“Gay” “Marriage,” Or, What Is Language Coming To?
1) Homosexuals are not a “minority.”
They may be a “minority” in the sense in which those who find pickles and peanut butter to be a valid sandwich concept are a “minority” (and an embattled minority, at least when I am around) but they are not a valid minority in the political sense. Women are not a numerical minority, but for the bulk of history they have been a political minority. Gender and ethnicity are both inborn, physical, visible traits that should not, but often do, inform one’s place and treatment in the society into which one is born. Homosexuality is not a trait, but an action and a lifestyle. What may be an inborn trait, though that has not been scientifically determined to most people’s satisfaction, is the tendency to be physically and sexually attracted to members of one’s own gender. Regardless, the act or habit of having sex with members of one’s own gender is certainly an act or habit, not a trait, and deserves no more (and no less) respect, praise or pride than the equivalent indulgence of one’s (conceivably inborn) preferences in food and drink. “Gay and proud” makes no more sense than “Pork-eater and proud.”
According to Paul’s dictates in the Bible, it is just as wrong for someone whose conscience does not require that he abstain from meat or wine to condemn another who abstains, as for the one who abstains to condemn the one who indulges. (This means, among other things, that those “out” gay people who openly pity and scorn “ex”-gays or those who deny their inclinations in favor of living a heterosexual or celibate life, are just as obnoxious and unjustifiable as the other way around.)
Compare abstaining from homosexual intercourse with abstaining from shrimp because you are Jewish, even though you really, really love shrimp. Say Person A does this. Person B is also Jewish, but eats shrimp because he thinks it is silly not to, and why would God create shrimp and a love for it in him if he wasn’t supposed to eat it. Person C eats shrimp without feeling the need for self-justification, because she isn’t even Jewish.
If Person A strongly feels that eating shrimp is a detestable offense against God, Person A should a) not eat shrimp and b) take reasonable and civil measures, in an appropriate milieu, to convince Persons B and C that his viewpoint is correct. In the case of Person C, A is first going to have to convert C to Judaism before any of his arguments have weight. In both cases, at some point A is just going to have to figure he’s done all he can and leave B and C to their own consciences.
Getting the law involved is not going to be constructive. Outlawing shrimp is not going to be constructive because not everyone is Jewish and religion is not supposed to be dictated by the American state. Legally compelling Jewish restaurants to serve shrimp is not going to be constructive either, for obvious reasons. People who want to eat shrimp can eat at less conscientious establishments. Churches/synagogues/mosques are not there to serve anyone’s convenience, as I am constantly explaining to those who whine about being “left behind” and “excluded” by the Christian Church. Your convictions diverge that widely from a church’s teachings, you leave the church and find a new path to God. It’s really that simple. The Church doesn’t owe you acceptance or enlightenment or spiritual comfort or a damn thing, so quit yer bellyaching.
Which brings me to my second point:
2) Marriage as a civil institution has no business to exist.
Religious marriage is a religious rite, and as such, churches have the right to apply whatever strictures they want to it. They can refuse to marry a previously divorced person, or to marry a believer to a nonbeliever, or a white person to a black person, or a barren woman to a reproductively viable man, or two people of the same gender to each other. Since marriage is a religious sacrament, it is both the right and the duty of the church to determine the appropriateness of the union which it chooses to sanction with this rite, by its own set of standards. Civil marriage is an utterly different institution, which allows for zillions of Scripturally unacceptable unions, drawing the line only at marriage of a child (not Scripturally forbidden, by the way) and marriage of two persons of the same gender. If this exception is not religiously motivated (and why should it be, when no other religious standards apply to civil marriage?) then it is totally random. Any consenting adult should, in the eyes of the law, be allowed to form a legal union with any other consenting adult, but the union should not be called marriage. Marriage should be an entirely separate and wholly religious institution or sacrament. This would remove much confusion from the public sphere.
I agree with this. Except the bit about peanut butter and pickles. Oppressor.
Warning Comment
*pickets peanut-butter-sympathizing pickles*
Warning Comment
marriage is really a bunch of americanized BS. just another outlet for controlling the masses… gay or straight, PLEASE no one get married. what really is the point?
Warning Comment
Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. Marriage is a social institution that people tend to engage in, religious or not. I agree that it shouldn’t be a government function, and that churches should be able to conduct it as they please, but any individual should also be able to conduct their marriage as they see fit. Whether other people want to recognize it is their business.
Warning Comment
Zomby: Oh, absolutely. I think if two people want to get married in a private ceremony with their psychic friend officiating and their stick insects as the bridal party, that’s a fine plan and they should consider themselves as legitimately married as anyone married in a cathedral. Just not Christian-ly. I am just lobbying for the separation of private/religious “marriage” and legal “unions.”
Warning Comment
silver: There are lots of points, which differ from couple to couple. If you are against marriage, don’t do it, but don’t go telling other people what to do. Also, I do not know in what sense marriage is “Americanized,” since the concept of marriage predates America by a considerable number of millennia.
Warning Comment
ryn: I see you are one of those folks that like to bandy words around in pursuit of accuracy or being right yourself, which one it is I am not sure. But, in response to your accusation of my telling others what to do, I did say please which is then not a command but a request. Also, “Americanized BS” was referring to the American marriage ceremony, in which the wife assumes the husband’s —>
Warning Comment
last name. This dates back to the Dark Ages, when women were bought and sold like items, and the term “rule of thumb” meant something entirely different. (If you don’t know I’ll be happy to tell you.) I believe in the power of language, and the fact that this custom is still around bothers me on more levels than I care to examine. “Telling people what to do” is a natural human characteristic –>
Warning Comment
that you yourself also partake in. I could tell you, “Don’t be a hypocrite,” and in “telling you what to do”, I have not made any impact on what you are actually going to do, because it is your personal choice whether or not to be one. No one person can directly control any other person’s free will and choice, thus making me very comfortable in speaking my mind. BTW, you told me what to do. 🙂
Warning Comment
that was very sensible, well argued and i thoroughly agree.
Warning Comment
actually, I think you picked an argument about something quite stupid. now we’re just deciphering hairbones to figure out who’s the wittiest, etc. Indeed I will continue to talk about my moral and ethical beliefs, and will continue to long after this weighty and superfluous conversation ends. So it doesn’t matter. Yep, so, being tired of arguing over stupid shyte that makes no sense/difference,
Warning Comment
and being that I can’t argue long about something I don’t care about, you win. have a nice day, enjoy your spoils. 😀
Warning Comment
The Marriage concept is not ONLY a Christian concept; so thus, how can civil unions not be allowed to be called “marriage”? If your arguement is valid (Marriage is of Christian origin) then would Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish marriages not be called or counted as a “marriage”?
Warning Comment
argument/debate/conversation topics/monkeys hairbones don’t exist just like the argument/debate/conversation topic/monkey. 😀
Warning Comment
why is this silver bean speaking slushbungle?
Warning Comment
RYN: I’m not sure I followed your last note, what was Q.E.D.?
Warning Comment
i’m jewish and i love shrimp and i love gay people and you have been added to my favorites list.
Warning Comment
RYN: Shows you that I do spell check but not grammar check.
Warning Comment
I’ll agree with the fact that a union does not neccessarily represent a marriage but I disagree with religion’s influence into federal and state law to arbitrarily decide who is allowed to be together and who isn’t.
Warning Comment
And I disagree with your assertation that homosexuality is a behavior rather than a trait. Biologically speaking, the greatest instinct is NOT self-preservation but rather preservation of the species. With that in mind, our (human) predecessors show homosexual tendencies (in almost the same proportion as us)as do their predecessors and theirs before them and so on and so forth.
Warning Comment
(c)As of present, science has not yet been able to detect or isolate a gene that determines homosexuality but they have determined higher levels of certain hormones, higher sensitivity to pheromones, etc. that homosexuals (i.e. men) share with the opposite sex (i.e. women) that makes them attracted to their same gender (i.e. men.)
Warning Comment
(c)More likely, we will discover that it’s probably a combination of genes or possible even a biochemical or bioelectrical change in vitro that determines these traits.
Warning Comment
^^^oops, assertion
Warning Comment
Yes, we need to separate legal matters from cultural and religious ones. France might be ahead of us on this. They don’t let the state to anything mixed with religion in any way. Though, they are not completely consistent in this they at least see the problem clearly. It isn’t getting fixed though. It is getting worse. Soon religions will be forced to accept government definitions.
Warning Comment
For someone who claims to be so smart , popples sure can’t read too well.
Warning Comment
RYN: Oops, my bad. Two extra words, then.
Warning Comment
RYN: I’m of the belief of honesty. She’s lying to herself as much as me. I’m just as pissed off if a guy lies to me. I hold honesty in high regard, regardless of gender or the situation.
Warning Comment
It’s why I refused to go back to where I worked last summer. I was lied to about how much I was going to be paid. I believe in honesty, it’s that simple.
Warning Comment
RYN: Why do I like her? I thought that was obvious. Emotionally, I’m an idiot.
Warning Comment
RYN: I know that I didn’t make this clear, I don’t feel like she owes me anything, it’s up to her. But I’ve said before that I’m an empath (basically I read emotions) and something’s wrong, she’s holding something back. I don’t think it’s that she likes me, but it’s nagging at me that she’s not telling me something. I’m not running around screaming like an ogre, but I’d like to know what she’s
Warning Comment
thinking.
Warning Comment
RYN: I don’t think I was clear, I heard you, and I”m not talking to her about it anymore. Would I like her to tell me? Yes, I would. But am I going to ask her about it and bother her about it? No, I won’t. If she tells me, she does, if she doesn’t, then great.
Warning Comment
in the easiest sense possible. i agree!
Warning Comment
RYN: LOL!!! Thanks for the giggles. P.S. I don’t even know who Bill Hicks is!! (Who is he?)
Warning Comment
I just came from Arsenic’s diary (what can I say–I can’t stop looking at political train wrecks), saw your note regarding your version of his movie and nearly laughed myself silly. Also loved your note on YowieMommy’s diary re Bill Hicks–loved that guy–he was hilarious.
Warning Comment
RYN: Someone woke up in a witty mood this morning didnt they?
Warning Comment
ryn: Absolutely. It doesnt mean I wouldnt disagree with them on anything though.
Warning Comment
Oh, by the way, dont you mean his or HER opinions. Some PC feminist you are!
Warning Comment
Typos happens. *nods*
Warning Comment
Oh, well thanks a lot, Sister in Christ. Ill remember that next time you question my morality. This is the last time Im responding to you.
Warning Comment