Gay Rights: A logical appeal

Atticus is the author of the progressive-right political and lifestyle blog BlogTruth. His experience spans almost a decade providing business and consulting services to firms across the globe. Stop by his blog and say hello.

It should be noted that the ideas in this commentary do not reflect the opinions of the blog owner, John Barron.  In the interest of inciting a dialogue on the issue of same-sex marriage, Barron has allowed me to post my thoughts and his response can be found HERE.

In my last two posts, HERE and HERE, I talked about how Abortion is wrong based on the idea of property rights. Almost everyone agreed. Now that we all agree about property rights I would like to explore the topic a bit further and apply the same rules to homosexuality.

Defining Marriage

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. That’s what the law tells us. So what about two individuals of the same sex? Why is it that so many Americans find it immoral for this group of individuals to have the same right – to engage in marriage under the law? Furthermore, how can the legal system justify withholding this right from a certain group of people?

It is a basic tenant of personal property rights that individuals may engage in any personal relationship they wish when their rights do not infringe on anyone else’s property. How can the government limit such a personal relationship, especially when it is between two consenting adults in which there is no victim of their actions?

To quote congressman Ron Paul:

“I think the government should just be out of it (marital rights). I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t have this argument…Who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me…if we want to have something to say about marriage it should be at the state level, and not at the federal government.

In a free society…all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized…There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage.

Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired…Why not tolerate everyone’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!” (re: Ron Paul)

Let’s Be Honest AND Consistent

An honest American will admit that the SINGLE reason the personal relationship between two members of the same sex are constricted is solely due to the Judeo-Christian values are being enforced by the Federal Government and have become the status quo of our American society. No legal, moral, or political reasoning can be given to justify the withholding of such a right to a certain minority in the population.

A religious person may argue that the majority of Americans share these Judeo-Christian beliefs, thus it is justified that the majority rule when it comes to upholding moral philosophies by law; however, how can that be when the law is to be enforced outside and independently of any religious dogma or any majority rule?

The Judeo-Christian moral code is irrelevant in cases of the law! Most religious people would agree that Satanism is immoral; however, the Satanist belief system and practice is protected under the law. Again, other issues that may be viewed as moral vices are protected as well – pornography, intoxication, and lude language, to name a few. Why does society accept these activities, but raise such concerns with homosexuality? Could it be because society, in general, enjoys the right to sometimes utilize such “immoral” behaviors? Yet the majority so willingly and hypocritically advocates the removal of another’s personal and legal rights when it does not interfere with the lives of those making or enforcing the law! Even if one may argue same sex marriage is immoral – they cannot justifiably remove the institutional right under the law!

The Evolution of Morality

Only a few decades ago our legal system thought it appropriate to limit the rights of an individual based on race – today we realize that such a notion is completely ridiculous. In the South, blacks were prohibited from eating at certain restaurants, attending the same schools, or even using the same seating section on public transit. To go a step further – it was unheard of for a person of color to engage in a relationship with anyone outside their race. Today it is morally unacceptable to argue such things! So why does society condone the limiting of basic civil and property rights to a person who happens to be attracted to, and fall in love with, a member of the same sex? Who are we so perfect to deem their relationship and feeling unworthy?

To take another approach – what is so immoral about two consenting parties engaging in the ultimate commitment to each other? Can one form an intellectually logical argument against Gay marriage? Can one deny the feelings two responsible adults feel toward each other? Can one deny the positive influence the Gay community has had on neighborhoods across America? (re: The Castro District) Wouldn’t a gay couple engaging in marriage, reaping the emotional and psychological benefits of a stable monogamous relationship be something that all Americans want for our citizens if they so choose? None of this really matters though – as this is a matter of personal liberty and property rights – not one sects view of morality!

You don’t have to agree

The simple fact is this: regardless of your personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality or Gay marriage, marriage of any kind between two consenting parties is an individual property right – they own the right to whatever relationships they deem necessary for their particular pursuit happiness! The Government has no right – naturally, legally, or constitutionally – to prohibit such a relationship from being formed. Societies current opinion on the issue is irrelevant. I will say this though – history has always sided in favor of civil rights – and in the coming decades we will look back on this restriction of personal relationships as a blemish on par with racism that we so shamefully regret today.

Comments

  1. I disagree that the SINGLE reason the personal relationship between two members of the same sex are constricted is solely due to the Judeo-Christian values….

    Long before I was a Christian and had no religious background, I KNEW same-sex unions were unnatural biologically, and that they did nothing to benefit society. That is all the reason I had to denounce same-sex relations. No religious beliefs at all – just common sense. And that is the problem – people want to deny that common sense says homosexual behavior is wrong in every way possible.

    • It seems like common sense to you, but is it? A lot of people think it is common sense to ban guns or that kinky sexy between spousal partners is disgusting. Those are just opinions. Opinions are fine, but we cannot legislate opinions when it comes to to adults making decisions for themselves. That is a slippery slope we can’t go down.

      • Common sense should apply to guns also – they can’t hurt anyone by themselves, and it takes bad people to use them in a harmful way. Just like any other tool; common sense says the tool itself is harmless.

        Common sense looks at the design of human bodies and biology 101 and come to the logical conclusion that homosexual behavior is against the design of the human body.

        As for “kinky” sex, what is “kinky” is certainly subjective, but some acts which fall within what most people would call “kinky” certainly are harmful and an abuse of the human body, and therefore for those acts common sense would say they were not appropriate.
        The problem is that common sense doesn’t seem so common any more. No one wants to listen to their conscience which certainly says what they are doing is harmful because pleasure of any sort becomes their god.

        • I think what I was saying is that what one person considers common sense does not hold true for everyone. Especially when that “common sense” is legislated and legally enforceable opinion.

          You can argue certain things are morally wrong, that you do not agree, etc. BUT you can’t expect the federal government to enact legislation on those opinions. Especially if said acts involve to consenting adults in search of life, liberty, and happiness.

          • Atticus,
            So according to you, there is no right for the government to legislate father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister marriages as long as they are all consenting adults? Or one man and 20 women? And since consent in the USA can be as young as 14, we should just let them all have their “life, liberty, and happiness”?

            • As far as incest – nope shouldn’t be legislated. I’m not saying it isn’t disgusting or unhealthy, but what’s the point? It accomplishes nothing and wouldn’t change behavior anyways.

              As far as age of consent: that should be legislated. When one person cannot make an adult decision that person is a victim and not a consenting adult. That person is a child. The brain is fully developed around 18 so I think that is a decent age to call a consenting adult.

              • Atticus,
                The brain is fully developed around 18?!?!? Says who?!?!?!

                Before our modern hedonistic culture, when children were raised to be adults, they were marrying in their teen routinely. They ruled nations, served in armies, raised families and worked farms before they were 18. The human body is designed to be sexually ready for procreation by the time we are 13-14 years old, which is why historically they married in those ages. Women unmarried at 20 were often considered old maids. And don’t give me tripe about life spans – that has nothing to do with brain and body maturity.

                IF a person’s brain isn’t fully developed by the time he is 18, then it is because he has genetic defects. Who are YOU to determine when a person is able to give consent? Some people are much more mature at 14 than others are at 40, and yet you would say they can’t consent?!?! Such arbitrariness, which is the whole problem with this amoral idea of same-sex fake marriage.

                And who determines – besides you – that the rule should be consent? Historically – and in many current societies (especially Islam) the woman’s consent was never considered for marriage. So what business is it of the government to legislate consent in your world?

              • @Glenn – you are actually wrong. The decision making mechanism in the brain is called being “full myeleniated” and is thought to be 100% developed between 18-22. This helps explain maturity and a person making better decisions at say 22 then he did at 17.

                Just because someone is physically mature doesn’t mean they are a consenting adult. This is a side rant though and not really on topic for the article…

        • @Glenn – I would be careful throwing around that “common sense” phrase. According to Obama all he wants to do is implement “common sense” laws regarding guns. So maybe “common sense” really is subjective.

          As far as biology 101 – is homosexuality really that unnatrual. It is documented in humans throughout history. It is documented in chimps and dolphins.

          There are biological benefits from SS relationships beyond reproduction that make perfect sense too.

          So…saying “that think wasn’t meant to go in there” is hardly a justifiable argument to promote government control of relationships. :)

  2. Oh, and by the way, it isn’t a civil right to redefine what marriage is.

  3. R. Nash says:

    So then John, did you argue against DOMA, since it was the federal government?

  4. we cannot legislate opinions when it comes to to adults making decisions for themselves.

    I would suggest then that you look at how many laws do just that. Laws don’t allow people to make their own decision about prostitution, or bestiality, or necrophilia, let alone deciding for themselves what speed to rocket through town.

  5. For the sake of brevity, I’m going to include this link to a blog post I did a while ago first.
    http://gottagetgoing.blogspot.ca/2012/03/marriage-debate-why-marriage.html

    One of the things we need to be clear on is not the definition of marriage in general, but why the state recognised marriage in the first place. In the past, I had shared the notion that the state should stay out of marriage entirely but after looking into it, I have completely changed my mind about that.

    The state has NO place to validate or recognise any emotional relationship, and that’s where SSM proponents first get it wrong. They say it’s all about love, and if people love each other, they should be allowed to get married. No. The state cannot and SHOULD not validate love relationships. It is not their business.

    The state recognises man/woman marriage for a number of reasons. One is assumption of paternity. The state assumes that 1) a male/female couple will eventually reproduce (but makes no attempt to force them to) and 2) any children produced are biologically related to the parents (while recognising exceptions such as adoptions). It has long been known intuitively, and now backed up by research, that a male/female led family is the most stable, healthy and safe environment. The state recognises that this unit is the foundation of a strong, stable society and economy, therefore it is in its best interests to promote such a union. Looking to other societies, both modern and historical, gives evidence against alternative domestic alliances.

    The other role the state plays is one of protection of the individuals involved. The state necessarily limits who can and cannot marry. They are interested in consent. Age limits protect children from being taken advantage of. Limiting to two people prevents the sort of abuse we see in other cultures; with one woman, multiple men, the woman is usually married to brothers and passed around for their sexual pleasure, and the question of paternity and responsibility of children becomes an issue of the state; with one man, multiple women, the women are also viewed and abused as possessions, and there is a substantial increase of abuse of any social assistance programs the state may have.

    SS couples provide no advantage to the state, but if they aquire children, it forces the state to become involved in their personal lives in a way that recognising OS couples did the opposite. (We’ll not get into custody battles here, as no-fault divorce and its consequences is something for another conversation.)

    The state has no interest in any emotional commitments people make with each other. The state has limited interest in people’s sexual behaviour. What SS couples are demanding is that the state legally validate both their sexual and emotional relationships. These are areas we should NOT want the state to be. Forcing legal recognition of such relationships also forces society at large to validate their sexual and emotional relationships. Again, this is not a role the state should be playing.

    As for race, that is one of the more dishonest and disgusting false equivalences used in the SSM argument. Race is not a behaviour. Using race-based arguments belittles and demeans the struggle of civil rights activists.

    • @kunoichi – I think the emotional validation of SSM is the least concern. The real issue is obtaining legal equality as other couples. For example, health benefits, visitation rights, tax benefits, etc.

      As far are race: It seems like the perfect comparison to me. People are born a certain race and people are born gay. They do not choose. So should a person be discriminated against for it? Should their be a societal stigma marginalizing that group? I don’t think so. The greatness of America is using Government only to promote a fair playing field and liberty – in spite of the opinions of certain people.

      If you are fearful that gays will ruin society – go talk to a few. You might change your opinion.

      • Atticus,
        Comparing skin color with sexual behavior is the old illogical canard used to claim special rights for sexual behavior. Skin color is morally neutral with no choice. Sexual behavior is NOT morally neutral, and everyone can choose whether or not to have sex.

        There is absolutely NO evidence that anyone is born with homosexual orientation. And if by a genetic defect they were born that way, that does not make it right to act on it any more than if they had a genetic defect with pedophile orientation.

        We discriminate against behavior all the time – we never sanction perversion; or at least we as a society never used to do so.

        But it is NOT “equal” to give 2% of the population the “right” to redefine what marriage is just so they can get benefits which are there to foster REAL families and marriages as the backbone of society. They can enter contractual arrangements for inheritance rights, for hospital visitation rights, and even the right to make medical decisions for another person, let alone joint accounts and purchases. The only thing they are after is the destruction of marriage, and they have been saying that is their ultimate goal for decades.

        • @Glenn – what you are saying is pretty radical. SS couples aren’t REAL families? Says who – you? Most of America supports SSM.

          Also – the example you gave of pedophilia is a bad one as it involves a crime against a non-consenting adult. That is why that law is in place – to protect someone else’s rights.

          Gotta work for a while – maybe I’ll do a whole post addressing these comments.

  6. wiley16350 says:

    First of all the government is not limiting homosexuals in terms of the type of relationship they can have with another consenting adult. It is perfectly legal for 2 gay people to live together. It is perfectly legal for them to have a ceremony of marriage. The government is not persecuting or denying them the ability to do as they wish in those terms. The government is just not recognizing their unions for special benefits.
    You need to recognize that marriage laws are purposely descriminatory. They are not an absolute right. You MUST choose to live according to the outlined requirements to receive the benefits of marriage. These requirements are set for specific reasons. Just as Kunoichi outlined above. The only thing stopping gay people from marrying is that they don’t want to meet the outlined requirements. A gay man and a gay woman could get married according to the law. There is absolutely nothing about their physical make-up that keeps them from getting married. Just like if you took a brother and sister. There would be nothing that keeps them from getting married as individuals with other people except their own desire to meet the requirements.
    You are right to say that the bible shouldn’t be used to decide whether or not gay marriage should be accepted by the government. The reasons the government should accept it or not should be based on the impact it has on society. The questions to decide that would be;
    1. What benefit does it provide society and the government. Does the government have any incentive to provide benefits to them? If there is no incentive for doing so then why should the governemnt do it? They have incentive to provide benefits for those that can procreate as outlined by Kunoichi above.
    2. Is there any potential social effects that can negatively impact society as a whole? Are the health statistics real? Are the domestic violence statistics real? Are gays really that much more promiscuous than straights, even when they’re in committed relationships? Are there real mental issues involved with the reason why people are gay? Will gay relationships escalate because of societal acceptance? If they do and the health impacts are real, it won’t be beneficial to society to accept it as o.k.
    The main theme is How does governmental acceptance of gay marriages affect society as a whole? If the negative potential outweights the actual benefits, then it can’t be accepted. If there is no benefit to society, then the government has no reason to provide special benefits. If it is beneficial to society, then it should be accepted.

    • @Wiley – your comment is pretty long so let me address a couple of your points:

      1. “First of all the government is not limiting homosexuals in terms of the type of relationship they can have with another consenting adult.”

      Yes they are. SS couples do not recieve many of the same legal benefits traditional couples do. For example, visitation rights, health benefits, tax benefits, and more. So you are wrong about that.

      2. ” Does the government have any incentive to provide benefits to them?”

      Are you kidding me? This coming from a conservative? The Government doesn’t create laws based on “will it benefit them”. The Government creates laws that uphold the constitution and uphold freedom and liberty. They make no law that unjustly benefits any creed. The incentive is promoting equality and freedom.

      3. Government shouldn’t make rules based on the consensus agreement. The Government makes rules to promote fairness, equality, and liberty. How will society change if SSM is legalized? I don’t know. Will more people become gay? Who knows and who cares. That is the beauty of America – freedom.

      • Atticus,

        Same sex couples can enter into contractual agreements for hospital visitation, and other benefits that have nothing to do with the promotion of a sane society. Other benefits (such as sharing health insurance with spouse, and tax benefits) are for the promotion of a healthy society, helping the one spouse stay home to raise the children. Same-sex unions can’t even produce children.

        The Constitution says nothing about benefits given for marriage, rather it is a custom of the government to foster relationships beneficial to the country and society as a whole. Changing the definition of marriage to promote perversion by 2% of the population is NOT beneficial to society in any meaning of the word. IT is NOT unfair to say homosexuals cannot redefine what marriage is.

        • The Consititution does not grant rights. It simply established those that the Government may not take away under and circumstance.

          I present to you the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

          • Atticus,
            YOU are the one who said the government makes laws which uphold the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution about marriage. Marriage has a definition, which is why it was not necessary to even mention it.

  7. Atticus,
    As I said, “common sense” isn’t so common any more, or else its redefined by liberals like Obama who want to redefine everything to fit their ideology.

    Just because people practice a sexual behavior throughout history, that doesn’t make it natural. People have “sex” with all sorts of objects, but that doesn’t make it natural. And humans are not animals. IF you want to claim humans should do things because we observe animals doing it, then we better allow for eating one’s mate or children. Besides which, just because evolution-minded “scientists” observe behavior in animals, that doesn’t make it “homosexual” – they are ascribing anthropomorphisms to the animal behavior. Animals do by instinct where humans have the ability to make moral and rational decisions. A dog humping another male dog isn’t homosexual behavior, rather he’s just getting sexual release, which is why a dog will hump a person’s leg.

    There are NO biological benefits from homosexual behavior but there are numerous biological dangers inherent in it.

    In your logic, government has no business interfering with someone’s sexual relationship with their dead spouse or with their pet dog.

  8. “is thought to be” is the perfect example of assumptions by psychobabblers and pseudo-scientists with evolutionist mindsets.

    People make better decisions at 22 than at 17 because they’ve gained experience, or because they were never raised to make good decisions.

    • Sure – even if you are right (which you aren’t) maybe a person needs the life experience before being considered an adult. Either way – my point is made. A consenting adult has to be an ADULT.

      Whether that is via life experience or brain development is really a moot point.

  9. Atticus,
    I thought this was supposed to be a “logical appeal” to “gay Rights” but all you do is appeal to emotion – “it isn’t fair” – with absolutely no logic.

    No SS couples are not families by any definition previous to the past couple decades when the homosexualists and PCers took over.

    MOST of America doe NOT support SSM – I have no idea where you get your stats, but since virtually every state that put it to popular vote voted against it, I’d say that’s pretty plain that most Americans still have common sense.

    Pedophilia is NOT a bad example. Homosexual behavior used to be a crime but activists got it legalized. There are currently activists promoting the legalization of pedophilia, and psychobabblers have said it isn’t harmful to the child and that it is actually good for them.

    Since you have no moral standard to apply to your ideology, by what standard can you then dictate that consent is needed? And since in some countries 12-years old is an age of consent, how can you deny a 30-year-old man from having sex with a 12-year old who consents? And why shouldn’t every country have age of consent at 12? Oh, I know, because you believe their brains are incapable of giving consent even though the law says otherwise.

    That’s the problem with you libertarians and liberals who think the law trumps morality.

  10. What defines an adult? We used to define an adult as someone who reached puberty, until psychobabblers invented the term “adolescent” to keep children as children until they graduated from college.

  11. wiley16350 says:

    @Atticus
    your first point didn’t even address the statement I made. My point was the government is not keeping them from being in a relationship. You then combat that with benefits that they don’t receive for being in a relationship. I know the government keeps them from receiving the benefits. That is what we’re discussing, whether or not the government must provide them the benefits. But in the beginning of your argument you stated that: “It is a basic tenant of personal property rights that individuals may engage in any personal relationship they wish when their rights do not infringe on anyone else’s property. How can the government limit such a personal relationship, especially when it is between two consenting adults in which there is no victim of their actions?” So my point is that the government is not limiting their freedom to be in that type of relationship.

    Your second point is wrong because the government creates laws for a multitude of reasons. A speed limit restricts peoples freedom. The government does this to limit the potential for accidents and death. In fact, all laws restrict peoples freedom in some way. Some laws are put in force to encourage certain behaviors that are most beneficial to society. Like marriage and not driving drunk.

    Marriage laws are created to encourage men and women to live together because of the detriment it causes children and society when they don’t. Why else do they have marriage laws? If it was just to enforce a morality then you would think they would be out there arresting gay couples left and right. Apparently in your world it’s illegal to be gay according to the government. However, in the real world it isn’t illegal to be gay. It isn’t illegal for gays to get married ceremoniously.

    Government makes laws to benefit society. It limits and restricts some freedoms (behaviors) because of how they negatively effect society. It encourages some freedoms and behaviors by giving extra benefits to those who engage in them because of the benefits it provides society. (marriage, education, having children and creating businesses). It provides some restriction and no benefits to those behaviors that can negatively affect individuals. (smoking, drinking, certain sexual relationships). The one part you got right is that they make these laws with fairness and equality in mind. Marriage is equal for all men. We all have the right to marry a woman who is not a grandmother, mother, daughter, granddaughter, sister or aunt or under a certain age. There is not a natural born man alive that doesn’t have that same right. If a man wants to get married and receive the benefits of marriage from the government then he has to meet those requirements. If he doesn’t want to meet those requirements, then he is denying himself that right of marriage. The government is not.

  12. I have said before that one must ignore the fact that the ability of two people to procreate is the reason government should be involved in their personal relationship to make a case that “any two people” should be able to marry, and this peice does just that.

    This “why not” approach comes at the expense of a better question: Why SHOULD government be involved at all?

    Legal marriage does not exist because m/f couples want it. It exists because we need them to have it. Marriage is about sexual relationships. That’s how gay and hetero relationships are the same. But the difference of the possibility of procreation in these sexual relationships makes it necessary for one of them to be treated differently.

    It says nothing about the morality of homosexuality that the likely result of m/f sex requires special consideration. No more than it says anything about the morality of renters that homeowners should have homeowners insurance. Homeowners need something that renters don’t need. That’s all.

    Here’s something most “Why not any two people” advocates don’t consider. Isn’t it just as relevant to ask “Why not any three (or more) people?”, when we ignore the role of procreation in marriage? Shouldn’t the question be “Why two people”? And isn’t the answer that it takes exactly two people to make a baby? And not “any two”, but a particular configuration of two people: one man and one woman.

  13. @Glenn – When you think it is more appropriate for a 30 year old to have sex with a 12-14 year old than it is for a same-sex couple to have sex I would say you are the one with a skewed since of morality. I’ll end the conversation here. We aren’t getting anywhere, but thanks for the discussion.

    • Atticus,

      I DID NOT SAY “it is more appropriate for a 30 year old to have sex with a 12-14 year old than it is for a same-sex couple to have sex.” I just pointed out your logic fallacies. Society in some cultures say a 12-yar-old can consent to sex and marry, and yet you say they can’t legally consent. If the law says they can, who are you to say they can’t?

      And if you have no moral foundation to say homosexual behavior is wrong, then by what moral foundation can you say a 30-year-old can’t have sex with a 12-year old if it is legal? You are basing your morality on the law – the same law that said enslaving and abusing Africans in American in the 19th century (and prior) was legal.

  14. wiley16350 says:

    @Atticus
    People are not born gay. People are in gay relationships for a variety of reasons. All of them are based on environmental experiences. How about you go read some testomonies on the Narth website from people that have struggled with same sex attraction and get educated on the real reasons people are gay. Here is a link http://narth.com/news-watch/interviewstestimonials/. It’s obvious from reality that people aren’t born that way. Here are some real reasons why people are gay;
    1. Being Raped at by the opposite sex, especially at a young age.
    2. Distant father and overbearing mother
    3. Having a personality more in line with the opposite sex which makes people accuse someone of being gay, having trouble to connect with the opposite sex and then having an experience with someone of the same sex. Leading to them to believe they were gay all along.
    4. Being close to someone of the same sex and then having a sexual experience with them in an intimate moment leading one to believe they are gay.
    5. Having difficulty developing friend relationships with someone of the same sex, becoming desperate to connect and end up sexualizing the desire.
    6. Having difficulty connecting with the opposite sex and having a sexual experience with someone of the same sex first leading one to believe they’re supposed to be gay.
    7. Lusting after beauty, causing one to want anyone they find beautiful.
    8. Having a personality more similar to the opposite sex which leads you to crave the personality of the same sex and then sexualizing it.
    9. Curiosity of what it would be like.
    There are probably many more. The point is, that people are not born that way. It is right that the majority don’t choose the attraction, but it is a complete falsehood to claim “born that way”

  15. ” The real issue is obtaining legal equality as other couples. For example, health benefits, visitation rights, tax benefits, etc. ”

    I would have to ask what you mean by “legal equality.” There already is legal equality (well, not in Canada, anymore). The laws regarding marriage applied to everyone equally. Changing the definition creates a “special” group that is an exemption to legal equality. More on the rest later…

    ” People are born a certain race and people are born gay. They do not choose. ”

    As others have mentioned above, there is no evidence that anyone is “born gay,” including those who claim to have known they were gay from childhood. To compare a person’s sexual desires to race is insulting and degrading to all involved; to various races because it demeans them and to gays for reducing them to nothing but their sexual desires. Race is not a choice, but behaviour is. We are not our desires. We all choose our behaviour.

    As an example, I have a family member who had been hetero all her life until she met a perticular woman. She then chose to be a lesbian. She and her partner held their own commitment ceremony. When her partner came down with a sudden and extremely aggressive form of cancer, my family member never had any issues with visitation, etc. When her partner died, there was never any issue in regards to the will. The only thing they didn’t have was the tax benefits, and the state offers those to OS couples precisely because OS couples and their children have a proven benefit to society, and it is in the state’s best interested to promote and protect that foundational unit. Canada is slowly seeing the concequences of redefining marriage, but a lot of pro-SSM people are blissfully unaware of them and, if you point them out, they flat out refuse to believe it.

    “…only to promote a fair playing field and liberty…”

    That is a misrepresentation of the state’s role. The state’s responsibility is law and order, defence, infrastructure, international relations, etc. In the process, the government rightfully restricts certain freedoms and discriminates (the primary definition of discriminate is to choose carefully/choose the best), as others have pointed out above. Unfortunately, we’ve been giving our governments too much responsibility in areas that should be ours (education, health, welfare, etc.) when it comes to social issues. It is not in the state’s best interest, nor in society’s, to promote and endorse anything other than OS marriage, and there is substantial evidence, both historical and modern, to prove that attempts to do otherwise is ultimately harmful to the state itself, and society in general.

    One of the biggest mistakes we have made in our modern society is insist on categorizing and labelling people in ever smaller categories. Humans are sexual beings. Given the opportunity, we will screw anything. Only in the past 150 or so years have we put labels on people’s sexual desires and used them to define people. First, we pathologize our desires, then attempt to normalize them. So now we have groups of people who label themselves gay, lesbian, trans, two spirited, queer, genderqueer, pansexual, etc. (I’ve lost track of all the labels – there are dozens). There is the redefinition of gender, a grammatical term that has already referred to our sex, as how we “feel” rather than what we are. And now, the same people who used politics to remove homosexuality as a mental illness (one can debate whether it should have been there in the first place) are using politics to normalize “minor attracted persons.” The fight for “equality” for gays is being used to fight for “equality” for polyamorists, “zoophiles”, ephebophiles and, yes, even necrophiles. All these labels and categories where before, it was just recognised as sexual behaviour that was either harmful, or not harmful. Also, on the issue of consent, pedophiles and zoophiles are firmly convinced that the objects of their sexual desires are willing, consenting partners. Tell me, who has the “right” to say they are wrong?

  16. Thanks for the comments everyone. There is way too much content here to respond to it all, but maybe I’ll do a follow up post later. In the end – it looks like Gay marriage is in whether you like it or not. If not now, then soon. http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/seven-in-10-young-adults-favor-same-sex-marriage/

  17. Talking about this with my daughter, she pointed something out to me.

    Changing the definition of marriage from one man/one woman to two people changes it from a physical definition to an arbitrary one.

    Why one man/one woman? Because they can (potentially) procreate and it provides assumption of parenthood.

    Why two people? Because they want tax benefits? Because they want validation? Because they really, really, really love each other?

    It turns the definition into one that is soft and nebulous, and a definition that is soft and nebulous can be changed or argued against for any reason, by anyone, at any time. What’s to say that, 20 years in the future, culture won’t decide that [fill in the blank] should be allowed? A categorization that is based on biology is more difficult to sway and, by extension, abuse.

  18. Atticus, regarding your link, are you suggesting that we should redefine our laws based on popularity? Of course “young adults” favour SSM – they’ve been brought up in a system that has been actively promoting it for decades. If you’ve had any chance to look at the public school curriculums lately, you would be able to see that the kids are not being shown anything other than an illusory, positive portrayal of alternate sexuality in general. Why would they believe anything else? They’re certainly not encouraged to examine the issue too closely.

  19. The argumentation given against the SSM is an argumentation against marriage.

    If the goverment shoud be involved only when there is a “benefit to society” and the benefit is “procreation”, then sterile and not willing to have children heterosexual marriages should be dismissed.
    Then, there shouldn’t be marriage related benefits but children having benefits.

  20. “We are not our desires.”

    That’s not right.
    I’m heterosexual because my desires, which I didn’t choose, are heterosexual.

    • “I’m heterosexual because my desires, which I didn’t choose, are heterosexual.”
      Nope. Heterosexual is just a label that our culture has invented to categorize desires, then insists on slapping them on people. We are sexual beings, but we are no more “gay” or “straight” than a tree. It is our behaviour that defines us.

      Just to illustrate how illogical it is to define ourselves by desire, if I watch an artist painting a beautiful scene, I can have a very strong desire to paint. That desire doesn’t make me a painter. I couldn’t even start slapping paint on a canvas and rightfully call myself a painter. I would have to dedicate time and effort to painting to be called a painter (I wouldn’t even have to be a good one, so long as I invested enough of my self into it). Likewise, if I happen past an item that I like and have a sudden urge to grab it for myself, that does not make me a theif. My desire does not define me. My actions do.

      As Wiley listed above, there are a lot of reasons why a person might become convinced they are gay. Our culture, that insists on defining us by our feelings, plays a large part in that as well. I fully recognise that, had the person who seduced me when I was 14 had been a female instead of male, I was enough of a marshmallow to have gone along with it, just as I had with a male. I would then have been convinced I was a lesbian. It’s even harder for children now, because terms are being redefined in many areas. They are told that their sexaulity is defined by things like what kind of clothes or colours they like to wear, what kind of toys they play with, and what activities they enjoy. They are told that “attraction” is a sexual desire, at ages where they aren’t even interested in sex yet. They are being taught that loving someone means they want to have sex with them – and that’s okay, because they’re supposed to want to have sex all the time, and nothing should prevent them from indulging in their physiological urges.

      We are not defined by our desires, nor are we defined by our physiological urges. We are defined by our actions. Attempts to do otherwise and slap labels on people based on our feelings and urges is causing a great deal of confusion and pain.

  21. heterosexual
    (of a person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.

    I’m defined by my desire (sexual attraction) as heterosexual, not by my doing.

  22. wiley16350 says:

    @Isu
    You completely ignored everything Kunoichi said. Your statement is true to the extent that the world defines a persons sexuality by desire and not by act. Kunoichi pointed out that sexuality is the only thing that is defined that way. Everything else a person is defined as is by what they actually do and not what they desire to do. Kunoichi’s example was to point out a person that desires to paint. Nobody defines them as a painter just because they desire to paint. You’re only a painter when you actually paint. You’re only an alchoholic when you constantly drink and get drunk. You’re only a thief when you actually steal. You’re only a murderer when you actually murder. Do you see the difference now? Do you see the point? Kunoichi then continued with explaining how defining sexuality by desire and not by act is what confuses people and makes them think they’re gay even if they have never had an actual gay experience. Which then encourages them to engage in it, especially the more acceptance it receives.

  23. @wiley16350

    “Your statement is true to the extent that the world defines a persons sexuality by desire and not by act.”

    The point is that I use the definitions of the world so that the world can understand me.
    What is your proposal? Changing the world definition by your own made definition?
    Languaje doesn’t work so, unless you are the “world”.

    The word “heterosexual” doesn’t confuse me nor encourages me to engage with women but my sexual desire to them. How would a “word” change my desires? It is the other way round.

    You are heterosexual if you are “sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex”. Heterosexuality is not a hobby nor a profession such as “painter” word implies.

    • Isu,
      Historically the words “heterosexual” and “homosexual” were adjectives, but the homosexualists decided to make them into nouns. They used to just describe sexual attraction, now they are most often used to describe people. We really need to take the language back from perverts who want to redefine everything to support their cause. By their redefinitions, they desensitize people to the truth. No one IS a “homosexual” or a “heterosexual” – those words describe sexual desires, one being normal and the other an aberration.

    • “The point is that I use the definitions of the world so that the world can understand me.”

      And *my* point was that the terms are based on labels that are completely modern concepts, and that the definitions are being changed through activism and by force of law. These are not the definitions of “the world.” Different languages and different cultures view these (and other) concepts in ways other languages and cultures don’t even have words for.

      Isu, if your desires are what define you, then what if your actions are not in line with your desires? If we were to go strictly by desire, I am not a heterosexual, yet I am in a heterosexual relationship (and have the children to prove it). What does that make me?

      “…but wouldn’t you argue that morality itself can change?”

      False equivalence. That’s a completely different conversation, but I suppose it works as a distraction. The definition of the word morality is not in question; just what people consider moral and why. The definition of labels placed on people based on their feelings and physiological urges may have moral concequences precisely *because* morality is different.

  24. wiley16350 says:

    @Isu
    Let’s put it this way. Desires change and therefore you shouldn’t be labeling people based on their desires. Only with sexuality do we label people as to who they are based on desire. Doing this confuses people and forces them to label themselves before they have actually committed to the act. That is the problem with calling someone homosexual based on their desire. That desire can change, especially at younger ages. It can also change when the person comes to understand why they have the desire in the first place. So it’s not that the word changes a desire but that calling someone the word makes them believe that the desire can’t be changed.

    • @wiley – but wouldn’t you argue that morality itself can change?

      It was once considered immoral for women to take jobs of authority, for couples of different races to exist, or for adult men to marry young teens.

      Is morality unchanging or is morality flexible based on human perception?

      • True morality doesn’t change, people’s acceptance or rejection of moral evils change. There is a difference.

        I wrote up my response post to this, I’d like to hear how you address my rebuttal.

      • The problem with changing “morality” is that man can be very arbitrary as to what is or is not moral. As long as we go with man’s idea of morality, then anything goes depending on the whim of who is in charge.

        We need to appeal to an objective moral standard, and we have that in God and His Word. That never changes.

        • Really? In genesis God created man and said this is good. Later he decided they were evil and wiped out man with a great flood. Then he promised not to do that again because it was bad. Then he sent Jesus and the New Testament became a new covenant to replace the Old. Seems like things change a lot…

          • God didnt then decide man was evil, he saw that they were evil. There are places in the OT where it explicitly says that God is more interested in man’s heart than sacrifices. Sacrifices served as a foreshadow of the sacrifice Christ would make in our place, like the unblemished animals. No change in morals, just change in how they’re dealt with

          • Really? In genesis God created man and said this is good. Later he decided they were evil and wiped out man with a great flood. Then he promised not to do that again because it was bad. Then he sent Jesus and the New Testament became a new covenant to replace the Old. Seems like things change a lot…

            Atticus, this comment just demonstrates either you are being disingenuous are you are completely ignorant of that which you are discussing.

  25. @wiley16350

    If the desires changes the label changes. Period.
    It is not the label “heterosexual” which prevents me from changing my sexual desires.

    It’s my instint which makes me be heterosexual and I don’t have the pressure of a bigot social coercion to change or camouflage my sexual desires.

  26. wiley16350 says:

    @ Atticus
    If God exists and the bible is true then obviously what God declares as objectively wrong is objectively wrong. If God doesn’t exist, then right and wrong are completely subjective. Overall, in broad categories, morality is subjective. Such as Killing. As a broad category, killing being wrong is dependent on reason and situation. In tighter categories it becomes objective. Such that it is always wrong to kill a person for pleasure. The objectiveness becomes very narrow if God doesn’t exist. It becomes much broader if God does exist.

  27. wiley16350 says:

    @Isu
    I’m not saying the label makes you change anything. I’m saying the label makes people believe they can’t change anything. You’re right when you say your instinct makes you heterosexual. That is the natural instinct. Nobody hates themselves for being heterosexual. Many (if not all or the majority) of gay people actually hate themselves when they first find attraction to the same sex. They don’t understand it and instinctually know it’s wrong. Then along come a group of people telling them that hey, this is who you are. You’re homosexual, there’s nothing wrong with it and nothing you can do to change it. Accept it and embrace it and don’t let anyone tell you it’s abnormal or wrong. They then decide to live that way without ever really exploring the emotional issues or reasons why they had the attraction in the first place. Even in today’s society where it is much more acceptable people struggle with having the attraction when they first have them. Especially when they don’t understand why they have them in the first place.

  28. wiley16350 says:

    @ Atticus.
    The way God deals with man and what he reveals to them has changed through time for our educational purposes. I didn’t say things didn’t change or that God’s requirements of us hasn’t changed. I agreed that things changed. There are however, some things that never change. There are things that are absolutely wrong in all situations. From our point in time and from our perspective, what God says is objectively wrong is objectively wrong until further notice. Something doesn’t become subjective to us just because God may change it in the future. Human morals are subjective to God since he is the decider of right and wrong for humans, but that doesn’t make them subjective to us. Some morals may be objective to God because they flow from who he is and some morals may be objective from God to humans because of how they negatively affect humans when not followed. There are also subjective morals that God uses to educate and train humans into righteousness. Those morals are however objective to us until further revelation.

  29. wiley16350 says:

    @Atticus
    To clear up some misconceptions in your last response. When God created man and declared it was good, he was declaring that what he created was good and basically done properly. God destroyed man with the great flood because they were evil, not because he decided they were evil. The era between the fall of man and the flood was a time when God left man to himself. He didn’t interfere with human activity and call prophets or leaders to guide man. The purpose of this is to teach man what he would become if he was left on his own without God in the world. The promise of not sending another worldwide flood was not because he felt the flood was bad or a mistake, it was to assure humans that when floods came humans would know that God wasn’t set out to destroy them again. Then God set up a people to which he would bring the messiah through. For this reason they were to be a special people set apart from the world. God gave them moral, ceremonial and civil laws to set them apart. He used these laws to show man how sinful he was and how impossible it is for him to be completely righteous on his own. Now God is teaching us that the only way we can attain forgiveness is through God granting mercy and grace to the repentant of heart. So far then, we have learned that without God in the world man is lost and utterly hopeless to be righteous. Even with knowledge of what is right and wrong it is till impossible for man to live righteously. The only way we can become righteous is through the efforts of God. The only way we can attain forgiveness is through God’s mercy and grace which is given to the repentant of heart. In the next era of time God will use judgment and correction to bring people to repentance and teach us the role they play in teaching righteousness. Ultimately, God’s goal is to make us righteous so that we can live in harmony, love and appreciation for God at the consummation when God creates a new heaven and earth.

    • One thing I’ve never understood is that God is God so he could have cut a few corners and made us righteous in the first place. I know people are going to talk about free will and ultimate love/justice next, but if he is driving us toward a sinless, righteous heaven in the end anyways what is the difference? Even if we go to heaven why would we be suddenly perfect? Would our human nature be taken away suddenly? Anyways – this is way off topic now.

  30. wiley16350 says:

    @ Atticus
    If God just made us righteous without actually experiencing the opposite we would have no appreciation for righteousness. It’s all about contrast. Children that are spoiled are the ones that are given everything without question. People that go through hardships have a better understanding and a better appreciation for the good things in life. We’ll be perfect in heaven because we’ll have ultimate understanding and new spiritual bodies that don’t have death working within to destroy us like our physical bodies do.

    • “If God just made us righteous without actually experiencing the opposite we would have no appreciation for righteousness.”

      He’s God. Couldn’t he just “program” it into us?

      “We’ll be perfect in heaven because we’ll have ultimate understanding and new spiritual bodies that don’t have death working within to destroy us like our physical bodies do.”

      Why didn’t God just create us this way in the first place? Why the need for the senseless suffering?

      • God did not make man as pre-programmed robots because he wanted man to have free will and the ability to love. Programing a robot to love you is not love, nor can you really love it. Man had to be given the ability to chose or reject God on his own, or else there is no point in not making a metal machine with a program.

        • Really? An all knowing, all powerful, God made men because he wanted something that could love him back? He did this fully knowing that some would be doomed to an eternity of hell. Seems like the God you are describing is a little mean.

  31. @Glenn
    “homosexual” and adjective and as such it can “describe people”, so it is a correct use.

    @wiley16350 says
    “They don’t understand it and instinctually know it’s wrong.”
    Nope, it is socially wrong not instictually wrong.
    You comments clearly shows that when socially pressure is not applied they aren’t prone to change or camouflage their desires.

    • Isu, “homosexual” is only an adjective describing the desires. A person is NOT a homosexual – he is a person with homosexual desires. That is the point.

      Homosexual behavior is intrinsically aberrant and perverted. one only has to look at the design of the human body to know that, but homosexualists – those who propagate and support the homosexual agenda – have to lie to themselves to deny the truth.

  32. wiley16350 says:

    @Atticus
    God could program us to be righteous but we wouldn’t appreciate it or love him for it. We would have no experience to the contrast, so how could we. Learning to love God and others comes through suffering and hardships. Love isn’t a feeling, it is something you do. Something that can only be learned to do through experiences of what love is not. It is also best to build character through hardships. How is courage best learned? Through fearful situations. How is empathy best learned? Through the suffering of others. How do we appreciate the gift of life? By experiencing death. How do we know something is wrong? By their negative consequences which is best learned by experience. So it’s not senseless suffering. It is temporary suffering for the greater good. Through God, all things work for good.

    • “God could program us to be righteous but we wouldn’t appreciate it or love him for it.”

      He’s God – he could program us to.

      Do you see where your logic is going here? Every emotion you described could be directly instilled in us by God. So why the suffering? It’s illogical.

      Unless you argue that part of God is also evil and suffering.

  33. wiley16350 says:

    @Isu
    go to this link and honestly read it http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42385/. Here is another http://narth.com/docs/listen.html. Hear it from those that have actually dealt with the situation and then tell me I am way off base. Here is a list of many other stories http://narth.com/news-watch/interviewstestimonials/.

  34. wiley16350 says:

    @ ISu
    here is another really good link http://narth.com/docs/glatze.pdf

  35. wiley16350 says:

    @Atticus
    Why are you talking about emotion? Suffering is not about developing emotions. It is about developing UNDERSTANDING and character. Understanding and character comes through the experiences. I guess you get confused because you think love and appreciation are emotions. They’re actions, not emotions. We learn how to love and appreciate through experiences that develop understanding and character. Things are only illogical to you because you lack understanding.

    • So are you saying there is something God can’t do? Are you saying there is understanding God can’t grant without experience? I thought God could do or create whatever he wants. So why not grant us this knowledge naturally?

  36. wiley16350 says:

    @Atticus
    God is the almighty, he is the most powerful force and being in the universe. There are things God can’t do. He can’t do the illogical and he can’t do things against his nature. God is giving us understanding through this universe that he has temporarily created. He probably could do it another way. I don’t know. It probably isn’t the best way though. What I do know is that through our experiences here on earth we know that the best way to learn and build character is through experience. So more than likely, this is the best way for us to learn. I’m not going to complain about it and hate God because of some temporary sufferings now. Especially since, one day he’ll restore everything to good. I just look forward to that day and do the best that I can living happily in this world of suffering.

    • “I’m not going to complain about it and hate God because of some temporary sufferings now. Especially since, one day he’ll restore everything to good.”

      I think that is a good response. My only complaint is that according to the bible things will not be good for everyone someday. Some people found God’s creation to tricky, too challenging, to unclear – and will thus spend all eternity in hell for one lifetime of evil – all of which God created. That part doesn’t make sense to me, but I’m not angry about it.

  37. wiley16350 says:

    @Atticus
    Eternal Hell never made sense to me either. Do some research on the “restoration of all things” and you’ll be surprised at what the bible actually says. I mean seriously look into it, you might actually gain some respect and love for God if you do.

  38. wiley16350 says:

    Here is a good link. http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/ Along the right side there is a spot where you can download the book. That would be a good place to start.

  39. I think the main problem Atticus and others making similar arguments is that they have some sort of odd idea of what God is supposed to be. Of course, God doesn’t match their expectiations, therefore they leap to God being “mean” or some other projection of human foibles. That sort of thing might apply to the gods and godesses of other mythologies (where dieties were basically humans with superpowers). That is not the God of the Bible.

    I think a good metaphor for God and His relationship to humans is that of a parent. We humans have the urge to procreate – not just have sex, but to have children. We know full well that having children can be difficult. As parents, we love our children and want to protect them, but we have to find a balance between bubblewrapping them and hovering over them, which may protect them from immediate harm but damages their ability to grow, develop and mature, and throwing them out to the wolves, so to speak. As our children grow older, we have to learn to let go and let them make their own choices, even though we know what the consequences of those choices might/will be. When they get older, we might have a good relationship with them, or they might reject use completely. They might become overly dependent on us, or they might simply get busy with their own lives and forget to keep in contact with us.

    We are made in the image of God. Which means our desire to procreate – to have children to love and to love us in returns – is a reflection of God’s desire to create humans. The trials and tribulations we face as parents, God also has in us, on a grander scale. He *could* be a helicopter parent, hovering over our every move, granting our desires like some sort of wish-fulfilling genie, but that would ultimately cause us harm, just as it would if we did the same with our own children. A loving parent allows their children to make their own choices, make mistakes, learn and grow. And if our children choose to reject us, it hurts us, but if we were to try and force them to accept us, how do you think they would respond?

    So it is with God. Humans have the choice to accept or reject Him. God could probably force us to accept him, but would that work any better than if we did it to our own children?

  40. Glenn,

    An adjetive can be used to describe a person. Period.

  41. John,

    Adjetives identify.

  42. State #12 passes gay marriage. This one is even a conservative state. The tides are changing. http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/05/09/minn-house-prepares-to-vote-on-gay-marriage/

    • The tides aren’t changing, elected officials are. Before the 2012 elections, the people overwhelmingly vote to preserve traditional marriage by a margin of 2-1. Prior to that election same sex marriage has only been legalized by legislatures and judges who do so against the will of the people. In fact, even in deep blue states like New York, many legislators were voted out of office after their illegal implementation of same sex marriage.

      What also seems to be a factor in whether a poll shows support is the way the question is asked. When it is presented like this: should homosexuals be granted the same rights as… or should there be laws prohibiting… the polls show support. However when the question is: should marriage be defined as one man one woman, the results are 2:1 in favor.

    • They didn’t pass “gay marriage” because there is no such thing. They just made is legal to call something marriage which isn’t. They redefined a word to suit their agenda. And Minnesota has been going liberal for quite a while now – I have friends up there who have been unhappy with the politics there for quite some time. So don’t act as if this is a surprise.

      The USA is nothing but Sodom awaiting its destruction.

  43. Atticus, I have to ask, what are you smoking. MN a conservative state. Let’s look at reality. Governor; Mark Dayton (DFL). State house; controlled by DFL. State senate; controlled by DFL. US senators; Al Franken (DFL), Amy Klobuchar (DFL). US house; 5 (DFL), 3 (R). Now that we have our entire state controlled by the DFL we’ve gotten massive tax increases, and “SSM”. Ya sure, you becha, that’s a conservative state there.

    Oh and what does that make the score now 38-12. That doesn’t sound like a winning score to me.

    PS, While it’s a technicality, only the MN house has passed the “SSM” bill. It is still possible, but not likely, that the senate will not.

    PPS, Given that homosexual sex is an absolutely horrible way to effectively promote the increase in the survival rate of any given species, one must wonder why it continues. I’m quite sure it is in reality some sort of beneficial genetic mutation.

    • You got me. I made the false assumption that MN was a conservative state. For some reason I just made a bad assumption that it was.

      As far as 38-12. I think my overall point is that it appears popular opinion is changing in regards to to SSM. That is all.

      • Atticus, again, it’s not really changing among the people, it is changing among the legislatures. And again, where it looks like the view is changing among the people, the wording of the question seems to make all the difference in the world, even in deep liberal states.

      • Atticus
        And we all know popular opinion is always for what is right and moral, don’t we? Let’s see, popular opinion promoted slavery, and extermination of Jews, etc. Yep, good old popular opinion.

        • R. Nash says:

          Ahhhh, Glenn your examples of popular public opinions were exclusive to christian/catholic values. Maybe you should use women’s rights…oh wait your ilk stood in the way of that to. What about witch burnings…oh wait, what about shooting abortion providers while they attend church, oh wait,…..
          Just remember you seem to identify in the same way as Timothy Mcveigh on all topics. And his being a member of the Christian Identity movement has all but been ignored by his fellow christian extremists…..maybe it’s not to late for you.

          The numbers are not in your favor, gay marriage is less than a decade away.
          And all of the quasi intellectual hot air expended by you and your circle jerk won’t even slow it down.

          The last 2 generations are for it, the current generation and their children will all make it law while you sit and stew and wait for the 2nd coming.

          You should order a pizza while you wait….

          • Sorry R.,Nash, but none of that was Christian values. Catholic, maybe – but they often don’t follow Christian teachings!

            • R. Nash says:

              “Burn the witch”, Exodus 22:18-20 was most certainly taken from the bible and practiced by christians who would not tolerate your laziness as a christian.
              Also the inferiority of women and the treatment of them as property from I Tim 2:11-14 and Eph 5:22 or my favorite Gen 3:16 where the woman is responsible for the Fall and she should be made a slave.

              Those, are christian teachings. The same one’s that stumped Michele Bachmann when asked if she would still “submit” to her husband if she were to become president. Unless now along with catholics lutherans are also not christians.

              • R.Nash,

                Again, you demonstrate your total lack of knowledge about Scripture. Anyone can abuse any passage to support their agenda, but that doesn’t mean that is what the passage meant to begin with. Ex.22:18-20 is part of laws given to Israel to separate them out as a holy nation to God. No other nation has ever been called out in such a way. The laws in that passage were for Israel and Israel only.
                Tim and Eph do not in any way imply that women are inferior in any way. In fact, if you continue in Eph you would read that the husband is to love his wife in such a way that he will willingly die for her. The passage has to do with family heirarchy. Tim has to do with roles in the church (as if telling women not to be malicious gossips is saying they are inferior). Only a fool would claim that Gen 3:16 says a woman will be her husband’s slave. Nor does it say the woman was responsible for the fall, rather – if you would actually read the Bible in context rather than spewing atheist talking points – throughout the Bible you will see that Adam is given the blame for the fall.
                Your ignorance of Scripture just shows you to be foolish.

          • Nash, what Bible are you even reading? You’re certainly taking liberty with your selective interpretations. Not too keen on history, either.
            1) Women’s rights: You can thank Christians for those, as well as valuing children. Christians have been at the forefront of women’s rights for centuries and are the reason we and children are valued as equal by virtue of being human. Even in the OT, how the Israelite’s were told to treat women, children, indentured servants (otherwise known as slaves; the term “slave” means something very different now than it did 2000-5000 years ago), etc. was actually an improvement to how they were treated in general society. Women and children are recognised as “persons” and equal under the law *because* of Christians. (The same can be said re: people of different ethnicities and social status, too.)
            2) Witch burning: there were actually very few of those (19, I believe) involving both men and women. These were also civil trials, not religious ones. Plus, there is debate that the term translated into “witch” actually means “poisoner” – at the time of translation, the word “witch” did not mean the same thing it does now.
            3) shooting abortion providers in church: happened once, and universally condemned because such actions go against Christianity.
            4) Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian. He was raised a Catholic (which, regardless of Glenn’s opinions, is a Christian church) but was no longer Catholic. He claimed “science is my religion.”
            5) Christian Identity is a white supremicist cult that is not actually Christian. Kinda like “Catholics for Choice” aren’t actually Catholics, etc.
            6) “submit”: this is a misunderstanding of the term (the connotations of which have changed significantly over the years). To submit to someone is a sign of respect. A wife submits to her husband as a husband submits to God. The husband is also required to cling to his wife. This passage deals with mutual respect and leadership roles. It does NOT mean being a doormat, blind obedience, etc. We submit to people all the time; it’s a matter of courtesy and is how our society works.

            Glenn: 1) Catholics are Christians (yes, we’ve had this argument before) and 2) I can’t figure out what you could possibly be suggesting Nash said *could* be Catholic teaching.

            • R. Nash says:

              I am curious, if I am the revisionist, who did women have to fight for their rights? You claim that christianity was at the forefront (absolutely wrong in every conceivable way) but provide nothing further? Please explain what mechanisms, social or otherwise, that women needed to deal with in order to get the rights that you are claiming were given to them by christianity.I will give you a hint: They fought against various christian churches and their subsequent take on the treatment of women via their “interpretation of the bible.

              The Abrahamic faiths all have nothing short of a sordid, immoral and disgusting history when it comes to women. No “interpretation” required. Well, save for the rose colored glasses interpretation a christian attempting some quality of apologetics might put forward as relevant, but certainly not unbiased. I am curious what exactly makes your “interpretation” more right though?

              Women and children are considered equal under the law because the enlightenment gave us a series of highly regarded and relevant philosophers who could see that what the various christian sects were doing was no longer acceptable.

              You claim the witch trials were “civil” trials? Hah! They were entirely sanctioned, ordered and executed by the Puritans. No need to do anything else except recognize that it was a terrible chapter in early American christian history.

              And sorry but Mcveigh was a christian and the Christian Identity group is first and foremost a christian organization. And all white supremacist organizations are christian. Further, they believe you are a lazy christian and not a “true” christian. Hence the circle jerk of warring theologies within the same denomination.

              And your attempt at re-writing the historical use of submit will not fly. Submission by any other name is still mental, emotional and physical subjugation to a supposed superior being that in the case for women is men, husband etc. And for men it is which ever god they are worshiping in any given epoch.

              For an immediate reference please see the women’s group attempting to pray at the wall in Jerusalem. They have until this past week been prevented from doing so by………………wait for it…….. judeo-christian……..men.

              • Wow. Nash, you seem to be living in an alternate reality – and that’s not even taking into account the ludicrous accusations against Christianity. BTW, the “Enlightenment” period deliberately revised history to fit their narrative. Accurate history is only recently being reclaimed from their propoganda of hate – which you seem to have swallowed, hook, line and sinker.

                I also find it funny that you made claims without backing them up, then attack me for making claims without backing them up.

                I realize I’m just feeding the troll, here, but in the off chance you actually are honest about historical integrity and truth, here’s a few things you might want to check out.

                The Victory of Reason – Rodney Stark
                Heresy – Michael Coren
                Exposing Myths about Christianity – Jeffrey Burton Russell
                http://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2012/07/is-christianity-sexist-part-two-a-revolution-of-liberation/

                There are others, but that’s a good start.

              • R. Nash says:

                I only appear to be living in an alternate reality because you are so deluded. It really is a psychosis.

                I notice that you decided not to answer the questions I posed. That is the earmark of someone who suffers from cognitive dissonance. Someone who is delusional to the point where they can’t even identify the biases and aforementioned rose colored glasses that make christianity into all sorts of things, now including the freer of women. Hah!

                And now an entire Age/Period is being generalized by you as purposefully “revisionist”? What a howl!
                So Spinoza, Rousseau, Voltaire etc. were haters? And further, they revised history to meet their own ends? Please do prove all of this wild claim for all of us. And don’t forget that Jefferson and Franklin were heavily influenced by the thinking of the Enlightenment. What sort of drug addled binge one must be on to even entertain such ludicrous gibberish? Oh wait it wasn’t a drug binge…..it was christianity. It has the same effect on one’s ability to engage in critical thinking.

                As for my unsubstantiated claims….I gave you bible verses. Why not start there?

                As for Starks work, it is firstly an average polemic piece, filled with gross distortions, to the point of having to consider that there is an agenda driving his work. Secondly, the unsupported claims and flat out lies/falsehoods on his part are why the book has received zero support from any scholars, save for others with the same agenda. I think it is telling that you have even mentioned his work as a source for me. I mean the guy can’t even figure out when the Dark Ages end and the Middle Ages begin. How do you get that wrong?

                As for Corens book it is really abysmal and amateurish christian apologetics. You should move up to Dr. Craig. He apologizes without lying.

                And you should dispense with recommending Russell’s book. I mean to claim that Hitler was not a christian, influenced by christianity or using christianity to further his ends is just utter bunk. It says to me that Russell didn’t even read Mein Kampf. I guess anyone can get a book printed nowadays.

                And the link you provided wouldn’t work for me.

                But let me ask you one last question: If christianity is so perfect and warm and fuzzy and the bringer of all things good, especially for women and now apparently the scientific method of the enlightenment etc, why wasn’t christianity claiming any of this earlier and why does christianity have quite the opposite reputation? I mean the reputation must come from somewhere, right?

              • R.Nash,
                It is really difficult to take you seriously with that huge comment spewing total ignorance of history as well as ignorance of the Bible and Christianity in general. Your ilk is not worth further discussion with.

            • Kunoichi,
              Catholics are apostate and heretical Christians. They add all sorts of man-made and unbiblical traditions to the true teachings of Christ.

              As for what Nash said, when I discussed the extermination of Jews as being popular opinion, he said that was Christian – no, it was Catholics throughout history who persecuted and executed Jews.

  44. “You got me. I made the false assumption that MN was a conservative state. For some reason I just made a bad assumption that it was.”

    What, could possibly lead anyone who even casually follows politics to conclude that MN is conservative? Kind of calls into question the rest of your writing, if you can’t be bothered to check out something that’s pretty common knowledge.

    “As far as 38-12. I think my overall point is that it appears popular opinion is changing in regards to to SSM. That is all. ”

    By any standard 38-12 is losing badly. Further, in the states where “SSM” has passed, it has passed in the legislature and the courts, perhaps not the best indicator of public opinion.

  45. R. Nash says:

    Glenn your desperate attempts to draw some line of delineation between your sect of christianity and any other is fantastically hilarious. And your sanctimonious claims regarding scripture, which are your “interpretation”, still don’t hold water.

  46. “I only appear to be living in an alternate reality because you are so deluded. It really is a psychosis.”

    I see a whole lot of projection here.

    Nash, you’ve gone off the rails and, as I expected, completely reject any countering sources, so what’s the point of responding to anything you say?

    You, sir, are a troll. Based on your posts, a very angry one. Have you considered therapy?

    • R. Nash says:

      Still not going to answer the questions?
      And isn’t is enough that I read the Stark and Coren’s work? And where you found salvation and beginners apologetics and the flagrant rewriting of history some of us found it wanting.
      Yes there are others who don’t agree with you and your worldview. And saying they are off the rails or need therapy will never make you right.

      There sure is a lot of avoiding direct questions in this little cheerleading bunch…….

  47. Nash, direct questions? Your “questions” are little more than rhetorical, nonsensical ramblings derailing any logical conversation.

    Yes, I know there are others who disagree with me. I have all sorts of interesting debates with them. Your rambling diatribes that misrepresent what people say, twisting definitions to whatever you demand them to be, is not condusive to logical debate.

    • R. Nash says:

      Well here we are. Now the very simple questions I posed to you that have gone unanswered, are rhetorical and non-sensical ramblings?

      This is called “white washing”. It is amateurish at best but you are trying to convince yourself that you have the high ground yet have provided nothing. This is often the case when someone has painted themselves into a corner. They start throwing out the red herrings and try to steer the conversation away from where it started.

      Tell me what was so rambling and non-sensical about the following questions:

      1) Who did women have to fight for their rights? Start maybe with Gen: 3:12-13. And earlier in Gen. god says he will make Adam a “helper”….hmmmm. Why from Adams rib? Is it because of his response to Lillith? Adam needed his female to be subservient?

      2) What makes your interpretation more right?

      3) If christianity is so perfect and warm and fuzzy and the bringer of all things good, especially for women and now apparently the scientific method of the enlightenment etc, why wasn’t christianity claiming any of this earlier and why does christianity have quite the opposite reputation? I mean the reputation must come from somewhere, right?

      4)The Enlightenment was purposefully revisionist in real time to meet an agenda? How and to what end? Were there secret meetings over the course of about a hundred years where multigenerational participants made sure that they were sticking to the guidelines that had been set out before them?
      I mean there isn’t even a tinfoil hat in glenn becks collection that’s big enough for this bizarre conspiracy theory.

      Are the questions above just non-sensical because they represent a conundrum for christian apologists?

Trackbacks

  1. […] Atticus’s last post on Gay Marriage. Check out Atticus’s blog posts about Gay […]

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: