"To claim that you are being discriminated against because you have lost your right to discriminate against others shows a gross lack of understanding of history and oppression, as well as a disturbingly narrow understanding of Christianity."
Originally shared by Scott Elyard
http://www.adn.com/article/20150429/discrimination-simply-not-way-christ
You can't force anyone to agree with or approve of homosexual activity. You can't force anyone to make such a statement or a cake making such a statement. Do you want me to force you to agree that objects can't make you?
ReplyDeleteNot approving of someone's lifestyle choices or sexual orientation is not the same as discriminating against them.
ReplyDeleteGay "marriage" is not Christian. Christ quite clearly told us what marriage is, it's the union of a male and female, indissoluble. Matthew 19:4-6.
ReplyDeleteCivil marriage as an institution is set aside for attaching children to their natural parents. The state has no other interest in recognizing marriage.
I would agree that discrimination against these lifestyles in housing, employment, etc. would be non-Christian, but redefining marriage is approving of their lifestyle choices.
Jordan Henderson and if the US were a Christian nation, the Christian definition of marriage would be the one way to do it. Of course, Jesus skipped a lot of specific rules and commanded (and demonstrated) love for sinners of all types.
ReplyDeleteAs such a Christian case can be made for allowing any two consenting adults to marry.
Daniel Taylor I made the secular case for traditional marriage above, but why do you limit it to two consenting adults?
ReplyDeleteWhy not any number? And if consent is the only criterion, why not mother and son?
What is unique about marriage that it has traditionally been set aside for opposite sex partners?
Love is not allowing people to do what they want, it's willing the best for them.
Jordan Henderson I am not omniscient, so I do not know what is best for anyone else (and even for myself I'm guessing as often as not). Despite that, I am willing to give guidance to the uncertain, as my judgement has been refined by both success and error.
ReplyDeleteThat said, if there is no better argument against a particular marriage than tradition, perhaps we should allow it.
There are clear issues with power relationships in the case of Oedipal relationships (the namesake case being so rare as to not be legally relevant), so there is a reason other than tradition to subject them to greater scrutiny or outright forbidding them.
As far as polyamorous relationships go, that is a discussion that we are going to be having, because they are a traditional marriage model.
Daniel Taylor on the one hand, you don't know what's best for everyone, on the other, you say we have sufficient reason to forbid certain relationships.
ReplyDeleteThere are many good secular reasons for traditional marriage. There are mountains of research that children thrive best when raised by their biological parents. Thus, we set aside an institution to encourage and foster this.
I agree that polyamorous relationships make more sense and perhaps we should be considering those first. However, there are serious concerns raised by our experience with those among certain religious groups, so perhaps we shouldn't move too quickly there.
The point about Christian Love is that it isn't identical with license based on consent.
Jordan Henderson there are fundamental principles that can be used as guidelines.
ReplyDeleteOne of those principles is that forcing people to pretend to be what they are not is damaging to the individual and the society around them.
Another principle is that people will abuse power, and criminalizing deviance is an easy source of power.
As far as raising children goes, there are also studies out there that show that same-sex couples do as well as opposite sex couples (better in many cases).
Daniel Taylor there are studies both ways. Perhaps we should wait for more experience.
ReplyDeleteJordan Henderson and in the case of a lack of evidence of harm to others, the loving thing to do is to let people follow their hearts.
ReplyDeleteNot that this is an easy thing to do, especially if you are sure that they will suffer for their choice, but we can't live other people's lives for them.
Daniel Taylor Actually, the early returns from countries that have recognized Gay Marriages the longest is that marriage rates have plummeted. I think that's not good for children, but you may believe that "allowing people to follow their hearts" is the greater good.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, you have some vague idea about the harm of Oedipal relationships that makes those less desirable than "following their hearts", so, it appears the "following their hearts" is not always the greater good.
It may be that when you empty and institution of meaning, people just don't see any reason to follow the conventions.
Jordan Henderson a lot of the more liberal countries also have declining birth rates and different customs around non-married couples. It's not possible to look at one number and get a complete view of the situation on the ground.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the harm from Oedipal relationships, it falls into the "abuse of power" principal. Which is why we also have laws regarding child abuse and statutory rape. This is hardly a vague concept, though it does seem that a lot of people either can't or don't want to understand it.
Daniel Taylor Right, marriage rates have been declining rapidly, so what do we care if there's evidence that this does even more harm?
ReplyDeleteOn the "Oedipal complex" issue, I was just trying to see where you placed "following hearts" in the hierarchy of concerns.
I guess sibling marriages are fine then? How about groups of hundreds or thousands who just want to benefit from marriage? OK there, too?
I don't see where I'm opposing people "following their hearts", I'm just opposing people gaining Governmental recognition for their personal relationships.
Have a ceremony! Commit your lives to each other! I don't care.
I don't see the point in all these different arrangements. The only interest I see for the State here is recognizing unions that might result in children biologically attached to the parents.
Jordan Henderson the state involvement in marriage in the US is far beyond procreation support already, which is why even heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children get married.
ReplyDeleteSince the cases you bring up were not commonplace in the days of common law marriage (when the state was not involved), I think we can deal with them on a case-by-case basis should they come up in the future.
Daniel Taylor Well, we've never invaded people's privacy to their intent of marriage, but even when they have no intention, children often result from heterosexual unions and those serve society best when they are in the context of marriage.
ReplyDeleteSure, case-by-case basis. That makes sense. Wait, we're about to knock any argument against any consensual relationship between persons being recognized as "marriage". Maybe we should consider this carefully?
Jordan Henderson common law marriages were good enough for millennia before someone got the clever idea that every marriage needed to be "official" in order to be valid.
ReplyDeleteI doubt it would cause major catastrophe if we were to revert to that, I also don't think that it is likely to happen.
Perhaps we should follow traditional marriage, as suggested above. For example, newly weds from the Tidong tribe in Northern Borneo are not allowed to leave their house for three days and nights after the wedding. The couple is also banned from urinating or defecating during that time. It's traditional, you know.
ReplyDeleteToday, many traditions also allow many wives, just as the US tradition is to allow gay people to marry. A short tradition, but it is one. Then there is marriage as sanctified in the Bible.... like the biblical traditions on dealing with the sanctity of wives of indentured servants in Exodus.
You just give and take them.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
Rhys Taylor I know a lot of bars I can't get into.
ReplyDelete