Marriage as a religious-only term debate

[CaptJodan]

Today at work, I got into a conversation with a co-worker (how of which is probably not important) on the relationship of the term “marriage” and the concept of homosexual unions.

As a preface, I would say that my co-worker seems dutifully Christian in some manner or form (though I only just started talking with her today, but I get the impression) however she’s also fairly liberal to the point of “should have been born in the 60s”. The idea of equal rights for homosexuals is far from repugnant to her, but she also seems to have an inerrancy slant to the Bible (as evidenced when I said that there are many contradictions, and she looked at me like I was nuts).

My co-worker’s position was that, as long as the law was exactly equal to gay couples as it was to straight couples, then a different term (not necessarily civil union) should be an acceptable compromise. Her position was fundamentally of compromise, that the church sees marriage as a union between the couple and god, and that as long as the rights remained equal for homosexual couples, there shouldn’t be an issue.

Having seen this argument on SDN and elsewhere, I objected, stating the usual sources of “separate but equal” and “what about those in heterosexual marriages outside the church that get to call their unions marriage, and why is it only homosexuals that must be called something different if heterosexuals marry outside the church” points. She thought about that, then proposed the idea that perhaps the best solution was to make all non-religious based marriages fall under a new, but completely equal category that would include non-religious based homosexual marriages (while, of course, a marriage done in a progressive church would be called “marriage”), thus making “marriage” specifically a religious term, no higher or lower in weight than the non-religious term in legality or rights given. She didn’t fully embrace the idea of “separate but equal” as a legitimate argument because “it’s not like there would be 2 separate water-fountains” and so on. I tried to explain that it would also be fundamentally lower socially, but that didn’t seem to get through.

Anyway, I recognize that the idea of changing the meaning of marriage to include only religious based unions and nothing else to be utter folly on a practical level, but from an objective level, where the rights are fundamentally equal and would treat the term “marriage” as a religious based term, I can find no problems (beyond it being a mindless-middle fallacy).

We were having what I would call a true debate, where both sides are open to considering each other’s point (she seemed extremely receptive to the ideas I was submitting), none are taking the points as attacks, but rather as an exploration on the issue. My goal in the debate is really is not to attack religion in this instance (as that will get no sympathy from her) but rather attack the idea of a separate term for “marriage”, but I seem to have run out of steam as to what, specifically, can prove that two separate terms are silly. She seems to believe that as long as the other term is equal in the eyes of the law, then all is well.

Any suggestions, points in the right direction or issues I am missing in the “separate but equal” argument, or any other contributions would be helpful. And if my premise is wrong (and a second term to describe non-religious unions of all types seems appropriate) let me know that as well.

[Darth Wong]

My co-worker’s position was that, as long as the law was exactly equal to gay couples as it was to straight couples, then a different term (not necessarily civil union) should be an acceptable compromise.

How would she feel if someone told her that (for whatever reason; make one up, it could be as simple as "people named Smith are not allowed to marry") she could not refer to herself as "married", although she would still have the same rights?

Of course, she'll probably attack the reason you give for not letting her use the term "married", but that's beside the point. She is saying that it should make no difference at all to the recipient, so it doesn't matter how justifiable the reasoning is.

Unless she's really dishonest, she would have to admit that she wouldn't like it one bit. And that's where you might be able to get some traction arguing with her. Apart from the fact that religious ownership of marriage is a bald-faced lie, of course.

PS. You don't have to attack religion in order to attack the lie that religion owns marriage. That's a simple matter of history. Does she think the ancient Egyptians and Chinese copied marriage from Judeo-Christianity 5000 years ago, long before Judeo-Christianity existed?

[Lusankya]

Point out that no marriage laws mention religion at all. It's mainly property rights with a bit of child custody, immigration rights and power of attorney thrown in. The fact that there's often a priest there is pretty irrelevant. I mean, there's often a priest at a funeral. Would she approve of creating two different terms for that ceremony so that the religious and secular aspects are separate?

And ask her if non-religious people should be able to get marriage. Most marriages in the world are secular anyway, so if she really, really wants a separate term for the religious aspect and the secular aspect, then the democratic thing to do would be to call the religious ceremonies "religious unions" and leave the term marriage to secular society. That seems like a perfectly acceptable middle ground to me. I know that in Australia, at least, the celebrant often requests that the audience doesn't applaud until after the papers are signed, so there's some cultural precedent there for considering the legal aspect more important than the religious one.

[CaptJodan]

PS. You don't have to attack religion in order to attack the lie that religion owns marriage. That's a simple matter of history. Does she think the ancient Egyptians and Chinese copied marriage from Judeo-Christianity 5000 years ago, long before Judeo-Christianity existed?

Actually, no, but she does seem to believe that marriage exists as a product of religion (be it Egyptian, Babylonian, whatever), which I suppose is easily enough refuted in countries where religion doesn't have so tight a hold.

[Darth Wong]

PS. You don't have to attack religion in order to attack the lie that religion owns marriage. That's a simple matter of history. Does she think the ancient Egyptians and Chinese copied marriage from Judeo-Christianity 5000 years ago, long before Judeo-Christianity existed?

Actually, no, but she does seem to believe that marriage exists as a product of religion (be it Egyptian, Babylonian, whatever), which I suppose is easily enough refuted in countries where religion doesn't have so tight a hold.

Ask her to justify this claim rather than simply stating it. Especially since the basic idea of marriage doesn't change much from culture to culture even if the beliefs of the religion change enormously. It's always been about publicly laying claim to someone, and about assigning property rights.

For that matter, ask her to explain where the Bible says that God invented the tradition. Especially since Adam and Eve never had a wedding ceremony. The Bible simply starts mentioning the concept of husbands and wives without making note of where it came from. Yes, there are part of the Bible where it says that a married couple becomes one in Christ or some other poetic nonsense, but that does not mean God invented the concept of marriage, or that pagans have no claim on it. There are parts of the Bible where it says that single people become one with Christ too, or that shared belief means you become part of one family, also joined with Christ. Does that mean God invented the concepts of being single, or being part of a group? Just how far are we to take this absurd pseudo-logic?

[Kitsune]

Another item which might or might no is that some religions such as Universalist Unitarians and modern pagans mostly support gay marriage....Those are religious organizations which support gay marriage.

[CaptJodan]

Ask her to justify this claim rather than simply stating it. Especially since the basic idea of marriage doesn't change much from culture to culture even if the beliefs of the religion change enormously. It's always been about publicly laying claim to someone, and about assigning property rights.

While the original exchange took place verbally, I've sent an Email with a response that, among other things, loosely addresses this in the form of trying to detach Christian or even religion as the main motivator for marriage. I also rather liked putting the shoe on the other foot as Lusankya suggested. She claimed in the verbal exchange that there's really no way to prove that marriage existed pre-religion, but I find that difficult to swallow. Even if the term in it's current form didn't exist, such partnerships were probably used in societies with little or no religion.

I'm also testing to see what kind of religious motivations she has. I'm not sure yet whether she's a YEC, but I'm testing the waters there to see just how much actual history she's willing to accept.

For that matter, ask her to explain where the Bible says that God invented the tradition. Especially since Adam and Eve never had a wedding ceremony. The Bible simply starts mentioning the concept of husbands and wives without making note of where it came from. Yes, there are part of the Bible where it says that a married couple becomes one in Christ or some other poetic nonsense, but that does not mean God invented the concept of marriage, or that pagans have no claim on it. There are parts of the Bible where it says that single people become one with Christ too, or that shared belief means you become part of one family, also joined with Christ. Does that mean God invented the concepts of being single, or being part of a group? Just how far are we to take this absurd pseudo-logic?

I'm really willing to bring actual Abrahamic religious discussions into play only as a last resort, primarily because I fear, like so many other strongly religious people, that she will shut down an otherwise productive debate on the moral implications of separate terms for the same concept. I'd like to defeat her logic on strictly moral/ethical grounds if I can, especially since actually debating the premise that biblical marriage even matters when we see the tradition used well beyond that religion is the key concept I want her to accept.

Another item which might or might no is that some religions such as Universalist Unitarians and modern pagans mostly support gay marriage....Those are religious organizations which support gay marriage.

I made a point of pointing this out in my response, that some religions might well accept a "spiritual union" (I changed it slightly Lusankya) while others would not, thus further confusing an issue that needs no further confusion. I await her response, and might post it (and my original message) here if she does it in a reasonably timely manner.

[Lusankya]

I made a point of pointing this out in my response, that some religions might well accept a "spiritual union" (I changed it slightly Lusankya) while others would not, thus further confusing an issue that needs no further confusion. I await her response, and might post it (and my original message) here if she does it in a reasonably timely manner.

"Spiritual union" is a better term anyway, I think.

Let us know how she replies.

[Kitsune]

I'm really willing to bring actual Abrahamic religious discussions into play only as a last resort, primarily because I fear, like so many other strongly religious people, that she will shut down an otherwise productive debate on the moral implications of separate terms for the same concept. I'd like to defeat her logic on strictly moral/ethical grounds if I can, especially since actually debating the premise that biblical marriage even matters when we see the tradition used well beyond that religion is the key concept I want her to accept.

One problem which Richard Dawkins mentions is that many people consider that we simply cannot criticize Christianity while they can criticize just about anything we say if they have a valid concern or not.

I know that I have said some stuff which I consider only obliquely critical of Christianity and the reply was basically that I absolutely hate Christianity

[CaptJodan]

She finally replied this morning. Unfortunately, I'm at work and don't have time to respond right now (not even much time to more than do a cursory read through. I'll post my first response, then her follow up.

After thinking about it a bit, I think there were a few things I wanted to discuss regarding your idea, and feel free to respond as you like.

1. I would imagine that perhaps changing the definition of marriage to those people who married (heterosexually) outside the church might not understand why their definition is changing. The use of the term seems quite ingrained in our culture (as it is in so many others) and just the logistical issues of changing the term for a whole host of people would (probably for the conservative right) be unacceptable It would, after all, cost money to have all those forms changed and such. However, from a moral standpoint, I don think this argument does much. It's more from a practical standpoint.

2. Someone asked me (when I was knocking the idea around) "how would religious institutions feel if we changed their term, but kept "marriage" as a secular term?" In other words, reverse the plan. This is an interesting concept for me. We know that marriages, as the term goes, have taken place around the world, and long before Christianity even existed (this makes a couple assumptions about your beliefs, so forgive me if I am overreaching). Marriages have been performed both before and after the existence of Christianity which might have involved little or no religion at all.

Ergo, the logical conclusion is that marriage transcends any one particular religion (and as my next point will demonstrates, kind of transcends any singular definition). Thus, the term "marriage" should remain a secular term, while something like "spiritual union" or the like would take the place of religious unions.

Now the question here is, do we think religious institutions would accept this compromise? I don't think they would, and I would ask you to ask yourself why that is. It suggests that there is a hidden power to the word, a power that fundamentally suggests a higher, more important, more respected union than another term would convey. And that is why I bring up "separate but equal" as a concept. The laws wouldn't be different, but the social impact might be.

3. I'm sure you'd agree that marriage itself has never really had a solid definition from the beginning of time. The actual definition has not always included one man with one woman, it hasn't always included love (more arranged or used as a currency exchange), and of course today, it certainly doesn't mean a union between a couple and God (in non-religious ceremonies, or ones of a wholly different religion that does not deal with a single God, for example). I submit that the term has the capacity to accept the influx of homosexual unions to be counted as marriage. You stated earlier that because of separation of church and state, the state cannot bind the church to accept the union, and I agree. But at the same time, the church should not have sole rights over the term "marriage" for all persons, even those of non-religious or different religious faith, as the street works both ways.

Her reply...

1, 2 and 3.--my answers all got mixed together . I'm really glad you were kicking the idea we talked about on Friday around with friends (haha, that sounds funny). I did the same, and it brought about good conversation. Several conservative people I spoke to agreed with the concept that religious marriages (of various religions) and legal unions were fundementally different, although related entities. Because of this, even though they felt that homosexuality would be, in the long run, harmful for society, they they agreed that possibly sepparating the legal and religious catagories would be a fair compromise between differing ideologies.

Your idea about asking religious institutions to create a new term for their sanctioned heterosexual unions was interesting. To me personally, the importance seems to be distincition, one way or the other, and I think the idea is fair. You are suggesting that all forms of legalized unions, no matter the situation, be defined as marriage? I did some research, and the only logical/legistical point I have to make about that is as follows: While homosexual unions have been legally recognized in countries such as Africa, China and Japan, in the English language, the word marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman (see dictionaries and the OED). The Anglo-saxon/English world has never practiced or had a word for homosexual marriage. If we were to legeslate two catagories of government recognized unions, then it would seem logical that the new catagory be the one to come up with a new name. If, from a legal standpoint, this seems unjust or dangerous, then it seems that those religious institutions who still believe in strictly heterosexual unions should keep the term "marriage," since that is what it has always meant, and that the government should devise two new terms for heterosexual and homosexual legal unions.

I see what you are saying about marriage sounding like the official or correct term and a new term sounding less authorized. I think that exhuming the term marriage from state-sanctioned verbage and starting with two, equally new and similar terms for heterosexual and homosexual legal unions would be fair. It would also make a clear distinction between what the government sanctions and what spiritual authorities sanction.

Here are a couple of the sources I was looking at--some are directly related, and some indirectly. Both have a nice list of references that we can look into buying/obtaining on our own--which I thought was really useful.

http://www.ejhs.org/volume10/betrayal.htm
http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article. ... ssmarriage

Thanks again for writing! This was a good idea. I'm sorry if it seemed like it took me a while to reply. I just saw the e-mail tonight. Sometimes it takes me a while to respond to e-mails, so if that ever happens, it doesn't mean that I'm anoyed or offended, it just means that I'm probably I havn't found a good chunck of time to write back yet (it takes me a while to write e-mails . So, again, thanks very much and I look forward to continuing the discussion.

[Darth Wong]

I did some research, and the only logical/legistical point I have to make about that is as follows: While homosexual unions have been legally recognized in countries such as Africa, China and Japan, in the English language, the word marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman (see dictionaries and the OED)

She's simply flat-out lying. The word "marriage" has not always exclusively meant "a man and a woman". In fact, the word "marriage" has historically referred to any unusually permanent joining arrangement, even between two concepts, as in "the marriage of horse racing and gambling". Not only that, but the major dictionaries recognize homosexual marriage as a form of marriage. Furthermore, polygamous marriage was recognized before the English language even existed, and that isn't between a man and a woman either.

I fucking hate it when people say things like "I did some research" when they obviously didn't do a goddamned thing or even seriously think about the subject.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: every goddamned thing that comes out of an anti-gay marriage person's mouth is a lie. They're fucking dishonest little shits from top to bottom, and all the "reasons" they give are smokescreens to cover their true reason, which is simply that they think gays are disgusting.

[Samuel]

marriages (of various religions) and legal unions were fundementally different, although related entities.

Which is why they are exactly the same except for the label and ceremony.

even though they felt that homosexuality would be, in the long run, harmful for society,

Aside from the urge to break Godwin's Law, there is also the fact that this statement is completely false- from their position. What they are attacking is people being openly gay, not just gays themself. The only way this makes sense is if they think gays can recruit or they think that it isn't really that important and force them into heterosexual marriages so they have kids to propogate the Volk.

While homosexual unions have been legally recognized in countries such as Africa, China and Japan, in the English language, the word marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman (see dictionaries and the OED). The Anglo-saxon/English world has never practiced or had a word for homosexual marriage.

So just because 75% of the world's population has done it we can ignore it because they had the wrong skin color?

government should devise two new terms for heterosexual and homosexual legal unions.

In short, screw over the atheists and the gays. Charming.

I think that exhuming the term marriage from state-sanctioned verbage and starting with two, equally new and similar terms for heterosexual and homosexual legal unions would be fair.

You mean using the most complicated and pointless method instead of the simplest and most obvious? Does it need to be spelled out why we don't do things that way?

[CaptJodan]

Your bubbly airhead friend wrote:

I marvel at how accurate a description of her in-person personality that is.

I'm not one to copy and paste verbatim arguments found here, but rather like to try and use what is said here as a stepping stone for my own argument. So some of you will recognize inspirations from you that I ran with (obviously DW and Samuel on this round).

I replied:

1. “Because of this, even though they felt that homosexuality would be, in the long run, harmful for society…”

Did you ask them how it would be harmful to society? I’m curious to know what their reasons are. Do they fear people will be “recruited” into being gay? Or is it a condemnation against people being “openly” gay and not being forced to a heterosexual marriage? Do they have evidence that homosexual marriage will be harmful to a society at large?

2. “You are suggesting that all forms of legalized unions, no matter the situation, be defined as marriage?”

In a word, yes. Many conservatives (some still today) find the idea of interracial marriage to be repugnant. There is, in fact, even a separate word for the concept known as miscegenation (which includes, but is not limited to interracial marriage). Do we point to a man and a woman of different race and say “they are miscegenationed” (or something to that effect)? No, we say they are married, but it wasn’t so long ago that marriages between two racially different people were not recognized by state or church. The term marriage adapted to accommodate interracial marriage. It has also already adapted for legal unions outside of the church, i.e. secular marriage, a marriage not in any way under God. So why single out homosexual marriage?

3. “I did some research, and the only logical/legistical point I have to make about that is as follows: While homosexual unions have been legally recognized in countries such as Africa, China and Japan, in the English language, the word marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman (see dictionaries and the OED).”

This is simply false.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare ROYAL MARRIAGE.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

I think you should take special note of several items there.
First, #4, where the meaning of the word explicitly mentions homosexuals, but refers to it as being without legal sanction. Now if it goes from being illegal to legal, with the same rights as heterosexual marriage, how is it in need of another term?

Items 5-9 simply refute the idea that marriage ONLY means a union between a man and a woman. The fact is that marriage has grown to accommodate unions that have nothing whatsoever to do with living beings. But I think it’s important to understand the hypocrisy here. Your position insinuates that it’s fair to say “the marriage of ice cream and apple pie is a match made in heaven”, but that “gay marriage” is going too far. In effect, an inanimate object is more worthy of the term marriage than a gay couple that perform a union (religious or secular) ceremony. Does that seem like a morally defensible position to you?

Lastly, take a look at definition 10. That is what the definition of marriage used to look like. Marriage used to refer to a contract between husband and wife. You’ll note that the term “obsolete” is next to it. The definition was changed to reflect our more modern outlook on society, and it’s by no means the only word that has gone through such changes. Just because a word has always meant X does not mean it cannot change. “Cool” used to just refer to temperature differences, after all.

4. “I see what you are saying about marriage sounding like the official or correct term and a new term sounding less authorized. I think that exhuming the term marriage from state-sanctioned verbage and starting with two, equally new and similar terms for heterosexual and homosexual legal unions would be fair. It would also make a clear distinction between what the government sanctions and what spiritual authorities sanction.”

But isn’t this overly and unnecessarily complex? We’ve already been talking about creating terms based on religious and non-religious based unions, but we seem to be drifting back to homosexual vs. heterosexual. It seems as if we have moved from talking about adding one additional term to adding three plus the one already in existence (religious heterosexual, religious homosexual, non-religious heterosexual, non-religious homosexual). For that matter, why don’t we differentiate between interracial marriages, and refer to these differently, which would put in an addition 2 terms? I see this as doing no favors to anyone socially. It actually would serve to further subdivide populations into “groups”, or tribal units. I don’t see how this brings acceptance or equality.

Your idea of creating two separate terms does not seem different from creating a separate term for interracial marriage, which as we can see was never adopted as a means to describe interracial relationships, and even doesn’t exclusively target only interracial couples. Why, then, should it be permissible to single out a specific group which the church finds offensive (as they used to with interracial couples (and some still do)) when we have found ways to incorporate non-traditional unions into the word “marriage” in the past?

[Kitsune]

Did you consider mentioning "Boston Marriages"
It was a term I found out while looking up for historic examples of homosexual marriages.
There is some argument if the relationships were sexual or not but it was a term for two women living in a household together

[ray245]

Just asking people around here, did the ancient Greeks ever refer to their union between homosexual partners as marriage?

[Darth Wong]

Just asking people around here, did the ancient Greeks ever refer to their union between homosexual partners as marriage?

You realize they didn't speak English, right?

[Kitsune]

Just asking people around here, did the ancient Greeks ever refer to their union between homosexual partners as marriage?

I brought that up in another discussion and the person I was discussing it with stated that it was between an older man and a younger male, trying to suggest pedophilia. From what I read though, the union between males and females were often of similar ages though.

[Darth Wong]

ray245 inadvertently brings up a good point: this debate over the word "marriage" is meaningless when we're talking about non-English history (which is most of history). It's an English word after all, and when we translate a Chinese or Egyptian or Greek word into "marriage", we do so because "marriage" is the closest English word. It doesn't mean that anyone can take a preferred English definition and justify it by citing these other cultures.

[Kitsune]

I would be careful how far to follow that. For example, what what Pagan Scandinavians call marriage be considered marriage. In some instances, a Pagan warlord would even be married to one or more Christian wives. I think as far as monogamy (In the West), it is a more or less Roman practice although the Greeks might have followed it.

[Samuel]

Just asking people around here, did the ancient Greeks ever refer to their union between homosexual partners as marriage?

I brought that up in another discussion and the person I was discussing it with stated that it was between an older man and a younger male, trying to suggest pedophilia. From what I read though, the union between males and females were often of similar ages though.

That is a different thing. What we are talking about is like what the men of the Sacred Band had.

I would be careful how far to follow that. For example, what what Pagan Scandinavians call marriage be considered marriage. In some instances, a Pagan warlord would even be married to one or more Christian wives. I think as far as monogamy (In the West), it is a more or less Roman practice although the Greeks might have followed it.

Except polygamy has always been counted as marriage- it just is considered the wrong kind of marriage. Notably polygamy was rare for most of the members of the group but still had the same title as normal marriage.

[salm]

Why is it even important what the word used to mean? Even if the word marriage wouldn´t have included the gay variant of marriage it could just be amended. That´s like saying we can´t call gay people gay because gay used to mean something else.

[CaptJodan]

Why is it even important what the word used to mean? Even if the word marriage wouldn´t have included the gay variant of marriage it could just be amended. That´s like saying we can´t call gay people gay because gay used to mean something else.

From what I've been able to piece together of her argument, she's trying to discover a compromise between those that want equal rights and a rightful gay marriage, and those conservative church-goers that want gays not to infringe upon their marriage. She's trying to prop the term marriage as a "church only" term, because, in her view, the meaning was theirs first (at least in the English variation). There are, of course, all kinds of problems with that, including the one you mention (and I hope my argument dealt with).

[Darth Wong]

Why is it even important what the word used to mean? Even if the word marriage wouldn´t have included the gay variant of marriage it could just be amended. That´s like saying we can´t call gay people gay because gay used to mean something else.

From what I've been able to piece together of her argument, she's trying to discover a compromise between those that want equal rights and a rightful gay marriage, and those conservative church-goers that want gays not to infringe upon their marriage. She's trying to prop the term marriage as a "church only" term, because, in her view, the meaning was theirs first (at least in the English variation). There are, of course, all kinds of problems with that, including the one you mention (and I hope my argument dealt with).

Isn't it funny that Christians only decided that marriage exclusively belonged to them when the gays started doing it? Notice how they didn't have a problem when Hindus, atheists, Muslims, Wiccans, or Scientologists got married. For decades, they had no problem with the idea of civil marriages that had absolutely zero Christian component to them. And they didn't raise a fuss about the origins of marriage when divorced couples got remarried, even though that deviates from the original meaning as well.

Nope, it wasn't until those disgusting gays started marrying that they suddenly discovered this deep and abiding reverence for the exclusive religious nature of marriage.

It is as I've said elsewhere: every reason that an anti-gay marriage person throws up is invariably a smokescreen. The REAL reason boils down to simple disgust and hatred of gays. They just don't want to be part of a social tradition if gays are allowed to participate in it.

[CaptJodan]

Ok, so this is something of a necro, given how long it's been since I last posted, but this was only due to the fact that the other party didn't get back to me for so long. In addition, it's still well into the first page, so I was hoping it'd still be valid.

Basically, this other person I'm arguing with had a lot of other things to do, and apparently took three days to compose this email, so she is pretty much a singular minded person and with finals and other issues she had to deal with, it really does take her this long to get around to responding.

Her points, however, aren't exactly stellar. The refutation of these points shouldn't be terribly difficult, though a few questions are included below.

I re-read our past e-mails, and I'll try to pick up where we left off.

I agree that the meanings of words change: this, in fact, is the very primes of our discussion--we are attempting to define terms in light of modern changing reality. I agree that marriage does not imply Christian marriage, but to many different religious and secular ideas of marriage--that was a good point. My point in the previous e-mail was that marriage has in the past always been defined as a union of a man and a woman, and that it was not until the last three decades that the term has begun to include another possible meaning--as the dictionary.com definition you cited demonstrates. In our discussion about the possibility of creating one new term, my point was to contrast 800 years, to 30 years in deciding which group, if a second name was added, the term "marriage" should logically apply to. However, I can understand your concern regarding such a categorical definition because of cultural value which accompanies naming. Your point about using the word marriage to talk about inanimate objects but not people was particularly valid to me. I also concede that it would be logistically difficult to create two whole new terms for heterosexual and homosexual marriage, and the more that I thought about it, I believe you are right: either the state should recognize a difference or they should not. Choosing one term to name all legally recognized unions seems to be logical.

You compared homosexual marriage to miscegenation, pointing out that if one is not distinguished in modern society, than neither should be the other. However, I believe that there is a large difference. Skin color and biological sex are two very separate issues. There is a very substantial difference between skin pigment and sex organs--not to mention the many other sexually differentiated organs. While the miscegenation and homosexuality have both become more accepted in America over the last 150 years, I do not believe that this chronological parallel is enough to substantiate larger ideological comparisons. Just because one idea is progressively accepted doesn't mean that all ideas should be. For example: child pornography, factory farming, and commercial materialism, although they have only become increasingly accepted over the last 70 years, are not necessarily good components of society. By the same token, just because some ideas become less accepted doesn't mean that they are incorrect--the practice of backing printed currency with another form of wealth is a good example of this. This leads into something else you asked me about in your last e-mail.

You asked me why Christians believe that homosexual marriage would be harmful to society. I will try my best to answer this question, but it is certainly only scratching the surface. According to the Bible, God created humans. They are his own masterpiece whom he loves and whom he intends to be in fellowship with for all of existence. God created humans perfect, with every aspect of our essence in balance and accord with his character and our good. We were, however, led astray and became infected with a virus which has corrupted us through and through. Although we are bear the image of God, that image is warped by our rebellion and sin. All of the good desires and drives that we have are now slightly off-balance. Ambition, passion, anger, sadness, hunger, sexual desire, fear, and reason are all drives which are now misinformed by a will that is both rebellious against God, as well as unable to judge the greater benefit or harm of individual choices, and thus more prone to error and serious fallacy. In order to protect us, the Bible teaches that God informed humans about what is and is not good. Greed, rage, ruthlessness, self-pity, anorexia, anxiety, arrogance are all examples of dangerous deviation from healthy drive control--they are all innate drives which contradict the character of God and harm us as individuals and as communities. Although we cannot escape these realities of our existence, we can work to avoid them. Of the sexual drives, God says that the one and only sexual model that is safe and good is an exclusive, monogamous relationship with one member of the opposite sex while they are living. The Bible says that the monogamous sexual relationship between a man and a woman represents the relationship between God and humans. The interaction of two people's sexual organs, made to fit together, hints at not just a physical but also transcendent spiritual reality. The monogamy of this act--each individual being solely devoted to the other--is significant because God has promised a singular, devoted, never-ending love to humans and desires the same in return. Additionally, there are aspects of God which are represented in men and women exclusively--both are made in the image of God, and it is in the union of the two that the full picture of God's character is best seen--as flawed as men and women are, it is still the picture God has given to us, one of the many that lasts as a dim reflection of what God intended for us--sisterhood, brotherhood, motherhood, fatherhood, friendship, and civic servanthood are other examples of dim reflections he's given us to teach us about him and what we were meant to be. The way that we interact with others emotionally, spiritually, physically all either reflects the character of God or twists it. So in Christian marriage, both the daily/lifetime choices of the relationship, as well as the individual sexual acts of the relationship are meant to reflect the goodness and glory of God. When this pattern is twisted, so is the reality which it represents. Because both the body and the spirit are to reflect and glorify God at all times, no other form of sexual interaction are acceptable before God. When societies begin to practice and accept sexual practices outside of what God has prescribed for us, they are stepping outside of what is good for them. Homosexuality is only one of many ways that we can step outside of the safety zone of God's structure. Adultery, prostitution, sexual trafficking, polygamy, promiscuity, pornography, etc. are all harmful to individuals and to communities--yet our society and our world has chosen to live in practice of these things because they gratify unhealthy but strong sexual drives. Every single person struggles with such desires--no one is pure or free from unhealthy desires, in any area of life. But what God has requires us to do is to reverence his Love for us above our own immediate desires and gratification and trust that He has the authority and wisdom to inform our present actions. I understand that you probably do not accept these ideas, but it is the answer to your question, and I hope that it will at least help you understand where Christians are coming from and why they think the way they do.

The Bible does not express any objection to miscegenation--in fact, God punished one person for merely mocking a miscegenated couple. However, the God of the Bible forbids homosexual acts. Skin color is irrelevant to God in this issue, but sexual identity is not--God even speaks specifically in the Bible to hermaphrodites, barren, and sterile men and women, explaining how despite their lack and cultural persecution, he (God) values them and will bless them even more than typical heterosexual, reproductive individuals, for loving him and walking in his ways. In other words, God places real weight on sexual identity but does not judge people the way that most of the world judges people on these counts. He acknowledges all reality, and he prescribes what reality is best. Just as God loves each individual completely, without loving their hourly acts of sin, so Christians are called to love every person without affirming their sin. So as Christians living in America, the church is commanded to love and except people who are homosexuals, but they are not to support homosexuality as a socially-accepted practice.

I hope this was helpful. It really, in a way, completely changes our discussion. Originally I was approaching the issue hoping to find a middle ground where a legal compromise could be drawn up which would respect the interests of both parties--those for and against homosexuality as a social practice. I think that that approach would still be a valid and helpful possibility that should be explored. However, in your last e-mail you seemed interested in talking about why the "other side" took the stance they did in the first place, so this response took a slightly different direction. But, let me know what you think--we can continue talk about the Christian standpoint, or we could go back to talking about things from a more legal/neutral perspective of arbitration. I'm good either way.

The justifications of the religious angle were a slog through. I don't remember asking in such a way to be preached to, but clearly that was something she was just waiting for. It's one giant red herring. A few key questions.

-I can't recall that child pornography has become MORE accepted as a social practice? Isn't this just a flat out lie? Weren't children exploited more in a variety of different ways more in the past?

-Is that skin color thing even accurate? I was under the impression that a passage in the Bible actually speaks against dark skin.

I plan on responding soon either way, as the bulk of this is useless dren not relevant to the topic at hand.

[Samuel]

Ok, so this is something of a necro, given how long it's been since I last posted, but this was only due to the fact that the other party didn't get back to me for so long. In addition, it's still well into the first page, so I was hoping it'd still be valid.

I don't mind although the mods might.

However, I believe that there is a large difference. Skin color and biological sex are two very separate issues. There is a very substantial difference between skin pigment and sex organs--not to mention the many other sexually differentiated organs. While the miscegenation and homosexuality have both become more accepted in America over the last 150 years, I do not believe that this chronological parallel is enough to substantiate larger ideological comparisons.

Analogies do not have to be exactly the same to be valid. I'd argue that skin color is a bigger deal because you can readily identify someone based on it, while gays and lesbians are invisible in the general population.

Just because one idea is progressively accepted doesn't mean that all ideas should be. For example: child pornography, factory farming, and commercial materialism, although they have only become increasingly accepted over the last 70 years, are not necessarily good components of society.

Child pornography has not become anymore accepted now than it was in the past- in fact, less so compared to the distant past.
Factory farming... is so vague that I can't respond.
Commercial materialism is a laugh. You do realize that some of the oldest items we have from human civilization are things like necklaces and jewelry? What do you think they are for? People have ALWAYS been materialistic, just the amount varying.

By the same token, just because some ideas become less accepted doesn't mean that they are incorrect--the practice of backing printed currency with another form of wealth is a good example of this.

That is a shitty idea. It means that we incur constant deflation with random bursts of rapid inflation.

Ambition, passion, anger, sadness, hunger, sexual desire, fear, and reason are all drives which are now misinformed by a will that is both rebellious against God, as well as unable to judge the greater benefit or harm of individual choices, and thus more prone to error and serious fallacy.

Let me get this straight- she thinks wanting to eat is evil?

Of the sexual drives, God says that the one and only sexual model that is safe and good is an exclusive, monogamous relationship with one member of the opposite sex while they are living. The Bible says that the monogamous sexual relationship between a man and a woman represents the relationship between God and humans.

Care to tell us where it says that in the bible? Care to tell us when the US became a theocratic state? Care to tell us when such extreme disdain towards women became acceptable? After all, if the relationship mirrors God and humans, guess who is the implied superior?

The interaction of two people's sexual organs, made to fit together, hints at not just a physical but also transcendent spiritual reality.

Fallacy of naturalism.

The monogamy of this act--each individual being solely devoted to the other--is significant because God has promised a singular, devoted, never-ending love to humans and desires the same in return.

You do realize that that relationship is the exact opposite of monogamy? After all, God has all of humanity. Now, if we continued with the analogy we'd be on our way to Mormonism.

Additionally, there are aspects of God which are represented in men and women exclusively--both are made in the image of God, and it is in the union of the two that the full picture of God's character is best seen

Translation- single people are impure.

The way that we interact with others emotionally, spiritually, physically all either reflects the character of God or twists it. So in Christian marriage, both the daily/lifetime choices of the relationship, as well as the individual sexual acts of the relationship are meant to reflect the goodness and glory of God. When this pattern is twisted, so is the reality which it represents. Because both the body and the spirit are to reflect and glorify God at all times, no other form of sexual interaction are acceptable before God. When societies begin to practice and accept sexual practices outside of what God has prescribed for us, they are stepping outside of what is good for them. Homosexuality is only one of many ways that we can step outside of the safety zone of God's structure.

This is a blueprint for totalitarianism. And not the nice kind, but the one that desires to know what you are thinking at all times so they can fix it. I'm amazed you don't see how insanely oppressive this is.

Adultery, prostitution, sexual trafficking, polygamy, promiscuity, pornography, etc. are all harmful to individuals and to communities--yet our society and our world has chosen to live in practice of these things because they gratify unhealthy but strong sexual drives.

The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th (conditionally) are illegal. I can hardly see how they can be counted as condoned by society.

Every single person struggles with such desires--no one is pure or free from unhealthy desires, in any area of life.

Wrong. Some individual are naturally monogamous and love their spouses. I'd hazard a guess Mike is one of them, but such individuals tend to be rare in the population.

I understand that you probably do not accept these ideas, but it is the answer to your question, and I hope that it will at least help you understand where Christians are coming from and why they think the way they do.

Lets see... you hate freedom, you hate happiness and you hate humanity. Did I miss anything?

The Bible does not express any objection to miscegenation

Which is why the Jews only married their own kinds, right?

However, the God of the Bible forbids homosexual acts.

And shrimp eating. And pants for women. And...

Originally I was approaching the issue hoping to find a middle ground where a legal compromise could be drawn up which would respect the interests of both parties--those for and against homosexuality as a social practice.

With the forces of Choas there can be no compromise.

-I can't recall that child pornography has become MORE accepted as a social practice? Isn't this just a flat out lie? Weren't children exploited more in a variety of different ways more in the past?

-Is that skin color thing even accurate? I was under the impression that a passage in the Bible actually speaks against dark skin.

Child pormography is not more accepted in modern times. It should be pretty obvious given the extreme hatred towards individuals responsible.

As for intermarriage...
http://www.creationtheory.org/BibleStud ... y101.xhtml