Okinrus said:
It's rather standard terminology that marriage is composed of a husband and wife. I don't believe this is only a religious definition but one that evolved from our society.
Sorry to single you out, Okinrus, but do people
really think this way?
Would you agree with the following statement?
•
In the history of the United States, religion has never had any effect on people's perceptions, choices, or actions.
Whence comes the seed from which that definition of marriage evolves? It comes from religion. In the US, that religion is the diverse paradigm of Christianity.
Sometimes you'll hear a poignantly mistaken Christian claim that the US is a "Christian nation." Generally, that person is referring to the prevalence of Christian values in the social norms of America.
Admittedly, the "Christian nation" argument doesn't do much for the alleged Christian who is arguing Christian social supremacy, but it does strike me in contrast when people put forth arguments that
ignore that prevalence of Christian values in American culture.
And although I'm not following the whole of the specific part of the debate I've stuck my nose into, I wanted to splinter off
in the abstract from another of your statements:
Okinrus said:
Well, I will within reason but the purpose is to debate whether my or your's definition is right. To say "[keep] it to yourself" begs the question of why I must and you not.
In my personal experience, much over the years has been made of "rights" in terms of religious debates. One of the striking things you'll notice in American social-religious debates, and something I've worked very hard to quash in our Sciforums environment, is a tendency by some Christians to make the argument that
if I don't get my special way, my rights are being infringed. This argument has pertained to the publication of books, the stocking of libraries, the gender of your neighbor's sex partner, a woman's right to medical care, biological education of youth,
ad nauseam.
For each of those, a quick example:
•
Publication - "This book shouldn't be allowed to see the light of day." (e.g. general book burning -
Harry Potter, &c.) The general argument is that allowing such obscenity into circulation infringes a Christian's right to free religion by failing to respect their standard of decency required for acceptable existence.
•
Libraries - Oregon endured a ten-year fight over the book
Heather Has Two Mommies; somewhere in there I recall a Christian woman going before the Salem-Keizer (Oregon) school board to protest the presence of Robert McCammon's
Demon Walk in the school libraries. The woman demonstrated a specific lack of understanding of literature in general--in other words, I could see her point if I took a McCammon novel as literally and gravely as she attempted to take the Bible. The general argument seems to be that allowing such books onto public library shelves infringes the Christian's right to free religion by forcing a violation of their religious standards. Allowing a McCammon novel, for instance, or
Heather Has Two Mommies on public library shelves seems to be something akin to forcing a Jew to eat pork while tattooing his wife and having consensual sex with another man. (That last refers to Lot's daughters; an obscure swipe I admit.)
•
Gender of sex partner - Georgia, Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, Texas, and finally, Massachusetts. I mean, really ... in Oregon, Christians tried to fire state employees for having a sex partner of the "wrong" gender. In the Oregon battle, they even tried to rewrite the state curriculum in a manner that would have screwed the medical schools, for sure. Medicine based on religious moral assertions? Come now--giving bad medical advice to sodomites is a worse idea than faith healing.
•
Woman's right to medical care - Even the terminology can set off some Christians. I call it a woman's right to medical care, some folks call it murder.
•
Biological education - I agree that there are a number of things that should be taught within the home, but society pays for it collectively when parents fail to perform those certain duties. I look at the school-prayer people and wonder, "Do you really want a public-school teacher teaching your child religious faith?" I mean, I
understand that somebody might be uncomfortable having an ogling midlife-crisis explaining sex to their daughter, but that's no excuse for parents to skip out on it. In the meantime, we have a high first-world teen-unwed birthrate and a scant excuse of a social net to protect the future of the species. Abstinence as a cause in the face of HIV didn't really work. Ignorance definitely didn't. People are people, and that means they're human. We must, at some point, prepare to deal reasonably with this fact.
In the end, the simple problem I have with the above arguments spawned by various people pursuing their faith in Christ is a simple comparison:
•
Humans appear to be social creatures. As such, we must make certain sacrifices and compromises to get along. Christians claim the highest possible stake in their faith: the eternal soul. And they use it like a club when there is a political cause afoot. Logic and reason take a back seat compared to the value of the soul. But in the end, the reason I choose what I do is that I believe it ensures the greatest freedom to the greatest number of people.
Christians don't give a rat's ass about that sort of thing. As one church in Seattle once put it, in large letters on the marquee,
Freedom is not the liberty to do what you want, but to do what God says is right. At a mystical level, sure, it's true. But I guarantee you they weren't aiming for the mystical. It's the classic question of "who watches the watchers." I simply try to minimize the effect of that question by minimizing the watchers.
Generally speaking, if Christians find themselves against a wall whereby they feel their way/opinion/&c is denied while others are being accepted, such as in arguments over the definition of marriage, I would point to the issue of how tightly one draws the circle. People can
believe whatever the hell they want. But in a social cooperative, the species has an obligation unto itself to treat people fairly, and that means setting definitions as inclusively as possible.
This is often difficult, especially in gay-related debates, for Christians. The rhetorical tendency of some of the sharper voices to group homosexuality with child rape, bestiality, and necrophilia suggests a lack of understanding of the notion of
consent. (I admit that doesn't surprise my sense of humor, as Christianity carries an inherently twisted notion of consent.)
What happens is that "your" ("their," whosever) opinion is perceived as inherently cutting out a legitimate segment of the population.
With what marriage represents in society, it must include homosexual unions. If society wishes to strip the legal privileges of marriage and reduce it to a proprietary contract, then fine, we can leave it to the churches. Most of us have better things to do, anyway, even if it's just sitting on a rock with a cigarette and killing ourselves slowly.
In the meantime, though, when a family that kicked out your deceased partner of over thirty years when he was a teenager steps up and yanks his estate out from under you and your lack of legal recourse stems directly from society's legal regard for homosexuality ... is that really
fair?
Should you be denied employment as a police officer or a typist because of the gender of your sex partner?
The problem with some people's definitions is that they are designed to intentionally exclude other people.