Weekly Buzz Kill: Who cares what the Bible says?
Columns, Multimedia, Opinion Monday, April 12th, 2010
A while back I saw a photo of a protester holding a sign that said, “America is a Christian Nation.” Sorry to invoke my column’s name-sake and be a buzz-kill, but that’s a load of crap.
Some of you may care what the Bible says, and care quite a bit. It may influence your personal creed and beliefs, and even how you vote. Regardless, American government is secular. Our founding documents were written by men, not God.
The main argument against gay marriage is a biblical one. Some of you may remember my article a while back called “Homophobia: The Ignored American Epidemic.” In it, I tried to refute the widely-held notion that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. Well, that didn’t work well. People disagreed with my interpretations of various verses.
That interpretation and disagreement is everyone’s right as an American. I respect that everyone sees the Bible differently and holds different religious beliefs. It’s also your right to hate who you wish to, which I have less respect for, but won’t try to take away.
However, I do have a legal argument to counter your religious one: who cares? There is no secular reason why gays and lesbians should be denied the right to marry. And contrary to what religious protesters may think, we are not a “Christian nation.” Sure, the word “god” appears in our founding documents, but guess who else has a god: almost every other religion around.
Some people complain, “That’s changing the definition of marriage!” or “violating the sanctity of marriage.” I don’t care. The sanctity of marriage stays in the church. There is no sanctity in the court house. Besides, marriage in America is hardly sacred anymore. Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples doesn’t invalidate your marriage. It doesn’t threaten you in any way. Unless you’re a gay man or woman, the legalization of gay marriage doesn’t affect you at all.
If your church doesn’t want to perform same-sex marriages, that’s your business. The government has no business forcing preachers to perform marriages they don’t support. However, it doesn’t have a right to deny two people in love a secular marriage license without a legitimate secular reason.
The lone secular argument against gay marriage is, “What’s next? People marrying their dogs? Or children? Or toasters?” There’s one big hole in that argument. Dogs, children and toasters are not consenting adults. Gay men and women are consenting adults.
I’ve heard some say gay marriage should be put to a referendum. That’s ridiculous. One person’s romantic life is not public business. Legalizing gay marriage doesn’t mean you have to approve of homosexuality. Your personal beliefs are just that — personal.
If you really don’t like the idea of gays and lesbians getting married, an acquaintance of mine has a solution. Take marriage out of the government altogether. When a couple, gay or straight, goes to the court house to sign documents after a religious ceremony, they all receive a civil union, so let’s call it that. Leave marriage to churches, and let the courts deal with the legal aspects secularly, as they were designed to function.
Want to contact me directly? Find me at www.twitter.com/arbitergamble or send me an e-mail to onlinecoordinator@arbiteronline.com.
Short URL: http://arbiteronline.com/?p=44401
Posted by Josh Gamble on Apr 12 2010. Filed under Columns, Multimedia, Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Yawn.
Ditto
>>>" it [government] doesn’t have a right to deny two people in love a secular marriage license without a legitimate secular reason."
I think it's worth pointing out that marriage isn't about being in love. I hate to be pessimistic, but I would venture as far to say that most people who are married aren't in love. The very point of having marriage vows is to apply a healthy pressure to hold the thing together when the chips are down and love wanes. Being in love may kick it all into motion, but it's not what holds it together. I'm saying all this to say that it isn't within the purview of government to make policy based on whether or not people fall in or out of love. Government aims to maintain and facilitate a stable and productive society, and a possible means of doing that is providing state benefits and recognition to a thing like marriage that exists for the purpose of sustaining the fundamental building block of society: the nuclear family.
Straight people seem to get married and divorced for myriad different reasons, but you don't see a push to focus marriages more on having and raising kids.
People aren't forced to commit to having kids before getting married.
(Straight) sterile people are still allowed to get married.
Lots of gay people want to adopt kids.
I can't find any evidence in US/britains history that holding a family together was the stated purpose of marriage by the state (in other words, citation needed).
Some societies seem to do just fine without the nuclear family as a fundamental building block.
I'd much rather have been raised by two people (of either gender) in love, (or a single parent, or an extended family) than by two parents who hate eachother.
>>>"…you don't see a push to focus marriages more on having and raising kids."
The vast majority of marriages end up producing children. Why would you need to push for what's already there?
>>>"I can't find any evidence in US/britains history that holding a family together was the stated purpose of marriage by the state (in other words, citation needed)."
Not what I said, please read it again. I merely said what the purpose of government was, and how incentivizing the types of relationships that naturally produce 100% of the next generation might aid in that purpose. Government doesn't create marriage or define the standards by which they should occur, but rather crafts policy around what's already in place to help meet its ends, namely, the stability of society via the stability of its most basic unit. Gays may adopt children and this may be helpful, but surely you would agree this is a second line of defense after the nuclear family fails.
do you really think that the nuclear family is so threatened? i don't think society will be any more unstable if gays are allowed their civil rights as couples. people will continue to make babies, i promise.
Well I agree with half of his statement, gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry (marriage is about many things and not just love and religion). But last I checked we are still a Christian nation. Sorry to be a buzzkill.
It beeped out female gays (lesbians). Come on.
Come on, it's right there in the first amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Bam, right there straight out of the constitution, we're *not* a christian nation.
Did I say it was in the 1st Amendment, no. Bam, damn it sucks when somebody calls you out for misquoting them. I never argued that the Constitutiution makes us a Christian nation. However you would be nieve to think that our country is not based on its judeo-christian heiritage. I would venture that a majority of people belong to religions with these traditions (SDA, Catholic, Christian, Jews, etc).
I might make a point that nowhere does "one nation under god," refer to a Christian god. That might be the derivative but not the result in modern America. We are not a Christian nation nor should we ever consider ourselves to be such. It seems to have a rough track record when looking at Israel and Islamic nations. Why would I want my nation to associate with the tyranny that has spawned from such nations. But once again, we are not a Christian nation and nowhere does any legal document state that we are. We are a nation open to all creeds and ideals. You might want to check again. Your sources are likely very flawed.
We are not a "Christian" nation-do your homework. We are "one nation under God", it was worded that way on purpose. Platos God? The Church of Englands God? Show me where "churchianity" comes into play, freedom of religion comes into play. Now define religion. If there was a "church of God and Gays" would the state have to honor their marriages. The definition of marriage needs to be redefined, it is and archaic model we have outgrown.
U all bring fair points. Nowhere in my post did I say the Constitution made us a Christian nation. Bam, that's for you Miss. Rather the US is a judeo-christian nation by our heiritage.
I find it amusing that you use the word 'business' in "If your church doesn’t want to perform same-sex marriages, that’s your business. The government has no business forcing preachers to perform marriages they don’t support". Marriage practically a business now adays as I will mention later.
I think I should point out the problem and reason why many secular churches like the church of Latter-Day Saints go so far as to spend millions of dollars to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal is largely because of the aftermath of what will follow. Most churches receive tax exemptions or refunds from the government of some kind, and some of these 'corporations' are particularly fond/dependent upon these. When the day comes that gay marriage is finally made legal, the government will most likely (and justly) consider exemptions/refund papers from churches who discriminate against gays void. This is the main point that I seem to get from talking with Mormons or other heavily antigay doctrine teaching churches, that they are 'forced' to go progay because otherwise they won't be exempt and get money from the government. So basically they're arguing they have the right to discriminate while still being able to keep their tax exempt status. And if that mentality somehow gains hold in the legal system, then I fear businesses as well will then be able to discriminate against gays.
I'm curious to know what Mormons are telling you they are worried about losing their tax exempt status over homosexual marriage. It's a moral issue for the LDS church, not a tax issue.
I am a mormon, I am not anti-gay, and our church most certainly does not rely on government exemptions. Some of my closest friends are gay. Don't go trying to blame the problem of gay marriage on LDS people when, in California, the majority of the people who voted against gay marriage were not mormon, and the LDS church had no direct involvement in any campaigns. As to being a Christian nation, I think I would also argue that at this point we are no longer a christian nation because our ideologies are a melting pot of all beliefs and all walks of life.
They had some involvement, look here: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentar…
First, "other people did it also" isn't any sort of defense. Second, the LDS church is more involved than most. Here! Have some official church documents:http://www.mormongate.com/document1.html
I beg to disagree on some points. While the the LDS church did not consist of the majority of the majority that voted for say, Prop 8, they did practically sponsor about 70% of it, or about 21 million dollars [http://huff.to/drtclx]. Yes, they weren't the only ones, they in fact coordinated with Catholics, but as someone pointed out that doesn't suddenly make it OK for the LDS Church to do it. 70%+ is a fairly large involvement in the game of civil rights politics. If Wikileaks was currently open, I show you proof of how serious the higher ups are in the LDS church in ensuring no gays ever get to experience marriage, but alas they have closed it down until they get more donations to keep it going.
Alright, found the document that strongly advocates: "you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage." This is taken from a letter that was sent from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008.
Also the following argument was made by a Mormon friend (among other others), but these are her exact words, and I consider that since she seems to know the inner workings of the church she participates in, they are true (in terms of how the LDS financially operates):
"So the lds church, among many, is facing a direct frontal assault. Here's the chronological sequence of events we are looking at if proposed legislation on gay marriage is passed: 1. gay marriage becomes a civil right (specifically, not just legal as a civil union) 2. the church cannot simultaneously uphold its doctrines on morality and yet support the gay lifestyle without breaking the law. 3. Ergo the church is now in violation of federal law. 4. The church loses tax-exempt status (currently the Church pays no taxes on tithing funds but does pay them on corporate earnings and dividends.) 5. TITHABLE FUNDS BECOME "TAXABLE REVENUE". We're talking a virtual halt of the growth of the church. It is likely that property tax alone (tangible assets such as 11,000+ church buildings, 128 temples as well as museums, universities, libraries, missions WORLDWIDE…the repercussions are mind-boggling!) would bring missionary work other means of spreading the gospel and maintaining it on a temporal level to a screeching halt."
yep, the church still did NOT donate any money to Prop 8, the only thing they did was take a vocal stance and the members did the rest. No, I don't think it would bring things to a halt, I think you underestimate our church greatly.
I am sorry, but clearly your friend has a malformed perspective on the law, if not just the role her church played in the Prop 8 campaign. Even with the legalization of same-sex marriage, no church would be forced to preform marriages that they did not wish to. I am trying not to be ad hominim, but becuase of your friend's use of the phrase "gay lifestyle," I suspect the breadth of her knowledge on LGBT rights issues is extremely limited. Myopic religious perspectives like her's demonstrates that the justifications against same-sex marriage are rationalizations for deep-seated prejudices.
Texas school board seeks to rewrite your kids' textbooks: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2…
Narrow-minded people are rewriting history everyday, and feeding it to the next generation. In the future, children will have to be smart inspite of, and not because of, the epically epic failure of the public education system and its ideological skew, which will be drilled into the heads of little Ritalin monkeys all over this great nation.
Oh well. There's always plenty of evil socialist countries to immigrate to where people have MUCH better health care and can marry their boyfriend of 6 years. Just sayin'.
This is not an "other people did it also", this is a don't blame it all on one group, because we weren't the majority of the voters, not even close. That's not direct involvement, and the mormongate letter is a fake, nice try.
Why did you only focus on the part where about being mormon? Do you have no better argument other than "it's the mormon's fault?" I would like to see an argument where you don't attack another religious group, I did not, in any way attack gay people. I fully support their lifestyle, and I am sorry that you feel the need to attack my beliefs and my group of people based on inaccuracies and falsehoods.
Normally I don't get involved in my own comment boards, but something does need to be clarified.
First of all, I'm sorry Jessica. It's not my intention to bash Mormons in any way. Most of the nicest people I know are LDS.
I lived in California until five years ago, and for the majority of my life my mother was a devout Mormon. At some point, our ward's Relief Society (for those unfamiliar, that's the women's group) asked all of it's members to go door to door campaigning against gay marriage. This caused my mother to question the church and eventually leave.
I really don't like to pick on Mormons- I like them quite a bit. And as Jessica says, they aren't directly responsible. However, they were involved in undermining California's gay marriage bill.
My recent post ArbiterGamble:http://bit.ly/cTAGWn Is anyone out here an official member of the @CoffeePartyUSA?
To be clear I wasn't saying anything about any individual mormon person, but rather the LDS church itself. And of course the church wasn't solely responsible for prop. 8, and of course not every single mormon is against gay marriage. But the link I posted earlier (from an official source) makes the churches position on gay marriage and their involvement in proposition 8 both very clear. Does it not?
You're not necessarily anti-gay if you're a mormon, but the church itself? Read my link, there's no denying it. And any member of the church should at the very least be aware of this.
I read your link, I am aware, I was aware before this. Even if the church is anti- gay, why focus on one group that has a small part in this rather than the issue of gay marriage as a whole not being accepted into a society. Please read the rest of my posts and you will understand better where I am coming from and why I am asking you to leave my faith alone.
Because your faith is not innocent and you can't claim immunity from criticism. If you want freedom of expression, etc., you have to allow to others, and that includes them having the *right to criticize your beliefs*. It's not that everyone's free to think what they want, unless they happen to have an opinion that touches upon someone else in society. That's absurd and we'd get nothing done. There is nothing inherently wrong or unacceptable about criticizing a group. It's acceptable to criticize, for example, a political party; it's acceptable to criticize a religion. You could argue that a criticism isn't accurate (for example, you could argue that the LDS church isn't anti-GLBT rights–you'd be demonstratively wrong in that case though), but it's just about the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty to categorically state that no criticism can be legitimate.
It's a fact that the LDS church has actively fought to keep same-sex marriage from being legal and contributed money to that cause, and urged (with the claimed backing of *God* and the threat to one's soul and eternal salvation that entails) members to do the same. If you think, as I do, that people should be allowed to marry whomever (consenting adult) they wish, regardless of sexual orientation, how can you think that's it's not legitimate to criticize groups that work to prevent that right?
Yes, it's true that other groups have done and do the same. However, it's obviously false that criticizing one group doesn't mean we can't or don't criticize other groups, even if we're not necessarily doing so at the same time. Here, I'll compromise and do that now. The Catholic Church also actively works to prevent GLBT people from having equal rights, and I think that's unethical, hypocritical, and wrong of them, much like it is for the LDS church to do so, same as it is for other groups, including secular ones, e.g. the GOP.
tl;dr version: if your faith is actively working to prevent same-sex marriage, don't complain when they're criticized for it.
Alright then, criticize away, just do it fairly and in an educated manner. I said nothing about criticizing, I don't always agree with my own faith on everything, and this happens to be one of those things, so just don't lump us all together and make sure you have your facts straight before you spew them. : )
I'm sorry Josh, that last comment was not directed at your article, I am sorry that your mother had that experience. That is a strange request for a relief society to make, not one that is encouraged by the church. I understand that many voted against gay marriage, but not all did, I did not support the bill against gay marriage and that was my choice.
That's perfectly fair. But may I ask why you don't support the gay marriage bill if you fully support the lifestyle and many of your close friends are gay?
My recent post ArbiterGamble:http://bit.ly/cTAGWn Is anyone out here an official member of the @CoffeePartyUSA?
I think you misunderstood, I voted for gay marriage
Oh, you're right, I did misread that. Well, thanks for reading and discussing!
My recent post ArbiterGamble:http://bit.ly/cTAGWn Is anyone out here an official member of the @CoffeePartyUSA?
That may sound strange, but we have a belief, unfortunately that is often forgotten by members of our faith, that we allow others the privilege to worship how, where, and what they may. While I may not choose your lifestyle, I cannot and will not choose for you what rights you may or may not have. You are an upstanding human being, all I ask is the right to exercise my faith without judgment and I allow you the right to exercise yours without judgment. Fair?
the last time i talked to an LDS member (i was accosted on my home from work by some missionaries) I brought up prop 8. he equated homosexuals to murderers and thieves.
hate the sin, love the sinner?
we all need to treat people as individuals and respect other people's beliefs, and so i really appreciate your statements, but i will hold you to them.
after all, no one has the right to call me immoral for being a homosexual any more than i have the right to call them a pedophile for being catholic.
just saying.
I absolutely agree, please hold me to them.
Again, the LDS church itself did not donate any money to Proposition 8, it was all members. I never said it was ok. And again, just finding ways to miss the bigger issue.
Got this from the AP:
In response to a 1992 questionnaire from The Associated Press, Huckabee, then a Senate candidate in Arkansas, spelled out his opposition to homosexuality, saying it was crucial that the country not "legitimize immorality."
"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle," he wrote, in response to a question about gays in the military.
He also advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, saying it was necessary to confine "carriers of this plague."
As governor, Huckabee supported an Arkansas policy that prevented same-sex couples from serving as foster parents. On gay marriage, he said in an interview, "Marriage has historically never meant anything other than a man and a woman. It has never meant two men, two women, a man and his pet, or a man and a whole herd of pets."
this is the fucking shit (i know its going to censor it) that I've been talking about. incest, polygamy, and beastiality are not exclusive to or inherent in homosexuals. legitimizing homosexual relationships does not open the door for these things, it is a fear tactic. you don't know any gay people, so you assume they all want to have sex with children and dogs. well, i don't know about the pets part, but the catholics and mormons already have a stranglehold on pedophilia and polygamy.
see how i flipped that around?
its the same thing.
Got this from the AP:
In response to a 1992 questionnaire from The Associated Press, Huckabee, then a Senate candidate in Arkansas, spelled out his opposition to homosexuality, saying it was crucial that the country not "legitimize immorality."
"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle," he wrote, in response to a question about gays in the military.
He also advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, saying it was necessary to confine "carriers of this plague."
As governor, Huckabee supported an Arkansas policy that prevented same-sex couples from serving as foster parents. On gay marriage, he said in an interview, "Marriage has historically never meant anything other than a man and a woman. It has never meant two men, two women, a man and his pet, or a man and a whole herd of pets."
this is what i'm talking about. i don't know how many times i've heard homosexuals compared to incestous child-molesting pet rapists, but its getting old. last time i checked the catholics and mormons already have pedophilia and polygamy covered.
see how i flipped that around? its the exact same thing.
Thanks Josh, well put, and its about damn time somebody said it.
i know, i know, a lot of you get upset whenever someone points out the fact that the bible isn't the literal word of god, but its still a fact. anything else is a matter of faith.
another fact? marriage is a legal contract granted by the state, and not a sacred institution by law.
i can officiate weddings in two hours after being ordained online.
we don't want to undermine your beliefs!
we just want the tax credit!
thank you!
Then why are homosexuals so against civil unions, which would provide the tax credit? Oh that's right, because of the whole "separate is not equal" argument. So it's more than just about tax credits.
i'm not against calling gay marriages "civil unions" so long as heterosexual marriages follow suit. you can call it whatever you want. i'll take my civil union, you take yours. what do you say?
what is the harm in calling it a marriage versus a civil union? and if its such a big deal to the sanctity of the institution why not make it clear in our laws that marriage is in fact a civil union, and leave the rest to the churches.
you're right though, its about more than tax credit. its about power of attorney, hospital visitation, and a great number of other civil rights which cannot all be covered with separate documentation.
In response to a 1992 questionnaire from The Associated Press, Huckabee, then a Senate candidate in Arkansas, spelled out his opposition to homosexuality, saying it was crucial that the country not "legitimize immorality."
"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle," he wrote, in response to a question about gays in the military.
He also advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, saying it was necessary to confine "carriers of this plague."
As governor, Huckabee supported an Arkansas policy that prevented same-sex couples from serving as foster parents. On gay marriage, he said in an interview, "Marriage has historically never meant anything other than a man and a woman. It has never meant two men, two women, a man and his pet, or a man and a whole herd of pets."
this is what i'm talking about. I was going to go on a long tirade after reading this, even though its the same old tired comparison. really, what it comes down to is that mike huckabee probably just doesn't know any gay people, otherwise he might realize that we are not in fact trying to marrying our pets.
I've never met a homosexual who wanted to marry an animal or inanimate object. I've never met a heterosexual who wanted to do those things either.
The general principle, however, is that a policy based strictly on love cannot discriminate on the basis of the object loved (to an extent). For example, if marriage is strictly a social contract justified solely by love, then we should be biting at the bit to legalize polygamy. Arguments of abuse aside (after all, you'll find abuse in monogamous marriages as well), any number of people should be allowed to willingly enter into a communal marriage. Five men and three women, eigtheen men and one women, twenty-three guys and twenty-three women. The number and composition shouldn't matter, as long as they all love one another.
how is this policy based strictly on love?
where in a marriage license is the word love?
marriage by law is a social contract, love has little to do with it.
if it did, the divorce rate would probably be better now wouldn't it?
It is easy to create a buzz by taking an obvious controversial position, on an obvious controversial topic, like all the Eng 101 Freshman who want to write a paper on Capital Punishment. Better writers avoid the obvious, and find the controversy the public didn't know about. I would enjoy much more new thoughts, investigative insights, versus the easy to come by opinion on popular culture.
Only takes one piece of paper to marry, a volume of paper and the legal system to get divorced; everyone will be held to the same secular standard. The fabric of our society will not come undone, to the contrary it will strengthen it. Being heterosexual does not give you the magic blueprint for being a parent, partner, or guardian-trust me. I have said it before, they have the right to be trapped and miserable like everyone else. Instead of going after gays and lesbians why don't they attack the weak slackers who can't make their "normal" marriages work, that's were the fabric is coming undone. Oh wait, maybe because the church's ( for the most part) have no power over that, do they? THAT is completely secular, where is that argument, huh? ps you can never ever legislate morality……