (though it is possible that I missed a crazy comment somewhere). So if no one here is doing any of those things, then I think that Ari clearly has a good point!

Sean :
If only we were talking about mere disagreement, as in, “I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, and I’ll follow that belief in my own life, but if someone wants to marry a same-sex partner, that is his or her choice.”

I agree that that is their choice (though I think that any such so-called marriage would be fictional). If two men or two women want to go to their church, or to any other authority that they recognize and respect (even if that authority is simply themselves), and have a “marriage” ceremony, then they should be (and are) free to do so.

But that is not the question at hand. The question rather is whether or not the government can and should treat those relationships identically to the way it treats marriages, in terms of legal privileges and protections that it grants.

NOM and RI want to ban same-sex marriage. Make it illegal.

Do they? I don’t.

Now, it is true that I don’t want the government to give legal recognition to same-sex relationships as if they were marriages. But that is not the same thing as making such relationships illegal, or saying that you can’t call them marriage.

Making such relationships illegal implies that if two men or two women go through a “marriage” ceremony in a church, then the police could show up and arrest them. Obviously, such a ceremony is not going to lead to arrests, and I would be outraged if it did.

“Religiosity is heavily genetically influenced. I venture to say that religiosity is a trait that people have little or no control over. Every argument you have been bringing to support your case can be applied the other way around. I advise you to choose the principles you advocate carefully.”

I don’t doubt it. There may very well be a “god” gene. God is not religion, though. Religion is man’s way of worshiping a perceived god. There’s thousands of religions on the planet. There is no genetic propensity to believe one particular religion or another. After parental indoctrination, mostly it depends on geography: where you were born is the single biggest determinant of what religious beliefs you hold. I’m not sure how who your parents are, or geography, holds the key to revealed truth, but there you have it.

People go in and out of faith beliefs like Kleenex. There are casual believers, strict believers, a whole range of what’s believed and practiced. Sexual orientation is far less variable, as is sexual practice. If you claim to be a heterosexual male, I can pretty closely determine your sexual likes.

Ari: “yet you waste your time debating with civilized people like us.”

Hardly civilized. Like calling a lion civilized because it eats it’s kill with a knife and fork.

Paul H: You obviously are not paying attention. The statements are subtle, sometimes cloaked in a mantle of civility where none really exists. But they are there.

Treating same sex couples as something less than opposite sex couples; referring to homosexuals as carriers of deadly diseases and comparing homosexuals to pedophiles (or implying that they all are pedophiles) is form of hate. These are not comments about a persons beliefs, but against the person themself. When people (and apparently a lot on this blog) to not know a gay or lesbian person, those stereotypes build on one another. Many people know Christians, Jews and Catholics so they can view Ari’s comic through a realistic filter. If all a person knows about gays and lesbians is what one hears from such groups as NOM, Focus on the Family, they lack a realistic filter and it can lead to violence.

The issue of whether or not the participants in the Ruth Institute Blog are “civilized” brings up the issue of integrity and trust.
I have every confidence that the administrators of this blog would never knowingly use personal information for gain or to intimidate those who disagree with them, etc.
I appreciate that, as there are other blogs about which I am not so trusting.
I wonder if anyone who tends toward disagreement with some of this blog’s basic premises feels otherwise.

“I don’t want the government to give legal recognition to same-sex relationships as if they were marriages. But that is not the same thing as making such relationships illegal, or saying that you can’t call them marriage.”

Huh? Civil marriage, that is, government recognized marriage is what gay couples are after. Right now, the government is saying, in 45 states still, that gay couples can’t get married. How is that not calling them married? If you don’t want gay couples to be legally recognized as married, then you are against same-sex marriage. It’s all about who can and cannot get a marriage license. Why is the government giving some couples a marriage license, and not others?

Why is the government giving some couples a marriage license, and not others?

Because not all couples are equal. Two left shoes doesn’t equal a “pair of shoes” and two boys playing house together doesn’t equal a “man and wife”.

Separate just isn’t equal.

Marty: “Because not all couples are equal.”

Yes, some are black, some are white, some are half black and half white. No different if a couple is all male, all female or half and half. But, if you do not allow all couples to participate, it’s discrimination.

“Separate just isn’t equal.”

Exactly which is why SSM needs to be legalized.

“Because not all couples are equal.”

Makes no sense. There’s a bigger difference between a fertile couple and a non-fertile couple, and the government makes no distinction between them, so long as they’re straight.

How is a same-sex couple unworthy of a marriage license, but an opposite-sex couple is worthy? What worth is a straight couple bringing to society that a gay couple isn’t?

Ari, LOL I LOVE how you call someone names while disapproving of the act of name calling.

Here’s something I wrote about Ari on my blog:

“How does he respond to disagreements with Protestants or atheists? He debates them. He doesn’t call them names. He doesn’t claim they are inciting violence. He doesn’t pass laws to silence them. He doesn’t force them to pay fines. He doesn’t put them in jail. He doesn’t seize their children. He doesn’t enact laws to force his views on other people in the schools. He doesn’t pass laws to force private companies to do sensitivity training of all employees. He doesn’t award grants and scholarships on the basis of agreement with him. Etc. He debates people who disagree with him. And if they don’t agree with him, he leaves them alone.”

I side with Ari because Ari doesn’t try to force me to celebrate and affirm him. One of the things that people who read my blog know about me is that I am chaste. I don’t involve sex in my courting of women. And I have heard tons of people say all kinds of nasty things to me about my chastity and turn up their noses at me when they pass me in the hall. And you know what? It never once occurred to me to sue them, to fine them, to put them on trial, to have them fired, or any other silencing or coercion, in order to get them to celebrate my chastity. Chastity is right. It is right whether anyone believes it or not. I don’t really care what anyone else thinks about what I am doing. I don’t need your approval to be me. I have an audience of One. My ambition is to be pleasing to Him and to acknowledge Him in all ways.

@Sean
“How is a same-sex couple unworthy of a marriage license, but an opposite-sex couple is worthy? What worth is a straight couple bringing to society that a gay couple isn’t?”

We give a license to have sex to people whose sexual activities are of a type that has been shown to produce children.
We do not include, however, people who are already married to someone else, as that is disruptive to the family and social structure.
We also do not include groups of more than two people, for the same reason.
We have also decided as a society that children and close relatives are not suitable marriage partner categories.

It is currently possible to obtain a non-consensual divorce without cause.
This is wrong and needs to be changed.
At that point, our marriage laws will have come back up a slope the descent of which is sometimes mistakenly called “progress” and returned to the heights which centuries of human experience have afforded them.

“Why is the government giving some couples a marriage license, and not others?”

Depends on whether procreating offspring together would be OK or prohibited. That’s why siblings can’t marry.

Ari, nice try. But, of course, you come back with some senseless character attack because you are unable to respond any other way. Really sad.

Wintery Knight, and my guess is no one has wanted to kill you or do you bodily harm (except maybe the women you have “courted” because you are chaste.

John, is it ok for women approaching menopause to procreate? Studies show they are much more likely to have defective babies. Since you seem obsessed with having the government determine who may, and who may not, procreate, where does the high-risk mother (or father, for that matter) fall? What about Hugh Hefner and his new fiance? He would be a rather elderly father, and unlikely to see any new children to their majority. Should he be prohibited from procreating with his new wife?

The US Supreme Court has already ruled that a convicted murderer has a right to get married, and therefore, in your mind, procreate. Gosh, if the government insists that marriage and procreation is so fundamental that even murderers can’t be stopped from doing it, on what basis can you argue that anyone else should be prevented?

Mark :
Paul H: You obviously are not paying attention. The statements are subtle, sometimes cloaked in a mantle of civility where none really exists. But they are there.

My reading comprehension is fine, and I assume that we are reading many of the same posts and comments on this blog. But again, you said that you were concerned about “the promotion of bodily harm, the attempt to portray homosexuals as less than human, deserving of punishment.” I just don’t see those things in the comments here (though of course I have to include the caveat that I haven’t read every comment on every post). And since you haven’t provided any specific examples, there’s really not much more I can say.

Sean :
Huh? Civil marriage, that is, government recognized marriage is what gay couples are after. Right now, the government is saying, in 45 states still, that gay couples can’t get married. How is that not calling them married? If you don’t want gay couples to be legally recognized as married, then you are against same-sex marriage. It’s all about who can and cannot get a marriage license. Why is the government giving some couples a marriage license, and not others?

I am against the state recognizing/licensing/promoting same-sex relationships as marriages, because I believe that doing so would be creating a legal fiction, much the same as if my child’s birth certificate listed me as the mother and my wife as the father.

However, that is not the same as saying that same-sex “marriage” is or should be illegal. When something is illegal, there is typically a penalty involved. For example, if I exceed the speed limit (and am caught), I have to pay a fine. If I steal something, I may have to serve time in prison. Etc.

However, if two members of the same sex go through a “marriage” ceremony, pledge lifelong commitment to each other, call themselves “married,” live together, and adopt children together, I am not aware of any state government that will fine them, or put them in jail, or give any other punishment for those actions. That is why I say that it is misleading to claim that same-sex “marriage” is illegal, or that pro-marriage folks like me want to make it illegal.

I know this is a different subject than the government licensing/recognition of same-sex relationships that same-sex “marriage” advocates are seeking. However, you said that people on my side of the debate want to make same-sex “marriage” illegal, and I think that that is a very misleading statement. Because that statement conjures up images of gay couples participating in secretive, clandestine “weddings,” and possibly being arrested and hauled off to jail if they get caught. But this is not happening, and I am not aware of anyone who is advocating this.

Paul H. if you wish to turn a blind eye to the insults and suggestions of second class citizenry, I guess that’s your choice. I just pray noone ever begins to refer to you as less than human and giving reasons of why you should not be allowed to exist.

“you said that people on my side of the debate want to make same-sex “marriage” illegal”

Gay couples want their marriages recognized legally. They aren’t children, playing in the yard and having pretend weddings. They have committed relationships, families to protect, and loved ones who want them to have the security of a marital relationship. So I stand by my observation: you want same-sex marriage illegal.

I’m curious, do straight people have weddings and call themselves married, even if they possess no marriage license.

Why is it so important to you that a same-sex couples not be permitted to have a marriage license?

Paul H,

Thank you for making this important point. Sean accuses the Ruth Institute of wanting to “ban” gay marriage, but that is a misrepresentation and a misuse of the language.

If someone wants to “ban” handguns they mean to prohibit their production or possession and confiscate them. If someone says a handgun should be not classified as a rifle or as a slingshot or anything else it is not traditionally defined as being, that is not the same as advocating “banning” handguns.

While some others might wish to “ban” gay relationships, I don’t think any of the contributors to this site have advocated this, contrary to Sean’s repeated charge.

As for unlicensed straight marriages being illegal – it depends on whether the marriage would be allowed or not. Check out the Massachusetts incest law:

Section 17
Incestuous marriage or sexual activities
Persons within degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are prohibited or declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry or have sexual intercourse with each other, or who engage in sexual activities with each other, including but not limited to, oral or anal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, or other penetration of a part of a person’s body, or insertion of an object into the genital or anal opening of another person’s body, or the manual manipulation of the genitalia of another person’s body, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years.

See how it really does ban “incestuous marriage” and punishes people who “intermarry”, even if they don’t go get a marriage license? Obviously, they cannot go get a marriage license (or, perhaps they got one without knowing, or by lying, in which case it is declared void). Also, note that it assumes that marriage implies sexual intercourse (the list of lewd “activities” in addition to intercourse was added in recently), as there is no crime for a brother and sister to live together and raise children together, the crime is living as a married couple, meaning, a couple that has sex together and might possibly procreate together.
We should ban people from possibly procreating with someone of the same sex, not just from getting a marriage license.

Ari: “When I see your comments on my posts, a sense of ennui and boredom settle over me. ”

That’s an inability to answer rationally that you feel. I understand your lack of response. It takes thought to respond to clarity instead of unsupportable beliefs.

Leo, your example is not quite accurate. A better way is saying, people can own a handgun, even those who do not know how to shoot it. Unless you are black. That would still be a ban on handguns for blacks.

@Ari

‘Let me use big words to try and sound smart and then be totally rude for no reason other than the fact that I am incapable of besting mark in an argument.’

There, thats a pretty good summary.

Mark, I don’t buy your restatement of the definition problem. It just brings up the red herring of race.

The gay community continually relies on the false analogy of sex to race. They cannot make their case without it. And they can’t make their case without redefining marriage from what it was universally considered in American law until rather recently.

In fact it is relatively easy to define a handgun and relatively easy to define marriage. It is rather hard to define race. Race is very slippery concept. What is black? President Clinton was famously called our first black president, and President Obama is biologically at least as white as black. The segregationists made the argument that one black ancestor made you black no matter what your skin color (the background of Plessy v Fergeuson) or how many white ancestors you had. That is biological nonsense. Race in America was a social construct.

The definition of male and female, however, was never in doubt and was properly not considered a social construct. Nor was what constituted a marriage in doubt until recently when a change in the definition of marriage was demanded by the homosexual lobby. Indeed, it was the reproductive and hence heterosexual aspect of marriage that threatened the segregationists with mixed race children (called by the segregationists a “mongrel race”), and it was the procreative aspect of marriage that made it fundamental to survival (see Loving v. Virginia). Now we are told that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction.

The definition of marriage was not the issue. Whites and blacks agreed exactly on what marriage was. Dictionary definitions of marriage were the same in white and black communities. Note also that Baker v. Nelson came after Loving v. Virginia.

Finally, note that if I can change the definition of a word at will and get away with it, I can win every argument and every case.

Leo: “The definition of male and female, however, was never in doubt and was properly not considered a social construct.”

Actually, Leo, defining “male” and “female” has been a questionable issue in the past. At birth, if there is an appearance of a penis, the baby is classified as male. This had lead to numerous individuals being incorrectly classified. There is also the

“Nor was what constituted a marriage in doubt until recently when a change in the definition of marriage was demanded by the homosexual lobby.”

But, Leo, that is simply not true. That is why the issue of race enters in. For the anti-miscegenation people a half century ago, marriage was defined by one race only. The idea of what constituted a marriage, for them, was significantly changed.

It always reminds me of a song from then musical “Shenandoah” talking about the Civil War:
“Stand and show your colors. Let’s all go to war. Lord will surely bless us. I’ve heard it all before. I’ve heard it all a hundred times. I’ve heard it all before.

They always got a holy cause to march you off to war. Tyranny or justice, anarchy or law. We must defend our honor. I’ve heard it all before. I’ve heard it all a hundred times. I’ve heard it all before.

They always got a holy cause that’s worth the dyin’ for. Someone writes a slogan, raises up a flag. Someone finds an enemy to blame. The trumpet sounds the call to arms to leave the cities and the farms. And always, the ending is the same, the same, the same, the same.

The dream has turned to ashes, the wheat has turned to straw. And someone asks the question: “What’s the dyin’ for?” The living can’t remember, the dead no longer care. But next time it won’t happen. Upon my soul I swear. I’ve heard it all a hundred times. I’ve heard it all before.

Don’t tell me “It’s different now.” I’ve heard it all, I’ve heard it all, I’ve heard it all before.”

“Race in America was a social construct.”

Not exactly, but it does point out that limiting marriage to different-gender couples is also a social construct, one that doesn’t comport with our nation’s laws.

Sean :
Gay couples want their marriages recognized legally. They aren’t children, playing in the yard and having pretend weddings. They have committed relationships, families to protect, and loved ones who want them to have the security of a marital relationship. So I stand by my observation: you want same-sex marriage illegal.

Since I advocate no legal penalties for a same-sex couple that attempts marriage, I respectfully disagree. And I still contend that your statement misrepresents my view and the view of many on this side of the debate, by implying that we seek legal penalties when we do not.

I’m curious, do straight people have weddings and call themselves married, even if they possess no marriage license.

Hypothetically, if the state had refused a marriage license to my wife and I for reasons that we knew were invalid, then yes, we would have done exactly that.

Why is it so important to you that a same-sex couples not be permitted to have a marriage license?

Because they cannot marry. To call them married would be a legal fiction. Also because I do not believe that the state has good reason to privilege and regulate relationships that cannot by their nature result in offspring, and which do not provide children of the union (i.e., children who are adopted, procreated by artificial insemination, etc.) the opportunity to be raised by a mother and father. But Dr. Morse has explained this better and in more detail than the quick summary I have given here; please refer to any of her work for more detail.

Leo :
While some others might wish to “ban” gay relationships, I don’t think any of the contributors to this site have advocated this, contrary to Sean’s repeated charge.

Well said.

Leo :
The gay community continually relies on the false analogy of sex to race. They cannot make their case without it. And they can’t make their case without redefining marriage from what it was universally considered in American law until rather recently.

(…)

The definition of male and female, however, was never in doubt and was properly not considered a social construct. Nor was what constituted a marriage in doubt until recently when a change in the definition of marriage was demanded by the homosexual lobby. Indeed, it was the reproductive and hence heterosexual aspect of marriage that threatened the segregationists with mixed race children (called by the segregationists a “mongrel race”), and it was the procreative aspect of marriage that made it fundamental to survival (see Loving v. Virginia). Now we are told that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction.
The definition of marriage was not the issue. Whites and blacks agreed exactly on what marriage was. Dictionary definitions of marriage were the same in white and black communities. Note also that Baker v. Nelson came after Loving v. Virginia.

Again, well said!

“Since I advocate no legal penalties for a same-sex couple that attempts marriage, I respectfully disagree.”

Uh ok, well then you don’t want same-sex marriage to be legal. Is that better? If something isn’t legal, it’s illegal, isn’t it? Must there be criminal charges for something to be illegal? Is there a word you’d prefer?

“Hypothetically, if the state had refused a marriage license to my wife and I for reasons that we knew were invalid, then yes, we would have done exactly that.”

But again, that’s fine for children, because the adults around them know better. But if you are not legally married, and file a tax return, for example, as a married couple, you have broken the law. If you refuse to testify against a spouse in a court of law claiming you’re married, and you’re not, you’ll go to jail.

“Because they cannot marry. To call them married would be a legal fiction.”

Well, tell that to Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, DC, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Because they are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and treating them as married. And New York Rhode Island and Maryland recognize those marriages as legal.

“Hypothetically, if the state had refused a marriage license to my wife and I for reasons that we knew were invalid, then yes, we would have done exactly that.”

Who gets to decide if the reasons are invalid? I think the state does. I mean, if you are upset that the state won’t let you marry because your girlfriend is 16, or you are already married, well, your opinion doesn’t matter. Maybe your girlfriend is your first cousin, and you are in a state that doesn’t allow it? Still, you’re opinion doesn’t matter. You can move to a different state, or try to get the legislature to change the law, but if you just go ahead and marry anyway, that is incest, or in those other cases, statutory rape or adultery. Those are serious crimes and you can’t just go ahead and marry because you think the state is wrong about them.

John Howard :
“Hypothetically, if the state had refused a marriage license to my wife and I for reasons that we knew were invalid, then yes, we would have done exactly that.”
Who gets to decide if the reasons are invalid? I think the state does. I mean, if you are upset that the state won’t let you marry because your girlfriend is 16, or you are already married, well, your opinion doesn’t matter. Maybe your girlfriend is your first cousin, and you are in a state that doesn’t allow it? Still, you’re opinion doesn’t matter. You can move to a different state, or try to get the legislature to change the law, but if you just go ahead and marry anyway, that is incest, or in those other cases, statutory rape or adultery. Those are serious crimes and you can’t just go ahead and marry because you think the state is wrong about them.

In my hypothetical situation, I wasn’t thinking of incest or of one person being too young — situations where there is little if any disagreement that a marriage cannot occur. I was thinking of something like the following, which is probably (hopefully) a very far-fetched situation:

Suppose that a very strongly anti-Catholic government came into power, and that that government refused to issue marriage licenses to Catholics. My wife and I are Catholic (no need to assume a hypothetical there). Presuming that my church would resist the government and perform marriages anyway (since it is unjust to prevent someone from marrying because of their religion), and if this were some years ago when my wife and I were preparing to marry, we would go to church and get married, and let the government think what they want.

Don’t get me wrong; we certainly wouldn’t be happy about the situation. But we also wouldn’t think that the government had the power to stop us from truly being married, just because it was taken over by anti-religious bigots.

I have heard of churches performing same-sex “weddings,” even in places where the government does not recognize such unions as marriages. I assume that the same-sex couples who participate in such ceremonies are thinking somewhat along the same lines as my hypothetical example above.

Sean :
Is there a word you’d prefer?

Good question, and honestly, I don’t have a great answer. Again, my point of view is that in common usage, “illegal” implies an activity that carries some potential punishment. However, I do acknowledge that I don’t have a perfect alternate term to suggest.

But again, that’s fine for children, because the adults around them know better. But if you are not legally married, and file a tax return, for example, as a married couple, you have broken the law. If you refuse to testify against a spouse in a court of law claiming you’re married, and you’re not, you’ll go to jail.

I didn’t say that we would file our taxes as a married couple. You seem to be drawing an equivalence between a number of concepts that I think potentially can be separate, namely: (1) whether or not a couple is truly married, (2) whether or not the couple can be confident that they are truly married, and (3) whether the couple is recognized as married by the government.

Apparently, you see these three questions as having a single answer, while I don’t. I think it is possible that I could be married to my wife, and know that I am married to my wife, even if the government refused to recognize our marriage, thus forcing us to file separate tax returns, etc.

To clarify, I wouldn’t be happy with such a situation by any means. And of course I would advocate to have our marriage recognized by the government. But my point is that I wouldn’t doubt that we were married — and that’s a lot more important than our tax filing status!

It is interesting to me that at least among people who I have discussed this issue with, same-sex couples seem not to have that same level of certainty when it comes to marriage. Even in the case of a Christian man I talked with who is in a monogamous homosexual relationship, who presumably could find a liberal church somewhere to conduct a wedding ceremony for him and his partner, still he seemed hesitant at the idea that he could be truly married to his partner without government approval.

It makes me wonder if at some level these couples actually doubt the validity of “marriages” between same-sex couples. Perhaps they feel the need for society as a whole (represented by the government) to reassure them that they truly can be married to each other, in order to overcome this doubt. But I don’t know — this is just speculation.

“Because they cannot marry. To call them married would be a legal fiction.”
Well, tell that to Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, DC, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Because they are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and treating them as married. And New York Rhode Island and Maryland recognize those marriages as legal.

You seem to be saying that if the law says something is so, then it must be so. I disagree with that statement. And I don’t think you truly believe that either, since the law regarding marriage does not agree with your view in the majority of U.S. states (i.e., most or all except the ones you mentioned).

Paul H.: “Also because I do not believe that the state has good reason to privilege and regulate relationships that cannot by their nature result in offspring, and which do not provide children of the union (i.e., children who are adopted, procreated by artificial insemination, etc.) the opportunity to be raised by a mother and father. ”

So, once again, explain HOW you can justify the state to “privilege and regulate relationships” of infertile opposite sex couples? And explain why my sister and husbands marriage should not be offered the same respect as other marriages because my nephew was conceived with “artificial insemination”.

You arguments are a thin veil to prohibit same sex couples from marrying. Denying their families the same protections your family enjoys. If it is not bigotry, then why do you feel those families different from you should not have the same rights?

Mark :
So, once again, explain HOW you can justify the state to “privilege and regulate relationships” of infertile opposite sex couples?

I’m honestly not sure why this is such a sticking point. Infertile opposite-sex couples are in no way analogous to same-sex couples in terms of sexuality and fertility. Homosexual sex by its very nature is sterile. No matter how many times a homosexual sex act occurs, the chance of conception will always remain at absolutely 0%. There would never be even a one in a million chance, or even a one in a billion chance, that such an act could result in the conception of a child, because homosexual sex acts are simply not the proper kind of act to conceive a child.

But the same is not true at all of opposite-sex couples who are infertile. If the couple is capable of engaging in coitus, then even if the possibility of conception is extremely low, it still is not quite 0%. And a couple that is believed to be infertile today may be found to be fertile tomorrow, with advances in medical technology. (In fact, even a couple believed to be incapable of engaging in coitus today might be capable of doing so tomorrow with new medicines to treat impotence.)

But the bottom line is that the act of coitus is the proper kind of act which can result in conception of a chlid. Two men (without a woman) cannot engage in this act, nor can two women (without a man). They can only engage in acts which may in some ways mimic coitus, but which by their very nature are incapable of resulting in conception.

And explain why my sister and husbands marriage should not be offered the same respect as other marriages because my nephew was conceived with “artificial insemination”.

Their marriage should be offered the same respect as other marriages. Please refer to my previous paragraph, which applies to them the same as to any other married couple that is infertile, or believed to be infertile. (I don’t approve of artificial insemination, but the fact that they used that method does not invalidate their marriage.)

And what I am saying here is not a new idea. Traditionally, a marriage has been considered to be consumated once the couple has engaged in coitus, regardless of whether or not a child is conceived as a result.

You arguments are a thin veil to prohibit same sex couples from marrying. Denying their families the same protections your family enjoys. If it is not bigotry, then why do you feel those families different from you should not have the same rights?

Ad hominem; no additional response needed.

Paul H. :”No matter how many times a homosexual sex act occurs, the chance of conception will always remain at absolutely 0%.”

As is with many infertile couples.
It’s an issue because you continue to deny equal rights to gays and lesbians based on an argument that has numerous inconsistencies in it.

“Their marriage should be offered the same respect as other marriages. ”

How gracious of you. Then the SAME respect should be offered same sex couples as well.

“Traditionally, a marriage has been considered to be consumated (sic) once the couple has engaged in coitus, regardless of whether or not a child is conceived as a result. ”

No, it was ASSUMED. Did society ever check? If this is SO important to marriage, why are there not laws to CONFIRM coitus? Because this is a great straw man argument. Anti-SSM individuals can only point to an inability to procreate as a reason to deny marriage, regardless of the fact that for GENERATIONS procreation was not an absolute for marriage, PERIOD. But, its all about appearances. Sad to DENY fellow citizens there equal rights based on appearance. Oh, thats what they did in the past with interracial couples.

Paul H, I guess the only kind of marriage that same-sex couples are interested, I suspect, is the kind where they possess a government marriage license. That is the kind of marriage that guarantees them the legal protections and rights they seem to want. I don’t think it’s enough to just “feel” like they’re married, a condition you seem to accept. I’ve heard many gay couples say they feel they’re married and maybe that is enough for some of the them. I think they all deserve the same rights as straight people, including the right to marry.

Paul H :
You seem to be drawing an equivalence between a number of concepts that I think potentially can be separate, namely: (1) whether or not a couple is truly married, (2) whether or not the couple can be confident that they are truly married, and (3) whether the couple is recognized as married by the government.

I agree with that, but I think there is a big difference between the government simply not recognizing a marriage and prohibiting it. For example, It’s one thing to get married without a license, and perhaps escaping the fornication charge, because you did solemnize a marriage and act in your hearts as though you were truly getting married, in which case the government would almost always record the marriage as a valid marriage when they become aware of it, and a completely different thing to be in a forbidden relationship that would not be allowed to marry. (And I guess a third different thing is simple fornication, engaging in coitus without intending to remain faithful spouses). You used an example of forbidding Catholics from marrying, which is similar from forbidding mixed race marriages in that it violates basic civil rights to be forbidden to marry, or be forbidden to marry certain other people. In such cases, the state is right and you are wrong until you manage to challenge the law and have it changed. Some reasons to be prohibited are supportable (incest, children, existing marriage) and others are not supportable (race, religion).

@Paul H
And I agree with everything you wrote about infertile couples as well, but again think you left something out that is important. It is not just about the possibility of procreation, because 1) a brother and sister are the “kind” of couple that has a possibility of procreation, but we don’t let them marry, and 2) even same-sex couples have a possibility of procreation if they use new genetic engineering techniques like was used to create the mice with two mothers and with two fathers. The only thing the state cares about, is whether we should let a couple try to procreate, not if they actually can procreate or not. And we shouldn’t let a same-sex couple try to procreate. Unless we make a law that prohibits same-sex procreation, we should let them marry, because we are letting them procreate. But we should certainly make such a law, because it would be terribly unethical to allow researchers to make human embryos and fetuses in experiments to work on same-sex procreation.

John Howard: “The only thing the state cares about, is whether we should let a couple try to procreate, not if they actually can procreate or not. And we shouldn’t let a same-sex couple try to procreate.”

LOL, can you not even keep your own argument consistent? At one moment, you all about procreation. In another, it’s not about procreation but whether the law should allow a couple to try to procreate.

But then your true anti-gay colors come through with your last statement. Sad.

@Mark
Mark, go back and look at the post with a picture of Henry VIII and the following post. No one confirmed coitus, for the simple reason that the overbearing power of the state is a strictly modern invention. The intrusion into the marriage bed would have been unthinkable. Only a Leftist would even think of such a thing.
but a married person, on his or her own initiative, could get an annulment on the grounds that the marriage hadn’t been consummated. If you look at my posts, you’ll see a historical example of exactly that.

Mark, it’s always been about whether the law should allow procreation, you’ve just been slow on the uptake, apparently. And we shouldn’t allow same sex couples to procreate because their gametes do not have complementary genomic imprinting and so they require genetic engineering to procreate, it’s not because they are gay. Their gayness has nothing to do with it. We shouldn’t allow straight people to do genetic engineering also.

@Jennifer Roback Morse

“No one confirmed coitus, for the simple reason that the overbearing power of the state is a strictly modern invention. The intrusion into the marriage bed would have been unthinkable. Only a Leftist would even think of such a thing.”

Then why are you, so and many posters on this blog so concerned about what goes on in same sex households? Why do your arguments rely on “coitus” and “procreation” when even you feel it’s intrusive to prove them? The answer, of course, is that you are anti-gay. There is no other logical conclusion.

@Jennifer Roback Morse
The overbearing power of the sate is MODERN? Are you forgetting kings? How about Israel under Roman control? Modern my foot.

Mark is right, if its an intrusion to ask if a married couple has had sex, why is it not an intrusion to discriminate based on love? And before you talk about marriage becoming an institution of friendship, heterosexuals can already do that. Why are heterosexuals better?

If God made all men equal, and homosexuality is not a choice, which it isn’t, then how are heterosexual couples superior? Why does the government get to decide which relationships are better?

That’s interesting that you say homosexuality is not a choice. Seems like most people on here have said they believe it is, even those who agree with you in everything else. Just pointing that out is all. Seems like it’s still something to be debated.

@Betsy
Homosexuality is not a choice. There really isn’t any debate to that fact. It is no more a choice than being left handed. Don’t know if you went to a Catholic school, but, despite what the sisters did, it didn’t change the handiness that a person was born with although some were able to write right handed.

Okay, so you agree with Jamie. I could have sworn I’ve seen other people on here say otherwise.

And for the record, I went to public school.

@Betsy
I went to public school as well. From some of the stories my catholic friends talk about, I guess we missed out on some very colorful educational styles!

As far as people saying homosexuality is a choice: I agree people on this blog have said that it’s a choice, but it’s simply not true. I will grant that there is no one “gay” gene, but there seldom is one gene for anything in the human body (I have a masters in human genetics). However, when studies are compared between nature and nurture, the nature studies are more consistent. In other words, when people look at ideas of absent fathers, domineering mothers they do not show a strong correlation with sexual orientation.

Part of the problem with the science, I will admit, lies in the following:
1. What is the definition of homosexuality? Is it merely the act of engaging in sex with the same gender? Men in prison are not all gay yet use each other as sexual outlets. Many men in their 20’s who have sex exclusively with other men, do not consider themselves gay/homosexual (hence the rising MSM – men having sex with men definition).
2. Collection of data: since the data is self reported, it is subject to outside influences. If someone is fearful of information being released, they may be more likely to alter their answers. An interesting example of this is a test looking at homophobia (animosity) towards gays and sexual attraction. The group of men who had the most disdain for homosexuals, experienced the most arousal when shown gay porn (based on tumescence monitors). Basically, this showed that men who are most likely to oppose homosexuality, are more likely to secretly harbor some same sex attraction.
Most importantly, does it really make a difference if it’s behavior or in born? My basic feeling is no, unless it causes harm to self and others. Homosexual does not do any harm. The gays and lesbians I work with look just like my straight patients. They work hard, pay taxes, worry about the state of their cities, raise kids and try to make ends meet. The issue with gays and lesbians is the added burden of people who would deny them equality which can also harm their children.

Same-sex sexual attraction may be, or may not be, inborn.

Gay identity is a socio-political construct. It is not inborn. It is constructed as a group identity. The hard science does not support the claim that gay identity is something other than a choice.

Also, since the SSMers here insist that it is not the business of anyone else what an all-male or an all-female arrangement might do sexually, they have rejected as justification for the impositon of SSM the sexual basis for the conflation of same-sex sexual attraction (and behavior) with gay identity.

It is no one else’s business, they say, and this is why they cannot abide the sexual basis for the union of husband and wife as expressed in our laws (and traditions and customs) regarding sexual consummation, annulment, adultery-divorce, and of course the marital presumption of paternity.

Minus such a sexual basis, what is left to justify special status for marriage? What is left to justify the special status that the SSMers demand for the one-sexed scenario? Nothing that would distinguish marriage from nonmarriage; hence the trouble that SSMers have when confronted with their own arbitrary favoritism of the gay identity group when it comes to elevating the supposed gay subset of nonmarriage over and above the rest of the broad range of relationship types and kinds of living arrangements that are not marriage.

Mark :
Paul H. :”No matter how many times a homosexual sex act occurs, the chance of conception will always remain at absolutely 0%.”
As is with many infertile couples.

Sorry, but unless you are talking about couples who marry at very advanced ages (which is rare), this is not true. For most “infertile” couples who marry (i.e., one man, one woman), the chance of conception may be virtually 0%, but it is not absolutely 0%.

And again, the more important point is that such couples are engaging in the kind of act which can lead to conception. Same-sex couples are not engaging in this kind of act, and in fact cannot do so.

It’s like if I buy exactly one lottery ticket per year, while my friend never ever buys a lottery ticket for his entire life. We both have a virtually zero chance of winning the lottery. But there is a fundamental difference, because I am playing the game (even if my chance of winning is nearly zero), and he is not. So I might win the lottery, but I can say with absolutely certainty that he will not.

“Their marriage should be offered the same respect as other marriages. ”
How gracious of you. Then the SAME respect should be offered same sex couples as well.

Why? You’re saying that because I recognize the union of a man and a woman as a marriage, then I must also recognize the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, as marriage. But you have given no reason other than that you say so.

“Traditionally, a marriage has been considered to be consumated (sic) once the couple has engaged in coitus, regardless of whether or not a child is conceived as a result. ”
No, it was ASSUMED. Did society ever check? If this is SO important to marriage, why are there not laws to CONFIRM coitus? Because this is a great straw man argument.

It’s pretty simple really: Yes, of course it was assumed that married couples are engaging in coitus. That is what married couples generally do, and they are usually capable of doing so.

On the other hand, same-sex couples are never capable of engaging in coitus. It doesn’t matter if some draconian government tries to confirm this, because there is no possibility that there could ever be any such act to confirm, in the case of a same-sex couple. That is the key difference.

Sean :
Paul H, I guess the only kind of marriage that same-sex couples are interested, I suspect, is the kind where they possess a government marriage license. That is the kind of marriage that guarantees them the legal protections and rights they seem to want. I don’t think it’s enough to just “feel” like they’re married, a condition you seem to accept. I’ve heard many gay couples say they feel they’re married and maybe that is enough for some of the them. I think they all deserve the same rights as straight people, including the right to marry.

You have confirmed what I suspect may be true for many in this movement, which is that they do not truly care about marriage as many people on my side of the debate understand marriage. Instead they care about an official societal stamp of approval on their relationships.

And to reply to your comment about it being enough to “feel” like you’re married, no I don’t believe that that is enough. I’m not talking about feelings, I’m talking about actually being married, whether the government knows it or not. As I’m sure you know, marriage existed long before governments began issuing marriage licenses.

In fact, if “gay marriage” were to establish a similar track record of existing on its own (apart from government licensing), then I would be much more sympathetic to attempts to get governments to recognize “gay marriages.” However, as you have admitted, most pro-SSM activists have no interest in such an approach.

I was kind of hoping other people would get in on this discussion, but I guess it’s a dead topic.

@Chairm
“Same-sex sexual attraction may be, or may not be, inborn.”

It is Chairm, it is whether you care to accept it or not. Now, I know by hoping it could be a choice, it allows you the wiggle room to continue to hate and vilify gays. Sad.

@Paul H
“And again, the more important point is that such couples are engaging in the kind of act which can lead to conception.”

So now marriage is simply about performing an act? That would be like saying someone can play the piano because they can bang on the keys.

“Yes, of course it was assumed that married couples are engaging in coitus.”

But, WAIT! NOW marriage is based on an “assumption”.

And you REALLY feel these arguments justify your denying equality to gays and lesbians?

Mark, where my observation regarding same-sex sexual attraction accurately reflects the scientific evidence, your leap of faith does not. It is your hardline doctrinaire approach to this matter than has bult the launch pad for hating and villifying those who’d let the scientific evidence speak more loudly than gay identity politics.

Your own comments on this matter conceded, implicitly, that what I said is an accurate reflection of the scientific evidence. But you would press upon that two levels of conflation: first, that same-sex sexual attraction is inborn and unchosen, always, whereas the evidence does not support that even in terms you have conceded; second, that same-sex sexual behavior is inborn and unchosen, always, whereas the evidence does not support that even on your own terms. That makes this conflation a leap of faith in identity politics, Mark.

Meanwhile, it is an undercurrent in your subjective view of the scientific evidence that the purity of identity is what justifies your belief in the conflation. And, as with racialist identity politics, that is a dangerous basis for social policymaking and for assessing human sexuality.

These are the warning signposts along the radical path that you would have society race along.

Banging on the keys? Wrong, Mark, if they engage in the procreative act. You must realize that for most of each month a healthy and highly fertile husband and wife are effectively temporarily infertile, right?

The way you press absolutism (i.e. 100% guarantees) onto the human condition is really very tragic given that you are an intelligent human being. Afterall, with 100% certainty each and every one-sexed sexualized scenario is nonfertile by form; it is not a question of degree or variability. That is a constant.

Sure that is not really definitive of the individuals but it is just the normal state of things in a scenario which is, for the significant purposes of the procreative act, there is one sex short. Obviously, that is not to say that this is a lack sorely felt by those who’d choose to form such an arrangement. The constancy of nonfertility is also the normal state of things for the nonsexualized one-sexed scenarios — across the spectrum.

Oh, Mark, your scoffing makes your SSM complaint look empty and useless.

Is not the SSM idea based on the assumption that those who’d SSM are gay and, as per your notion of gay, are same-sex attracted and engage in same-sex sexual behavior? Is that not the basis upon which it is claimed that there is sexual orientation discrimination in the marriage law?

Yes, indeed, and yet it is really just an assumption. There is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction or behavior for those who’d SSM. Yet for marriage there is the clear legal expression of the sexual basis for the union of husband and wife — sexual consummation, annulment, adultery-divorce, and the marital presumption of paternity. None of that applies to the SSM idea, as you have attested in your attempts to dismiss this sexual basis of marriage.

So Paul’s “assumption” as perhaps you’d like to characterize it, is actually a legally expressed presumption (and that is significantly different that what you said), whereas the pro-SSM assumption is deeply discounted by your own legalistic argumentation in favor of treating SSM as marriage. You demand a cultural understanding but not a legal presumption.

Indeed, your assumption would not have a basis for vigorous legal enforcement, unlike, say, the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. Maybe some alternative legal presumption for paternity might be concocted, but it would not be based on whatever an all-male or an all-female scenario might do sexually.

Please acknowledge what you agree is true in what I have said here. I know you disagree overall, but at least you can underestand, I am confident, that there are significant differences between the SSM idea and the marriage idea and that this is brought to light when you scoffed at an assumption being the basis for a relationship status at law.

Mark :
@Chairm
“Same-sex sexual attraction may be, or may not be, inborn.”
It is Chairm, it is whether you care to accept it or not. Now, I know by hoping it could be a choice, it allows you the wiggle room to continue to hate and vilify gays. Sad.

Mark, you (and possibly also Chairm) present a false dichotomy. It is possible that same-sex attraction could be neither inborn nor a choice — it could be the product of one’s environment/upbringing.

(I agree with you Mark, that it is not a choice. But I do not claim to know to what extent it is caused by genetics vs. environment.)

Mark :
@Paul H
“And again, the more important point is that such couples are engaging in the kind of act which can lead to conception.”
So now marriage is simply about performing an act? That would be like saying someone can play the piano because they can bang on the keys.

Simply? No. Marriage is about much more than sex. But yes, the act of coitus is an essential ingredient of marriage.

And think about it: If coitus were removed from marriage, then marriage would not lead to the conception of new life. And if marriage did not lead to the conception of new life, then what reason would the government have for regulating and licensing marriage?

“Yes, of course it was assumed that married couples are engaging in coitus.”
But, WAIT! NOW marriage is based on an “assumption”.

So you would prefer for someone to check and verify that every married couple is engaging in coitus? I figured you to be an advocate for privacy within the bedroom. Perhaps I was wrong?

Oh, and in most cases no assumption is necessary anyway, since the majority of marriages historically have led to conception.

And you REALLY feel these arguments justify your denying equality to gays and lesbians?

I have no desire to deny “equality” to gays and lesbians. However, the fact is that a gay or lesbian sexual relationship is not equal to an opposite-sex sexual relationship. This is a simple fact of biology, and if you want to “blame” someone for it, then don’t look to me, because I didn’t design human biology.

Chairm :
It is no one else’s business, they say, and this is why they cannot abide the sexual basis for the union of husband and wife as expressed in our laws (and traditions and customs) regarding sexual consummation, annulment, adultery-divorce, and of course the marital presumption of paternity.
Minus such a sexual basis, what is left to justify special status for marriage? What is left to justify the special status that the SSMers demand for the one-sexed scenario? Nothing that would distinguish marriage from nonmarriage; hence the trouble that SSMers have when confronted with their own arbitrary favoritism of the gay identity group when it comes to elevating the supposed gay subset of nonmarriage over and above the rest of the broad range of relationship types and kinds of living arrangements that are not marriage.

Good points, and well written.

@Mark
“So now marriage is simply about performing an act? That would be like saying someone can play the piano because they can bang on the keys. ”

Nice analogy. But it’s about whether we should let someone play the piano in the first place, not if they are able to do it or not.

But I should clarify because sex isn’t something done by one person like playing the piano is. So in that analogy, the “someone” is actually a type of relationship, not an individual or a particular couple. So the question is, should we let some type of relationship play the piano? And the type of relationship has to be based on publicly known natural facts, such as age, marital status, sex, and relatedness. It shouldn’t involve genetic testing or other kids of screening or testing of the individuals.

@John Howard
“But it’s about whether we should let someone play the piano in the first place, not if they are able to do it or not.”

How do you know they can play if you don’t give them the chance? Who are you to make that decision?

Regarding what a child chooses, what is genetic, etc.:
I don’t think that matters.
There may be a genetic link to alcoholism, but we don’t tell people they “can’t help it” and toss them into the gutter.

@Ruth
“Regarding what a child chooses, what is genetic, etc.:
I don’t think that matters.
There may be a genetic link to alcoholism, but we don’t tell people they “can’t help it” and toss them into the gutter.”

Once again, you show you bias by comparing homosexuality to a negative condition. Why not say, someone has an inborn musical ability but should never use it, or an artistic ability but never express it? Doesn’t quite ring true as your example does it.

And, if sexual expression is a choice, Ruth, when and how did you choose to be heterosexual, homosexual or bi-sexual?

Mark,
And yet, there are alcoholics and drug addicts who would say that their addictions are not negative conditions.
Misery is often the factor that makes us aware of a negative condition.

In the entire history of the world, there has only been one person who had a perfectly healthy attitude towards sexuality.
He said,
“Come to me, all of you who are struggling and burdened, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

“Neither do I condemn you. Now go, and don’t sin any more.”

Mark, why should same-sex sexual attraction be compared with a positive condition, in your view? See John Howard’s point about the type of relationship.

* * *

When I say that homosexuality may be inborn, or may not be inborn (I do not propose a dichotomy), the point is that same-sex sexual attraction is not one and the same as gay identity. No socio-political identity is inborn even if those with such an identity share a single feature that may be, or may not be, inborn. For instance, deaf people in our society have the liberty to develop a deaf culture among deaf people. But it would be false to say that this socio-political identity is inborn to deaf people even if one were to assyne theposition that deafness is not a negative condition.

Mark,
And yet, there are alcoholics and drug addicts who do not consider their addictions to be negative conditions.
Misery is often the factor that shows a condition to be negative.

In the entire history of the human race, there has only been one person who had a perfect attitude towards, and understanding of, sexuality.
He said,
“Come to me, all of you who are struggling and burdened, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

“Neither do I condemn you. Now go, and don’t sin any more.”

Given the two-sexed nature of humankind, and the opposite-sexed nature of human generativity, and the complentarily-sexed nature of human community, it hardly seems rational to ask Ruth to say when she felt she was “heterosexual”. Human physiology and basic biology provides the answer.

But if one is going on subjective criteria about how one feels, then, that’s a different matter. The gay identity politics of our times wants to reorganize society by the gay-straight dichotomy. It is a false dichotomy but one which is pressed onto reality. In many ways it is a denial of reality. Men and women, as the manifestation of a distinctly social species, are designed for one another.

To hear some gay activists go on and on about homo- versus hetero-sexuality, one would expect them to declare that gay is a distinct subspecies of humankind. They don’t say that but they come close to meaning that with their rhetoric.

During the trial in California, the anti-8 litigants brought forth their own expert witness who reported to the courtroom that a large portion of self-identified homosexual persons had made a choice in their sexual preference.

Something like 1 in 5.

I blogged about this: Extrapolating Choice.
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2010/01/extrapolating-choice.html

If that ratio is applied to the entire adult population of America, then, something like 50 million people have chosen their sexual preference. If so, then, some gay activists are really exagerating their claims about lack of choice.

When it comes to the legal arguments of SSMers, it would appear that they are basing their claims of discrimination on selective immutability.

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2010/01/answering-ted-olson-selective.html

Mark,
As shown in your comments on this blog under:
“Marriage, ‘a difficult issue’” (September 8th 2010) comments #33 and #34 on page 2,
you and I have very different ideas of what is “wonderful”.
Our disagreement now also extends to the definition of “art”.

@Ruth

Why can you not accept homosexuality as a neutral human behavioral, and that any form of love between people is?
Homosexuality is wonderful, as is heterosexuality. Love is wonderful, God is wonderful.

Jamie,
Love is wonderful.
God is wonderful.
We, in our brokenness, reach out for things to make us feel better.
God, who loves us more than anyone else ever could, says not to do some things.
Those things are not “wonderful”.
They are “harmful”.
It takes faith to agree with God, against our own feelings, and wait for His solution to our pain.
I also takes believing friends who will wait along with us, and love, and help us.

@Ruth

Pain? I was only in pain pretending to be a heterosexual man.
Being gay isn’t harmful. And I REALLY doubt Jesus is up in heaven, waiting to tell me that, because of who I am and whom I love, I am going to hell.

@Chairm
“Mark, why should same-sex sexual attraction be compared with a positive condition, in your view?”

I find two people finding each other to be a wonderful thing whether it be opposite or same sex.

Why do you continue to insist same-sex attraction is such a negative thing?

@Ruth
Same-sex couples are just as wonderful (or awful) as opposite-sex couples. People such as you, who pretend to be Christian, do make it much more difficult for same-sex couples.

If we do not choose to obey God on earth, we will not enjoy heaven.

@Ruth
“If we do not choose to obey God on earth, we will not enjoy heaven.”

Then obey him, Ruth, ALL of what He says not just an incorrect translation. And quit trying to make life on this earth hell for people you disagree with.

@Mark
I’m telling you the truth:
“Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.”
God loves you, Mark, and He is fighting for you.

@Ruth
“God loves you, Mark, and He is fighting for you.”

I am well aware of it, thanks.

However, you have yet to tell me any truths, other than you misunderstandings.

Well, you just confirmed one of them.

@Ruth
You condescension is not very Christian.

Mark said: “other than you (sic) misunderstandings.”

@Chairm
Thank you for pointing out my typo. Course, if ANYONE knows about typos, it’s you.

Yes, Mark, I have a slight disability with my hands that flairs up from time to time. Thank you for your empathetic and considerate remarks on that score.