Jared Wright has written seven reasons why Adventists should support same-sex marriage [It currently has 424 comments and has 3814 pageviews]. These deserve a response.
At the outset, I wish to say that I hold nothing but empathy and love toward my gay brothers and sisters. I wish for little more than that they lead happy, fulfilled lives in the company of the people they love. But this heartfelt caring does not obviate my belief that marriage itself ought to remain solely between a man and a woman.
To answer Wright’s points in order: First, proscribing same-sex marriage does not violate the separation of church and state unless religious belief is the only argument. But it isn’t. Every significant civilization in history has kept marriage strictly between male and female, and not only because of religion.
The main reason, apart from religious belief, for opposing same-sex marriage is the welfare of children. Most people throughout history have understood that children need both types of parents, male and female. One problem with same-sex marriage, which will mean widespread adoption by gays, is that it will involve a radical social experiment on children, who can hardly consent to such adult-focused rearrangements.
All other things being equal, one wonders which parent Wright would willingly have jettisoned in favor of two of the same sex. It should be noted that divorce or death does not deprive a child of an opposite sex parent as does same-sex marriage. Little Jane, having been adopted by John and Steve, will never in her whole life know what it is to have a mother. A baby boy adopted by two women will never have a father—never. Talk about “total deprivation”!
While some do argue that changing the definition of marriage will harm marriage, we can thus see that the larger problem is that it would damage society. It would do this by further breaking down the traditional family—which is the best place in which to raise children—and by fully normalizing homosexual relationships, a trend which is already leading to more same-sex experimentation and sexual confusion in young people.
Changing the definition of marriage will be confusing to all children, who will now be acculturated to ask themselves and each other whether they might like to marry a boy or a girl when they grow up. No preferencing of one situation over the other, either in the classroom or in textbooks or anywhere else, will be allowed once the definition of marriage is changed. Efforts toward this mandated parity are already underway; enacting same-sex marriage would cement them.
Another serious but less recognized concern is that when the definition of marriage is expanded to include same-sex couples, religious liberty is seriously threatened. Laws passed to protect the rights of special interest groups very often interact with religion in ways we don’t expect, as evidenced here and here.
As for enforcing morality through law, we do it all the time, as with current civil rights laws. Some moral principles we enforce through law, some we don’t. On such a massive, unprecedented change, let’s allow the democratic process to decide.
Wright speaks of how marriage benefits both society and couples, whether opposite sex or same-sex. These are fair and powerful points that would be persuasive if the arguments against same-sex marriage were not strong. But the acknowledged benefits of promoting fidelity and monogamy amongst gays must be weighed against the downsides of same-sex marriage, the outgrowth of which may not be fully apparent for some time.
The argument that because we were right to reverse course on slavery, we must be right to change the definition of marriage is a non sequitur. Just because one is wrong doesn’t mean the other is wrong. Slavery was wrong; keeping marriage between a man and a woman may well be right. It does not become wrong simply because a group of people, dwarfed by the judgment of the ages, suddenly decides it is wrong (and it is “suddenly” in the scope of history).
The comparison between proscribing same-sex marriage and proscribing interracial marriage is inapt. There is no essential difference between blacks and whites. There is a world of difference between men and women. Marriage utilizes these differences to bring balance and complementarity both to the relationship itself and the raising of children, who vitally need the unique characteristics male and female bring to their parenting.
As for whether same-sex marriage will be used toward achieving the legalization of polygamy and other creative arrangements, we do not need to wonder. Newsweek has a sobering article on the jump-starting of the polygamy movement, so clearly given impetus, inspiration, and rationale by the successes of the gay rights movement.
Wright wrote, “Same-sex marriage does not pose a threat to me, my choices, or my way of life.”
While it’s not the same, this reminds one of the “divorce-threatens-marriage” canard. “People divorce, people marry their own sex, who cares? MY marriage isn’t affected.”
Wisdom does not only think of oneself or the present; it considers the larger group and the long-range view. This issue of changing the definition of marriage is not simply about me or my way of life. It is about all of us, and it is about the future.
Nothing in the disallowing of same-sex marriage prohibits gays from living as stable, committed couples. But in insisting upon the title of marriage, same-sex partners are demanding that society change what has been true through all of history—that men marry only women, and women only men.
It is an understandable wish, and those making the demand may indeed be accurate in believing they are wiser and more moral than all the religious teachers and all the sages of the past. But at the very least, we should acknowledge the hubris such a belief involves, and we need to be certain the bulk of society is on board with it. Until then, it is patently clear we need a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. As seen in California, this is the only thing that will prevent a single judge’s dubious moral certainty from becoming the margin needed to overturn the clear will and judgment of the people.
Janine Goffar is a Seventh-day Adventist writer living in Loma Linda, California. She is author of “The C.S. Lewis Index: A Comprehensive Guide to Lewis's Writings and Ideas.”
Comments
Since this essay is focused on the issue of human rights, not the Biblical tradition, it's telling that it doesn't rely on the perspective of LGBT folks or on sociological studies, but merely on some news reports and op-ed writers.
Contrasting Raymond's thoughtful essay of being a gay Adventist with the above, provides humane perspective to the slippery slope (will the freaks marry dolphins next?) fears.
Last week I attended the wedding of two Christians lesbian friends (one with an M.Div) who have been together for 14 years. Their legal marriage was such a meaningful ceremony for them and their family and friends gathered around. Tears, laugher, memories and prayers shared - having lived in places where folks don't know out LGBT Christians I understand the hesitation and worry about the future, but I would encourage that instead of relying on the media and folks like Dennis Prager whose punditry is linked to above five times, Adventists who really care about human liberty and trust in God should get to know their fellow believers, including Adventists, who are being excluded from all that marriage means.
Alex
Great piece until the final line. Please explain: How same sex marraige "includes all that marriage means"? I haven't found the anwer in Gen. or Paul or anything else between. Civil union, yes for property rights alone. The rest is a private matter. Tom
Tom,
The only marriage that the state has a right to codify is the civil union. The rest of marriage is social and ceremonial. Wether same sex or opposite sex couples the legal rights and responsibilities should be the same unless we believe people should be disrciminated against because of their gender and sexual orientation.
Countries that separate the civil from the social and ceremonial have the right idea.
Marriage, as Alex says, involves much more that two people living together. There are many benefits of marriage that are now denied to same-sex couples, albeit they are living together.
"Tradition" is the choice weapon here. Tradition says that marriage has always been between one man and one woman is simply not historically true. One need only read the Bible to see that marriage between one man and several or more women was their "tradition."
Tradition is not holy nor sacrosanct, and to rely on that as the guiding principle would have left in place many of the world's serious social ills: slavery, degradation and secondary status of women; child infanticide; child labor and much more. Tradition is only as good as society approves and allows.
Whether my neighbors are cohabiting without the benefit of marriage; are childless or not are matters that have no affect on my life nor my choices. It does not degrade my life's choices in any way, shape nor form. Nor, does allowing same sex couples to marry have any affect on heterosexual marriages or their children's welfare. A goodly portion of marriages of both opposite sex and same sex will not produce children, and those who already have children will only give the child the benefit of two, rather than one loving parent.
The old canard about "what will it do to the children" has been overblown out of all proportions and there have been no definitive studies showing that these children are more inclined to live their lives any differently than those who come from opposite sex parental homes.
It is an irrational fear promoting the possible harm to society by allowing same sex marriage that panders to the fear of those for whom tradition is their comfort and security. Moving out of their comfort zone, as Alex suggests, by getting to know our GLBS brothers and sisters would go far in removing such fear and help us realize that these are people who have many of the same desires as we all have.
" wish to say that I hold nothing but empathy and love toward my gay brothers and sisters. I wish for little more than that they lead happy, fulfilled lives in the company of the people they love."
If this is truly the wish and hope of the author, it is a strange way, indeed, of expressing it: refusing to allow them the expression of happy and fulfilled lives with those they love that she and her fellow heterosexuals enjoy. To wish for others to have the same happiness, but yet deny that fulfillment that you can hope for, are not true and honest wishes.
It is noteworthy that every nation in the world (that I can think of) also had, at one time or another, slavery institutions. Slavery was, of course, not unique to the US. That every nation had slavery does not make it right. And that, historically, all societies have defined (though, how many have done so explicitly?) marriage as between a woman and a man does not mean that it must always be so. The "judgment of the ages" is no strong argument for truth, or policy, whatever.
As far as polygamy is concerned, I don't personally have a problem with it, provided polyandry is also included, and age of consent, etc. are accounted for.
Also, your statement towards the end concerning the Judiciary's "dubious moral certainty" undermines your claim to a religiously neutral argument.
Both the conservative and the Biblical solution to stop gay marriage is to stop using socialist government to re-define marriage at all. Conservatives believe in limited governmment so government should not be allowed to re-define marriage one way or the other. Adam and Eve, and everyone else in the Bible, were never married by socialist governmment either. So, to be really conservative and really Biblical, stop using socialist government to re-define marriage at all. Internet research proves that the polygamists are not copying the gays. Polygamists today actually make more sense than anyone else when they say that anti-polygamists were the first to re-define marriage. It's true! Anti-polygamists re-defined marriage by using socialist government to exclude polygamy even though polygamy was always consideed as marriage throughout history and the Bible. (Any Christian who does not think so is saying the Biblical polygamists were hellbound adulterers because they never repented of polygamy.) So the gays are now copying the anti-polygamists in using socialist government to re-define marriage again. That's right. The polygamists are not copying the gays, the gays are copying the anti-polyamists. Here is an excellent article I found that makes this point very well.
"Anti-Polygamy is the Real 'Slippery Slope'"
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0016
It is very easy to take comfort in the benefit of the familiar. And the argument that same-sex parenting is clearly a detriment to the child comes very easily as a corollary to the belief that traditional parenting is best. But the argument has yet to be made beyond an appeal to conventional wisdom. The link to Dennis Prager's argument shows a simple volley in the argument of the following sort:
'Prove it.'
'No you prove it.'
'Not until you prove it'
...and so on.
If Mr Prager finds no studies on the effects of same sex parenting then he has to admit that this claim in the argument is unresolved. And if we want to simply fall back on the argument that for millennia societies have accepted one model of marriage we are throwing up our hands and refusing to investigate the wisdom of the inherent discrimination.
The argument that two-sex parenting is best can only be based on the data gathered in a society where two-sex parenting is respected and encouraged, single-parents are either accommodated or judged and same-sex parenting is marginalized, hindered by policy and judged by huge segments of society. Are we to simply accept that the government should amplify the power of discrimination through policy? The variables in any research done on varying models of marriage has to take bigotry into account as a variable. Especially the bigotry that claims to respect the happiness of a group without respecting its rights.
When we lament the poor child deprived of a father or a mother we reveal our baseless assumption that the child is suffering. A child with loving and capable parents is fortunate no matter what I think of the parents.
Claims that same-sex marriage will damage society rely on a wider extension of this belief: that any change is damage. That any expansion of an idea is a catastrophic rupture of precious boundaries. Another link to Mr Prager's related argument brings us to this claim:
"If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine."
It's worth noting that he has to use his imagination to find his warnings. He fears that everyone will be faced with a difficult choice to be either heterosexual or homosexual. Whether to marry the opposite sex or the same sex. He is afraid that all heterosexual ideology will be considered bigotry and insensitivity. There is no reason however to believe that respectful expressions of the self will be decried and stifled. How pessimistic it is to think that anyone asking for respect is hoping to deprive all others of the same.
To argue that textbooks and teachers must retain the right to promote and encourage heterosexual marriage is appealing to those who already believe homosexual union doesn't deserve respect. I wonder how eager we should be to preserve the right of a teacher to devalue and disparage that part of anyone's identity.
The "judgment of the ages" is hardly a strong argument for a policy of such continued disenfranchisement. It would be a non sequitur to simply argue that the proscription of slavery functions equally as an argument for the right to same-sex marriage. But that is not the argument. Slavery was defended by arguments that have emerged to a regain a new familiarity: the role of slavery in the preservation of social systems; reliance on biblical support for accommodation of repression. The repeal of slavery is relevant to the argument because we have recognized in the past that some practical and economic and considerations, and the fears that accompany some paradigm shifts, are not enough to justify the continued exclusion of certain groups from legal protection and a full claim to the rights provided by the government. We must call attention to those arguments that rely on a priori assumptions about the value of an individual and the deservedness of lesser status.
In an effort to avoid making claims about the status of a homosexual individual, the arguments against same-sex marriage that perpetually turn to parenting. It is safe then to speak of the lesser union of man-to-man or woman-to-woman when compared to the union of man-to-woman. It is an argument that is easy to claim but less easy to make. I ask for a true measure of the "world of difference between men and women." Once we get past biological differences there is very little research to support any meaningful neurological or emotional difference between the sexes. The claims put out by such writers as Louann Brizendine and Leonard Sax about the hard wired chasm between the sexes are based on loose readings of experimental data and often on flat out misreadings. One recent article in New Scientist makes claims based on the research of Larry Cahill et al that show a complete disregard for the distinction between findings and conjecture. (Read Mark Liberman's discussion http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=402). This may seem like a bit of nitpicking on a point that few people question: that men and women are different and therefore fathers and mothers play different roles in a family. But I bring it up to make the point that research does not offer any proof that a child of two mothers or two fathers has no access to the benefits of parents who complement each other's qualities.
The bifurcate model provided by a mother and father is valuable not because of their biology. The benefit comes from two parents who know each other well enough to provide for each other as they provided for the child. If the right to that union and all its responsibilities is not recognized by the government it can only be because of indifference to the rights of an individual. While same-sex couples now have the right to love as they wish they are not afforded the same rights to the state's protection. A protection that is currently being denied in a large part because of precedent. It is difficult to see how a demand for respect is to be denied because it is a departure from "what has been true through all of history." History is not a moral system. It has never considered a human right. History is no protector of the oppressed.
Waiting for the "bulk of society" to respect marriage rights is foolish. It is fine to say that this nation is defined by the will of the people and it is true that a democracy must be respected. But there is no reason other than indifference disrespect and fear to deny equal rights of marriage to those who ask to share a family. To demand any change takes pride. But to fear any change simply because it is change is the greater hubris.
Janine,
There are several points with your article I disagree with; I will bring up a couple here:
"As for enforcing morality through law, we do it all the time, as with current civil rights laws."
It is not a proper analogy to compare outlawing gay marriage to civil rights laws since the civil rights laws are intended to eliminate discrimination and efforts to end gay marriage are intended to promote discrimination. A better analogy would be to compare outlawing gay marriage to the Jim Crow laws which mandated separate schools and sections of busses and restaurants for blacks and whites.
"Changing the definition of marriage will be confusing to all children."
It would not be confusing to "all" children. The idea that children can marry anyone they want to is very simple. I'm not suggesting that parents, pastors, and teachers actually go and tell kids to marry anyone they want, but it is not a "confusing" concept.
Stan
Janine Goffar,
You write:
"Marriage utilizes these differences to bring balance and complementarity both to the relationship itself and the raising of children, who vitally need the unique characteristics male and female bring to their parenting."
What are these "unique characteristics"?
Are these characteristics present across all cultures?
I have one question, and a true story.
First, the question: if we accept as fact (not proven, but let's accept it for the sake of this discussion) that a child does best with both a mother and a father in the home, how does denying marriage equality further that goal?
Now the true story: I had an uncle-in-law who was a gay man. He lived with his partner for over 35 years. They did all they could to legally formalize their relationship, but they could not marry.
When this uncle died (of lung cancer), his surviving partner did not get Social Security survivor benefits -- as he would have if they had been married.
The surviving partner also had to pay inheritance tax on the 50% of the home that my uncle-in-law had left him. If they had been able to marry, this wouldn't have happened.
Finally, the property tax basis on the house changed and the property tax went way up. Again, if they had been able to be married, this wouldn't have happened.
Because of these three things, the surviving partner was no longer able to afford to stay in the house they had shared for three decades.
Does this seem fair or equitable to you?
We're talking about CIVIL marriage here. If laws can be changed so that ALL couples must enter into a civil union if they want the state and federal benefits currently associated with marriage, I can get behind that. Couples can then go on to be married in any church that will have them. But to deny civil equality (and the benefits to our society of creating more stable relationships) based on an accident of birth? That seems profoundly un-American and un-Christian.
Just hope that all who are supporting gay marriage live and vote in California.
Those Who Support Gay Marriage,
If you are an Adventist and are thinking about voting in favor of homosexual marriage in the November election, you need to be aware of the consequences of gay marriage to our religious liberty. In the event this concerns you, please read what Alan Reichach has written about this. Read his entire article. Do not limit yourself to the short paragraph is extracted from it:
*********
"Same Sex Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty
By Alan J. Reinach
In theory, allowing homosexual couples to marry should not threaten anyone’s religious freedom. Although the social and moral implications of gay marriage are apparent to many, few realize the significant danger posed to religious freedom by the California Supreme Court ruling in May giving gays a constitutional right to marry. The Court’s decision now elevates homosexuality to the same legal status as race, a protected class. This Court has refused to grant religious freedom more... (186 Comments)" Read the rest ==>
[http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog/ ]
*********
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Read the article when it came out. Wasn't impressed. White supremacist preachers don't have to perform marriage ceremonies for inter-racial couples. No biggy.
Happy Tuesday.
Jeannieb43
Janine, although generally speaking I have a "laissez faire" attitude toward this whole subject, I could possibly be convinced to go along with your arguments -- all the way, that is, to the last paragraph. I stopped there. I cannot --and feel I should never-- endorse a constitutional amendment for ANY purpose. Once a constitutional convention is convened, our dear U.S.Constitution will be eviscerated, piece by piece, and it will never be the same again.
Let's let the states make their own laws. Please, please, let's not argue for any constitutional amendments. The separation of church and state will also be vulnerable to being tampered with, and from there on, we as Seventh-day Adventists will have no protection whatever.
In terms of a perceived threat to religious freedom, I suggest you read this: http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/amar/20080801.html
It's a brief from findlaw.com that establishes the case that religious freedom and marriage equality are tied to each other in case law.
Freedom isn't the same for everyone, so you have to make accommodations: "Just as the free exercise of religion is useless to an Orthodox Jew if it only protects his right to observe Sunday as the Sabbath, so too the right to marry is an empty guarantee if it only protects a lesbian’s right to marry a man."
There are going to have to be accommodations on both sides, because we're in this freedom thing together.
What's more, the Catholic church refuses to marry divorced people and will continue to do so. Mormons deny marriage in their temples to anyone but faithful, tithe-paying members of the church.
And if Fred Phelps can shout "God hates fags" at military funerals, I think the First Amendment is pretty safe.
Religious freedom is NOT at stake here, unless you define "religious freedom" as the ability to discriminate against certain groups of people and then expect tax breaks.
The fall of Adam and Eve certainly has been a burden for both the straight and the gay. I don't think the issue will appear on the agenda of the next General Conference Session, nor do I believe we will arrive at a consensus in this thread. In daily commerce I treat each and all as my friend and neighbor. I don't ask nor expect anyone to tell. This is an issue that will not be resolved within Adventism.
To those who feel locked out of church fellowship because of sexual orientation, settle your discontent at the foot of the Cross, certainly the priesthood has no satisfactory answer.
I can not feel your pain, I can feel the tension of one out of step with the consensus. But please don't charge God for your situation. Tom
Let's begin by taking our eyes off ourselves to see what world we are creating for the youth. The gay movement has a goal of establishing a gay club in every public high school, or rather gay/transexual/transgender/and a fourth term I forget what the orientation is -- it has 4 initials in the club name. Straights are invited. What is this doing to the sexually-emerging teens? Hey, anything you can think of is ok -- you're ok -- I'm ok -- what can we do to think of something different to sexually do that is now ok? What can we do on the dance floor of the school dances to promote our ok-ism? It takes our youth places that the majority do not want to go (go along to get along). Oh how many teens crave the days of strict upbringings as an excuse to say "no" and disease-free. As grown Adventists (with fancy cars, homes, graduate degrees, and families) cry on the "Red Books" stage about their parents' White whipping stick, today's teens are crying on the inside for support of parental backbone. In my opinion, Red Books was a comedy of spoiled rotten overgrown (and I won't say the last adjective that comes to mind). Similar to Bill Gates crying on TV about his rough upbringing. Grow up and smell the coffee (postum). Kids are in a world of hurt today. Oh how they would love the White guidelines. But, no -- our conversations continue about me, me, and only about me thinks this and that about me.
JoAnn
JoAnn -
I'll agree that kids appreciate limits more than they say they do (I know my nearly 18 year old daughter does -- 4.10 cumulative GPA, says proud papa), but unless you were a gay teen growing up, I think it's hard to understand how important something like the Gay-Straight Alliance can be to kids.
You can't turn kids gay, just like you can't turn them straight. Believe me. They are gay or straight from birth, just like they are left- or right-handed from birth. Societal norms will push those that are bisexual (or ambidextrous) in the direction where the majority lies, but you can't change their core nature. Accepting kids for who they are and pushing them to be their very best is all we can ask for.
Check the suicide rates for young folks who are either gay, or harassed by others thinking they are gay. What if it were your child?
The Gay student clubs are there to promote tolerance and understanding for those who are different. Respecting each individual's differences is important for them in learning to respect themselves and others.
No one in his or her right mind "chooses" to be gay. That is an absolute and downright fable folks keep telling themselves. If being gay were contagious, we should all worry, but there is absolutely no, none, nada truth to that whatsoever. Simply reverse the question for those of you who are straight: when did you choose to be heterosexual?
Is gay marriage confusing for kids? It took me about 10 seconds to explain it to my then 6 year old when she asked.
"Usually when kids grow up, boys want to marry girls and girls want to marry boys. Sometimes though, boys fall in love with and want to marry boys and girls fall in love with and want to marry girls. That is called being gay for boys and lesbian for girls. Some people think it is wrong for them to feel that way but I don't."
And Michael Covarrubias thank you for expressing so well what I didn't have the energy to tackle - the idea that men and women have certain qualities that are so different that it is harmful for children to be "deprived" of one sex.
Some people believe that not only are men and women significantly different from each other but that they each have a unique God-given role to play and it is wrong to attempt to step outside that circumscribed role. I suspect that for those people, Janine's argument has a special resonance because how else would a girl learn how to be nurturing except from a woman? How else would a boy learn about leadership (not from a woman certainly!)
Is it harmful for a child to grow up with a nurturing father and playful mother? I want my children to understand that people are unique individuals and gender roles are naturally more fluid than some people wish.
In fact gender roles are a prime example of a situation where differences among the groups (i.e. how women are different from each other) are way way stronger then differences between the groups (how women differ from men). This is important to remember when we start saying how women are a certain way or men are a certain way. Which woman and which man? And can children really not figure that out?
Just wondering should porn be legalized and sold anywhere? There are many people in the world who would love to come out of the closet and not be condemned for their fascination with porn. Where do we draw the line? Or should we draw a line? When you legalize one thing then it seems its a slippery slope to the next.
Maybe the problem that we are facing is not really same sex marriage, but a lack of love for the sinner. As humans we act like chickens and pick at those who are not like us or who have made mistakes. If we do not show love to our fellow human, we are in equal sin, even if they are "more wrong than we are." How do we treat the pastor caught in adultery, or with a porn addiction? How do we treat the unwed mother, or our friends and relatives who come out of the closet? Our love can't excuse what happens or what happened. But our love can change and make a difference.
It's interesting to see folks commenting about high school and LGBT issues who clearly don't get their info from actually talking to either group. As someone who had a little brother recently graduate from high school and having heard his friends toss out homophobic epithets, I doubt that the finger-waggers are in any danger of not getting their message out.
As this Newsweek story of a 15 year old shot dead by another middle school boy in school over his gay identity shows, and as almost any kid knows, it's actually pretty hard to be different in a school setting.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/147790
Like we did with laws against interracial marriage which also relied on arms-length worries about social and biological difference, giving folks equal opportunity might actually reduce the misunderstanding/sin/fear-based roots of violence.
With a nod to Mr. Covarrubias, let's beware "the bigotry that claims to respect the happiness of a group without respecting its rights."
The SDA Church State Council sent this note out in Support of Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment, saying that the SDA church has endorsed the amendment and suggested some actions:
"Hold a community forum to discuss the importance of marriage."
"Submit letters and opinion articles to the local newspaper."
"Pray, pray, and pray as though our nation depends on it!!! It just may!"
The last is the worst hyperbole yet.
It then gives some "talking points" such as:
"The necessity of both a loving father and a loving mother. It's about the kids! Of courses social policy must promote marriage!"
"The amendment is needed to begin to restore a legal balance that respects religious freedom."
Questions: How does this amendment restore "legal balance"?
What about kids does gay marriage harm?
Although this is from the SDA Church State Council, it warns against making it in any way a religious argument but on secular foundations.
The SDA church has not made a convincing argument, especially on the grounds of "preserving the historic definition of marriage" in their paper.
Nothing convincing has been demonstrated that the present California law allowing gay marriage has in any way threatened marriage, nor that the constitution should be amended in order to protect marriage. It's a red herring. The church is meddling in politics that has no religious content.
Ms. Goffar,
I am not sure I understand your reasoning. It seems that at first you are saying that there are more reasons than religious ones for opposing same-sex marriage. But the only reason you list that has no religious overtones is that "Every significant civilization in history has kept marriage strictly between male and female". That doesn't seem like a legitimate justification for anything. Should we as Adventists really be saying that since the majority has been against something, we should be too?
The rest of your reasons [for the children, marriage itself, the 'traditional family', etc.] all seem to be religiously based. In which case, I would suggest that you ensure you are within a church family that will uphold the beliefs to which you also subscribe.
I do agree with this statement: "It is about all of us, and it is about the future." If we are to live in love and influence our world to become a better place for everyone to live [as I believe Jesus would have us to do] - though this utopia will never be fully reached, we must strive for equal treatment under the law, regardless of sexual orientation. It will indeed affect all of us, and our future.
Any church that decides they will not grant the right of marriage to any couple they deem inappropriate has the right to do so. The government, however, has responsibilities to and for ALL of its people.
jen*
Janine,
I appreciate your thought-full response in that you did what many others were unwilling to do in commenting on the original post ("Why Adventists Should Consider Supporting Gay Marriage"): you carefully and fairly analyzed the contents of the arguments and responded respectfully. Thank you for that.
A few responses are in order then.
1. First, you provide many sources (more than I offered) that all agree with your point of view and contradict points that I made. Alright. Along with others who have commented here, I note that the links you provide are by-and-large opinion pieces in non-scientific blogs or magazines. Op-Ed pieces are fine for those who want to hear opinions, but to really make compelling arguments, credible scientific studies go far further than opinion articles do.
2. Second, please note that the literature on the issue of children of gays suggests that children in GLBT families are equally happy, healthy and vibrant as their counterparts in straight homes. A great place to start (though it is only a starting point) is the Wikipedia page on LGBT parenting. It provides links to numerous studies and articles demonstrating that it is false to claim children in gay households are worse off.
3. Appealing to a "democratic process" or tradition or the will of the people is, as many have pointed out, a false-start. As I commented in the previous discussion of this issue, and as people have already noted here, numerous attrocities have been supported by a democratic, unified majority. Slavery was legal and had widespread support in the United States. It took courageous elected officials to get rid of it. Segregation was legal and supported by a majority. Inter-racial marriages were opposed by a majority and outlawed until, again, lawmakers ruled inter-racial marriages legal.
Time and time again, the will of the people, tradition, and the democratic process have been frankly and sadly unconstitutional.
4. There are no studies that link legalized homosexual unions to increased homosexual experimentation or a greater societal propensity toward "turning gay". Trying to make such a connection is baseless conjecture.
5. What the articles concerning "Religious Liberty" fail to mention is that the institutions that complain about having to make concessions to gay couples also receive monies from the government. They want to appropriate the benefits that the government offers but without the responsibilities of providing the government's equity. Bottom line - if you receive government money, the government has a right to tell you to whom to provide benefits. No violation of religious liberty there.
6. The fallacious (read incorrect) connection between gay marriage and polygamy has already been debunked at length. Again, I refer you to the discussion of that topic here.
7. As I suggested in the previous discussion on this topic, I again call for all those who want to make strong denunciations of homosexuality and gay marriage to get to know, personally and thoroughly, homosexual men and women. Listen to them describe their experiences. Hear their stories. Find out what life is like through their eyes. This is very different from meeting and shaking hands with a gay person. It involves becoming invested in their lives. I have known homosexuals of several nationalities, religions and ethnicities. When I speak, I have those people's stories in mind.
8. Finally, we need to stop this talk of "hating sin and loving sinners". It is a false dichotomy that is very unhelpful. We need to be clear (again) that Christian Scripture, and for that matter Jewish Scripture, does not state that a homosexual orientation is sinful. Anywhere. Scripture condemns the homosexual practices of its day, which always involved coersion, transience, and abuse. That is clearly far different from what we deal with today when committed couples make deliberate decisions to live faithfully in permanent relationships.
*HOMOSEXUALITY AND PORN*
Are unrelated. No link between one and the other in terms of any kind of slope, slippery or otherwise. Pornography is exploitative, it is dehumanizing, it is a business, and it is not based on love. Gay marriage involves mutual commitment and fidelity, it humanizes homosexuals and all of us with them, it is a permanent partnership and its basis is love. Let's do away with false characterizations of the issue and focus on the truth of the matter.
We ought to support full equality under the law (as the Supreme Court did) and oppose law-making with religious underpinnings.
Hey Jared I happen to have gay and lesbian friends and relatives. I see your point about making a distinction between the porn and homosexuality, yet I'm not sure they are as far apart as you would like to see them. I have a friend or two who would like to be exotic dancers and see nothing wrong with being a porn star. What's the difference? They want to be able to lead the lifestyle they choose. All I'm trying to point out is that this issue isn't as black and white as we would think it is no matter what direction we are looking from.
My suggestion that people ought to get to know gay and lesbian folks was a general appeal - not specific to you, and I'm glad that you call some gay people friends! I wish more Adventists could say that. :)
The difference between this marriage issue and pornography, I think, is that one lifestyle is fundamentally exploitative - porn, strippers, whatever is fundamentally about exploiting a person for one's own gratification. It is not the kind of lasting, committed relationship that the gay marrige discussion has to do with.
The other is fundamentally mutually-uplifting. Marriage - gay, straight, or whatever it is - has to do with permanent commitment to the well-being of another. That's why we do marriage. It has to do with growing together and acting on behalf of the other in a way that can never be matched (on a fundamental level) by a relationship between stripper and stripee or whatever you want to call it, or pornstar and porn afficianado.
To me, it seems as though equating the two relegates homosexuals to people with fetishes or sex addictions of some sort. All that I've read and heard suggests that homosexuality is the result of genetic wiring - a biological condition. That's different in a fundamental way than a large sexual appetite, isn't it fair to say?
Its fair to say if you agree with the mainstream way of thinking. :D
In talking with my friends who are gay and lesbian I have found that though they say that they were born that way if you look deeper you can see that they did not have a balanced home with a father or mother that loved them. In talking with a teacher who is gay, he told me that all he wanted his whole life was to have a hug from his father and be understood by him. I have a friend from college who told me that one when he was growing up he had to choose which way to go. He choose to be straight.
I am sure that there is a percentage that are born this way, but I have a hard time believing that all are this way. We were all born in sin and our lives take us different ways. Its small choices and experiences along the way that change us. We don't just all of a sudden one day say "Oh I want to be gay." Or I'm going to go out and be a stripper. Its the small things that slowly change our lives into being who we are.
"if you look deeper you can see that they did not have a balanced home with a father or mother that loved them. In talking with a teacher who is gay, he told me that all he wanted his whole life was to have a hug from his father and be understood by him."
We hear this sort of thing all the time -- clinging mother + absent/distant father = gay kid. Or at least, we used to, until science and psychology began to understand that's not how it works.
I think the reason this trope still seems to be in play is because there are true stories of gay men who had dysfunctional relationships with their fathers and exceptionally close relationships with their mothers.
Further, I believe the reason we see that is because, when a boy is gay, the father senses that on some level, even when the boy is very young. This causes some fathers to feel shame, or to pull away from the boy. The mother then compensates for the father's withdrawal of affection or attention by giving the son more of her attention.
Most straight children also come from "dysfunctional families." Was it Tolstoy who said that all families are unhappy in their own way? and can anyone truthfully say that he came from a perfect family? If so, it was not good preparation for life where there are no perfect people.
So we believe all modern science has to offer? :D It seems that in todays world you can have any conclusions you want. My wife is working on her masters in biostatistics and it seems that from talking to her you really have to know who is funding the study, etc.
I'd like to second your comments, Tom, about the anecdotes that abound about a gay child who had an absent or distant parent of the opposite sex. Of course there are gays and lesbians who had dysfunctional parental relationships and, if these hurts aren't dealt with, they can lead to an improper sexuality (either straight or gay). Just as there are heterosexuals who have unhealthy relationships and sexual expressions stemming from a childhood hurt, so do gays. Promiscuity, exploitation, and non-mutual relationships are unhealthy wherever they happen to take hold. This is why it's important to look at the evidence and not just go off of gut feelings or personal anecdotes.
I'd also really like to second your comments, Jared, about the false notion of "love the sinner/hate the sin." I appreciated these comments of yours in particular:
"8. Finally, we need to stop this talk of "hating sin and loving sinners". It is a false dichotomy that is very unhelpful. We need to be clear (again) that Christian Scripture, and for that matter Jewish Scripture, does not state that a homosexual orientation is sinful. Anywhere. Scripture condemns the homosexual practices of its day, which always involved coersion, transience, and abuse. That is clearly far different from what we deal with today when committed couples make deliberate decisions to live faithfully in permanent relationships."
When I support gay marriage, I am affirming the committed, faithful relationships of the people in my life who have often taught me more about what it means to be in an equitable relationship with another human being. I'm affirming monogamy, family commitment, and love that commits to one another even through hardships.
I especially want to note that study after study affirms that children raised in gay households fare just as well as those raised in straight households (and have no more tendency to be gay or lesbian, just a tendency to be more tolerant of non-traditional families--of which there are many these days). Children need committed, loving adults in their life--period. Speaking as a teacher, I can affirm that this can happen outside even the parental relationship. I'm a little concerned, Janine, with your worry that more gay parents will be able to adopt children as a result of marriage equity. Do you think it's healthier for children to be raised in the foster care/social services system than to have two adults in a (legally) committed relationship commit to love and care for them?
If you'd like to learn a little bit more about a gay couple who have adopted five children of color who had been bouncing around the foster care system, read this feature from the SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/01/FAMILY.TMP
After reading the entire article, who out there would dare to say that these children would be better off in the foster care system??
I commend Janine for making the case against homosexual marriage crystal clear and watertight. I would like to emphasize the following argument she made in this blog, which I do not recall anybody mentioning before:
*********
"It should be noted that divorce or death does not deprive a child of an opposite sex parent as does same-sex marriage. Little Jane, having been adopted by John and Steve, will never in her whole life know what it is to have a mother. A baby boy adopted by two women will never have a father—never. Talk about 'total deprivation'!
*********
The way I see, modern society has been placing the search for happyness of individuals above every other interest. This is true about homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, and abortion. Ir seems like the best interest of the child is relegated to a secondary position or else negated in toto in the case of abortion.
Society seems to say: The welfare of children doesn't count. What counts is my own pleasure and satisfaction. I want to get my own way regarless of the cost to others, to society, and to the future of our country.
This goes against the best interest of society and of the government. It tends to destroy the basic unit of society which is the family. This reminds me of the girl who on her sixteenth birthday was asked what she wanted for the occasion.
She responded by saying: I want a dad! Homosexual activists think they can improve society. The fact is that there is no way to improve what the Creator has designed for our own good and for the welfare for children and for society.
This me generation is looking for happyness in the wrong place. Focusing exclusively on self gratification will never produce enduring pleasure and permanent satisfaction. When we look for the best interest of children and all concerned, then happyness becomes the natural product of the correct way of setting our life priorities.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
I would like to cite a short paragraph from one of the links Janine provided at the begining of her blog:
*********
Same-sex marriage: Good for gays, bad for children. Of all the arguments against same-sex marriage, the most immediately compelling is that it is hurts children. If children have a right to anything, it is to begin life with a mother and father. Death, divorce, abandonment, a single parent's mistakes any one of these deprives children of a mother or father. But only same-sex marriage would legally ensure that children are deprived from birth of either a mother or a father." [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0504/prager050404.asp]
*********
Do we really want to hurt our children? Shouldn't we always look for their best interest. This applies to divorce as well. Sometime ago a man who was experiencing trouble in his marriage went to see an SDA marriage counselor. The first statement this professional made was: "Let's analyze and see what is your best interest."
He should have said, in my view: "Let's see what is the best interest of everybody concerned." If those contemplating setting homosexual marriage in solid concrete, and those contemplating divorce, would enlarge their vision to include the interest of children, how different would society be!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
I would like to highlight another paragraph from Janine's article which impressed me greatly:
*********
"The comparison between proscribing same-sex marriage and proscribing interracial marriage is inapt. There is no essential difference between blacks and whites. There is a world of difference between men and women. Marriage utilizes these differences to bring balance and complementarity both to the relationship itself and the raising of children, who vitally need the unique characteristics male and female bring to their parenting."
*********
Many of the proponents of homosexual marriage have argued that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is as unfair as the ban of interracial marriage was some years ago. This, of course, has no basis on logic. I agree with Janine that "There is no essential difference between blacks and whites." While, undeniably, "There is a world of difference between men and women."
Interracial marriage does not deprive the child of either a dad or a mom, while same-sex marriage does, and on a permanent basis. What a tragedy that those who advocate what will hurt children have a myopic vision of what they are proposing for the future of our country.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic: Isn't the point that it is entirely unclear if there is, in fact any relevant psychological or other non-biological difference between men and women? And the research seems to continues to pull down supposed differences, like math capabilities, etc. The right of a child to have both a mother and a father would also negate divorce, but I cannot see that that would be a good idea in any way.
Happy Tuesday
The consistent refrain of "what about the children" becomes moot if the partners are past child-bearing years. This also ignores the beautiful story above on the same-sex couple that adopted five children who had been shifted from one foster care to another. If one wishes to put children first, what do you suggest for the many foster children who are not finding homes? Are you willing to take them in to your home, permanently? Is a temporary foster home better than a permanent loving home of same sex partners?? Has anyone asked the children of their preferences? There are hundreds of babies abandoned each year. A loving permanent home is far superior to a temporary foster home where many do that in exchange for money.
Hi Niemand,
You are right, there have been 3 recent studies that show that boys and girls, men and women are more similar phsychologically and in capability than people assume. http://www.gpac.org/archive/news/index.html?cmd=view&archive=news&msgnum...
I always keep in mid that there are more differences between two individuals in all measures than there are between all men and all women on these same measures when taken as a whole.
Janine's arguments:
"Every significant civilization in history has kept marriage strictly between male and female, and not only because of religion."
The main reason, apart from religious belief, for opposing same-sex marriage is the welfare of children."
The first proposition should more correctly read:
"Every significant civilization in history has kept marriage strictly between one male and several FEMALES."
Read the Bible to find that ancient Hebrew society's customs included patriarchs with wives and concubines, many more than merely two.
As for the "welfare of children" if those protesting that lack were willing to adopt those children who are too often abandoned by their parents, there would be much less a problem of children's welfare than what we observe today.
There is also no law requiring couples of either sex to become parents. Should those then, be allowed to marry if there were no children? That is a very personal choice and not the blessings of prolific progeny that was considered by people of that era.
This world has already become too fruitful with overpopulation, often from those who are the worst prepared for parenthood. Biological parenthood is the easy part: true parenting is a life's work and the orientation of such parents who make a definite decision, rather than an unconsidered occasion, should be congratulated for producing healthy children. Any social worker will tell you that biological parenthood comes with no assurance whatsoever of good parenting, but often is the unfortunate and unplanned result of a one-night event.
True parenting requires the ability plus willingness to devote one's entire life and energy to that child as their most important duty. This is not limited to opposite sex couples, but to a loving family who truly wants children and is willing to give them a good home.
Nic, from the tenor of this conversation (which has been courteous and honest), one thing is pretty crystal clear. There is nothing watertight about this issue one way or the other.
I have no problem admitting that although I find arguments in favor of supporting gay marriage quite compelling and logical (even ethically necessary), I recognize that many Adventists, because of their own presuppositions and understanding will not come to terms with accepting gay marriage.
Nevertheless, there are numerous people who have commented stating very valid reasons why Adventists ought to support gay marriage. You have made it abundantly clear that you are not one of them, and that's fine. The purpose of these discussions is to share views openly and with integrity.
But whatever else the conversation on this topic may have revealed, it has not revealed crystal clarity or a watertight case in opposition of gay marriage. Unless by crystal clear and watertight, you mean something that fits very nicely with how you see things.
Elaine,
I would like to respond to the following statements you made on 05 August 2008 at 11:45:
*********
"There are many benefits of marriage that are now denied to same-sex couples, albeit they are living together.... Whether my neighbors are cohabiting without the benefit of marriage; are childless or not are matters that have no affect on my life nor my choices."
*********
I presume that you are aware that the benefits granted to married couples are tradicionally based on the notion that on the average married couples contribute to the preservation of the population by producing and rearing the next generation, which is not true about homosexual couples.
Given the above, how can you argue that granting these same-sex couples the benefits accorded to married couples has "no effect on my choices"? Where do you think those benefits come from? It comes from my taxes! Why should I financially support a lifestyle which claims the benefits without a willingness to contribute to society what is expected from married individuals?
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Niemand,
You stated the following on 05 August 2008 at 12:08:
*********
"As far as polygamy is concerned, I don't personally have a problem with it, provided polyandry is also included, and age of consent, etc. are accounted for."
*********
I can understand society's acceptance of polygamy at a time when a great percentage of males were being killed in war. If you combine this with the fact that in those times the practice of slavery was in vogue, that women were like cattle owned by males, that women had no right to own property, and the lack of welfare programs, you get the perfect recipe for the acceptance of polygamy.
Under those circumstances, women, who were prevented from owning real estate, had no way of surviving except for slavery or prostitution. Given this scenario, polygamy was a great blessing for women. This situation did take place in fairly recent times when a war broke between Argentina and Paraguay.
A significan number of Paraguayan men were killed, and women were more than happy to marry the few already married men that were left. The result was that the wives would work on the farm, while the owner of the harem would play his guitar and drink his "mate," a common beverage in South America. It seemed like a perfect arrangement.
In the event modern society were to consider reinstituting this practice, since on the average there is an approximately equal number of males and females born, this means that, if you allow for males to have several wives, then you would have to also allow for females to have several husbands. Otherwise, there would be a disproportionate number of males unable to find a prospective wife.
Is this what you say you have no objection against?
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Quit it ALREADY! Gays and lesbians are NOT STERILE. The same people arguing against gay marriage are ALSO the ones arguing against allowing same sex couples access to IVF and other reproductive services, including adoption. Regardless, many still manage to reproduce, and raise their own children and/or adopted ones.
In fact, I am guessing that the per couple rate of childrearing in homosexual couples will not be significantly far off that of heterosexual couples. Especially considering the many electively childless heterosexual couples there are.
Michael,
The long-drawn arguments you posted on 05 August 2008 at 1:46 convinced me of the benefits of homosexual marriage. This is what I would suggest.
Let us divide the huge state of Texas in three sections. One for all gays, one for all lesbians, and the rest for normal people. Let us seal the borders for each one of those sectional areas, and let's see how long the first two groups can survive. If they can't survice on their own, then perhaps they will realize that their unwillingness to contribute to the preservation of the human species should be recognized by depriving them of the right to marry!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Yes, Nic. That IS what I meant when I wrote "polyandry". I don't personally have a problem with polygamy or polyandry. Again, the issues I would be concerned about are, as FSM puts it, "I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity." (taken from The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts").
As far as benefits are concerned, you mentioned that your taxes go towards those benefits. What about the taxes paid by gays and lesbians, etc.? Don't they have the right to use of benefits paid for by their own taxes? Why should THEY financially support YOU?
Happy Tuesday
Nic,
Have you met GLBT couples with children? I have many gay and lesbian friends with children. Some of them biological children of one of the couple others are adopted.
I also have a cousin who has been married for 25 years and never had a child. She and her husband enjoy the legal benefits of marriage where as my lesbian friends with 2 children under the roof don't. Those children are being cared for by two loving, committed parents.
This canard about supporting the children is just not based in reality. Millions of children in the US are in GLBT families this is the reality today (http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_with_lesbian_ga...). Failing to support these families and these children is what is at stake here, not some farcical state of Texas cut up like a pie.
Tom,
I read your posting dated on 05 August 2008 at 2:47. I think that your uncle should have considered the financial price he was paying when he chose to adopt a homosexual lifestyle. I have been a Realtor for over three decades, and I have seen many people making expensive investment without talking to a real estate lawyer first.
A friend of mine purchased a home with his wife and they took title as Joint Tenants. Both of them died many years later as a result of a head on collison. They had no heirs, and one set of relatives inherited all their assets because one of them survived the other by one hour.
Same sex couples should understand that if they are not willing to contribute to the preservation of the human species, they have no right to the benefits designed for heterosexuals. Now, if you insist on benefits to civil unions, I would be more inclined to agree, not on the basis of fairness, but out of concession, provided gays do not insist on the right to adopt innocent children, or the right to marry.
The best interest of children should be our uppermost factor in voting in November. Each child should be entitled to have a dad and a mom. Depriving a child of said right in an absolute manner as it happens in the case of adoption by homosexuals is unfair to children.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Jeannieb43,
This is in response to your posting dated on 05 August 2008 at 4:43.
I thought that we were talking about an amendment to the California Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic: You very clearly did not read jemand's post. Gay people are NOT sterile. Furthermore, as has been pointed out by others, we do not hold it against hetero couples who choose not to have children. What would your policy be towards them? Even if gay couples did not, as a rule, rear children, your point is empty.
Happy Tuesday
Nic -
"Each child should be entitled to have a dad and a mom."
Answer this simple question -- how will denying marriage equality prevent heterosexuals (or homosexuals for that matter) from having or adopting children?
"Depriving a child of said right in an absolute manner as it happens in the case of adoption by homosexuals is unfair to children."
That is a completely separate debate. The issue at hand is whether same-sex couples should retain the right to marry, NOT whether they should be able to adopt.
However, since you raised the issue, you do realize, don't you, that gay couples who want to adopt generally have access to the least adoptable children? They tend to get the crack babies, the kids who have been stuck in foster care for years, or bounced from home to home. They take on the HIV-positive children, the developmentally disabled, the handicapped. Without gay couples adopting, far more children would languish in orphanages, group homes and foster care. Gay men and lesbian women are showing true Christian charity. What Christian traits are YOU exhibiting?
Elaine,
You made the following observation on 05 August 2008 at 7:20:
*********
"No one in his or her right mind "chooses" to be gay. That is an absolute and downright fable folks keep telling themselves. If being gay were contagious, we should all worry, but there is absolutely no, none, nada truth to that whatsoever."
*********
I agree! Nevertheless, this does not mean that by choosing a lifestyle which will prevent him/her from contributing to the preservation of the human species should entitle them to the same benefits accorded to those who do.
Being gay may not be contagious, but homosexuals are determined to reeducate and indoctrinate future generations starting with kindergarten when the mind of children is very impressionable and more easily molded. Some will choose a homosexual lifestyle without having been born with that inclination. If society grants same-sex couples all the benefits normal individuals are entitled to without the responsibilities, many might be tempted and persuaded.
Without the financial obligations involved in the raising of children, homosexuals will be free to live a more luxurious lifestyle, and they will be more able to financially afford to travel and pursue their goals of self gratification. On top of this, they will be entitled to the same honorable title and benefits accrued to normal married heterosexuals.
You call this fairness. I call it trying to have the cake and eat it too, or trying to collect benefits they refused to work for.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic: I am very, very sorry, but
are
you
nuts?
Beth,
I read your posting dated on 05 August 2008 at 7:50, and I disgree with your opinion. If God wanted us to practice homosexuality, he would have provided the right plumbing for this! Please, vote accordingly in November!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Boaz,
My response to your posting dated on 05 August 2008 at 8:53 is: God loves the sinner, but hates his sin. We should do the same! Modern society loves both!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
nic. I have a question. Do you read ANYTHING other than what you repeat in your own posts?
"choosing a lifestyle which will prevent him/her from contributing to the preservation of the human species should entitle them to the same benefits accorded to those who do."
First off, Nic. It's NOT A CHOICE.
Second, marriage isn't all about the babies. I asked a question, which you haven't answered. How will denying marriage equality prevent heterosexuals (or homosexuals for that matter) from having or adopting children?
The benefits of marriage to society are more than just the propagation of the species -- which happens to unmarried couples all the time. (Not that that's a good thing.)
When you marry someone, you agree to be jointly responsible for any debts they take on during the marriage. You agree to care for each other. With someone watching out for you, it's less likely the state will have to step in and do so.
Gay folks pay taxes just like childless couples do, just like infertile couples do, just like couples where the wife in post-menopausal and can no longer bear children. Again, it's not only about the kids.
"If God wanted us to practice homosexuality, he would have provided the right plumbing for this!"
Just so you know, I have EXACTLY the right plumbing for practicing homosexuality. Thanks, God!
Tom Bestor,
Have you worked in the public high school or public college? I worked for the public high school for 30.5 years which equals much first-hand knoweldge with teens. You are wrong. It was the same with Eve -- you are missing out said the serpent, unless you try this, or try this, or maybe this. Same ol, same ol arguments from Satan. Maybe Eve was not even hungry, or right or left handed, but was tempted and fell. Our teens are not as strong as Eve and have, for the most part, selfish me-ism parents, whereas Eve had God.
JoAnn ;)
Elaine,
You made the following statement on 06 August 2008 at 7:58:
*********
"The church is meddling in politics that has no religious content."
*********
I know that what I am going to say will not tip the balance for you, but it may help someone else vote the right way in November.
A. In Sweden, Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to prison after preaching a sermon challenging homosexuality. I am glad we are not living in that country, otherwise I might risk incarceration for posting this!
B. In England, a Christian ministry was fined $23,000 for refusing to employ homosexuals.
C. In Canada a pastor was fined $7,000 for writing to a news editor oppossing same-sex marriage.
D. In New Mexico a photographer was fined $6,000 for refusing to offer his services at a homosexual wedding.
Do you want me to go on? And you argue that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with our religious rights?
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Shygirlj,
I am responding to the following statement you posted on 06 August 2008 at 7:59:
*********
"Ms. Goffar,I am not sure I understand your reasoning. It seems that at first you are saying that there are more reasons than religious ones for opposing same-sex marriage. But the only reason you list that has no religious overtones is that "Every significant civilization in history has kept marriage strictly between male and female". ... The rest of your reasons [for the children, marriage itself, the 'traditional family', etc.] all seem to be religiously based."
*********
It seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that there is a significant overlap between the state's and the church's interest. Take for example stealing, perjury, murder, and so on. All these have been criminalized by the government, and they are also reliously based.
Does this mean that our criminal code should be updated so that any law which is somehow connected with religion should be eliminated? Have you pondered the serious implication of your fallacious argument?
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
A sad spectacle is right before us,
The liberal spiritual chorus.
Singing discordant notes
to secure heaven by votes
Do you think God will simply ignore this?
Nic
I'm glad my comments convinced you.
But your suggestion for a test wouldn't work. Nor would it be relevant to the point. But for what it's worth...
A society only of gay men and gay women would be able to procreate. Completely able. With all the right plumbing you asked for. And if they needed to survive they would probably do so.
Societies of only heterosexual men or only heterosexual women would not fare so well over time.
Conclusions about who should have the right to marry and who should have the right to conceive and who should have the right to adopt are unrelated to these claims.
Jared,
I read your well prepared response to Janine posted on 06 August 2008 at 8:53. In it, you faulted her for using "non-scientific blogs or magazines" as her sourcess. Then you cited as your source Wikipedia. Do you consider Wikipedia a scientific source of information? As far as I understand, anybody is allowed to post there. Am I wrong?
You seem to reject the notion that the will of the majority should rule. What is the alternative? It is the rule of the minority, isn't it? Is this a better way to establish policy. Isn't this what happened in Germany under Hitler, and in Russia under Stalin? Consider also what is taking place in Iraq and the Arab world, where a minority is determined to rule.
I admit that there is no perfect system, but for some reason millions would be delighted to be able to emigrate to the U.S. where there is still some semblance of democracy. This is precisely what motivated me to emigrate to this country, and so far, I am not planning to return to where I came from!
You argue that "There are no studies that link legalized homosexual unions to increased homosexual experimentation or a greater societal propensity toward 'turning gay'." How could anyone produce scientific studies related to the long-term effects of "legalized homosexual unions" if this is a recent phenomenon?
Next you argued that "What the articles concerning "Religious Liberty" fail to mention is that the institutions that complain about having to make concessions to gay couples also receive monies from the government." Please read my response to Elaine above where I cited four cases of religious discrimination and heavy financial fines imposed where no monies from the government was involved.
Next you affirm that "The fallacious (read incorrect) connection between gay marriage and polygamy has already been debunked at length." Could you debunk this for me again, or provide me with a link to said debunking?
You are challenging the readers to get to know homosexuals. I have done that, and have come with a different conclusion than the one you seem to have arrived at. Can I borrow your lenses in order that I may see things in a different light?
Finally, you end with the following parting statement: "We need to be clear (again) that Christian Scripture, and for that matter Jewish Scripture, does not state that a homosexual orientation is sinful."
Did Janine say anything about having been born with a homosexual orientation as sinful? Perhaps she did, but I must have missed it. Nevertheless, Paul is very clear about those who choose to yield to their abnormal sexual desires. We are all born with sinful tendencies. Selfishness and rebellion are engrained in our genes. Having been born with these sinful inclinations is not a sin, but yielding to the desire to follow them is.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Daneen,
I would like to comment on the statement you posted on 06 August 2008 at 11:27 dealing with what you consider to be a "false notion of 'love the sinner/hate the sin.'"
Have you considered what is the alternative to "love the sinner/hate the sin.'" It would be: "Love both the sinner and his sin," isn't it? Is this really what you are suggesting? Did not Jesus say to the woman both: "Neither do I condemn thee," and "Go and sin no more"? What is it that Jesus love, and what did he hate? Can you explain?
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic -
"Our teens are not as strong as Eve and have, for the most part, selfish me-ism parents, whereas Eve had God."
First off, I don't remember mentioning teens in any of my posts. But if you really think teens experimenting with same-sex activity turns them gay, you are farther gone than pretty much anyone who has thus far commented on this board. The kids who will experiment with same-sex activity are the kids who WANT to experiment with same-sex activity. The gay ones. Believe me, if you're not gay, gay sex doesn't interest you. (See Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, et al.) Except if you are a straight man. They seem to love the girl-on-girl stuff.
What's more, on a civil basis, there is NOTHING wrong with this. Same-sex activity is perfectly legal in this country. If you don't want your kids to explore their sexuality, it's up to YOU to make your wishes clear. Withholding equal rights from adults is not the right way to achieve that objective.
"You seem to reject the notion that the will of the majority should rule. What is the alternative?"
Uhmm...the Constitution? Which established three branches of government, including the judiciary which is there in part to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority? How do you get to be "editor" of anything (or a citizen of this country) without understanding 6th grade civics? Do you not realize the majority ultimately DOES rule, be cause we elect the executives and the legislator who appoint the judges? Some judges we even get to vote for directly.
In terms of religious freedom, if the Mormons can keep black people from marrying in their temples (which they did for decades) simply because their skin was black, and if Fred Phelps can shout "God hates fags" at military funerals, I think religious freedom in THIS country is pretty safe.
Elaine,
You made the following brief observation on 06 August 2008 at 12:10:
*********
"After reading the entire article, who out there would dare to say that these children would be better off in the foster care system?"
*********
Did you realize that you were responding to the wrong question? The comparison between a foster care situation and a homosexual setting is a false dichotomy. The right comparison should have been between the adoption by either a loving heterosexual home or a loving homosexual one! Do you see the difference? Now that you have the right question, do you want to try answering it?
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 06 August 2008 at 12:10
Niemand,
I fully agree with the following statement you posted on 06 August 2008 at 1:43:
*********
"The right of a child to have both a mother and a father would also negate divorce, but I cannot see that that would be a good idea in any way."
*********
Both situations are harmful to a child. Nevertheless, in the case of divorce, under many circumstances, the connection between the child and his/her parents is not destroyed on a permanent basis. When a child is adopted bu a homosexual couple, the connection with a parent of the opposite sex is permanently severed.
Elaine,
I am responding to your comment posted on 06 August 2008 at 2:00. Do you have any statistics about the adoption of older children by homosexuals as oppossed to by heterosexuals? My understanding is that placing babies into permanent heterosexual homes is not really a problem. I have close relatives who have spent over $25,000 per child.
And they had to fly to the other side of the world in order to do this. It would have been much easier and less costly to adopt a baby locally, but there were none available. Most women faced with an unwanted pregnancy opt for an abortion, when the baby's life could be saved and an unfertile couple made happy.
Elaine,
I am responding to your statement dated on 06 August 2008 at 2:46:
*********
"Every significant civilization in history has kept marriage strictly between one male and several FEMALES."
*********
Please, read my comments dated on 06 August 2008 at 5:20 where I try to explain why polygamy was in fact a blessing given the special circumstances people were dealing with then.
Jared,
Thanks for your comments dated on 06 August 2008 at 2:49. My answer is: The case against same-sex marriage is crystal clear to me, and you can count on my vote for the amendment in November, unless you produce stronger reasons for me to do otherwise.
Jemand,
Here is my response to your posting dated on 06 August 2008 at 5:26:
Nobody has argued so far that gays and lesbians are sterile. Many of them manage to reproduce, but not with the same sex. They have to resort to some generous outside donor. This creats a triangle which tends to entangle the relationship. Sooner or later the child will want to discover her true missing parent.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic, (I've copied your comments into one) and please follow what most folks do and include multiple replies in a single comment. Flooding the site with up to six comments in a row is the visual equivalent of talking a lot in a group discussion.
As many people (I think) recognize, majority rule can quickly become problematic, descending into a tyranny of the masses. The website for Ragged Trousered Philosopher (www.fullmoon.nu) has an excellent article on the process of democracy in decision making:
http://www.fullmoon.nu/book/chap.php?id=c08#whoshoulddecide
It's a bit of a long read, but very interesting.
Happy Tuesday.
Tony Campolo also objects to the "love the sinner, hate the sin" formula. He says that Scripture teaches us to "love the sinner and hate OUR OWN sin!"
Exactly!
Campolo says this in a video on behalf of AF's new book: "Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives." The book is available at www.sdagayperspectives.com for a mere 19.95 + shipping and handling.
People from other denominations are already using it, as we anticipated.
Yes, of course, this is a frank attempt to sell truth-filled literature. Once a literature evangelist, always a literature evangelist!
Dave
Nic Samojluk,
It sounds to me like you are advocating a violation of privacy rights, where there is no compelling government interest.
It sounds like you are suggesting a two-pronged test for measuring whether or not couples be allowed to marry. This two-pronged test includes: PRODUCTION and REARING of children, correct?
You write:
["I presume that you are aware that the benefits granted to married couples are tradicionally based on the notion that on the average married couples contribute to the preservation of the population by producing and rearing the next generation, which is not true about homosexual couples."
Posted by: Nic Samojluk | 06 August 2008 at 3:59]
I would argue that the test you are putting forward (at least in the way of "production") is untenable on two counts: 1st-It can be shown to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that the government would intrude into matters that involve intimate personal and family concerns.
2nd- When applied to the present discussion there would be a disparity between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples who are sterile.
You write:
["Nobody has argued so far that gays and lesbians are sterile. Many of them manage to reproduce, but not with the same sex. They have to resort to some generous outside donor. This creats a triangle which tends to entangle the relationship. Sooner or later the child will want to discover her true missing parent.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk | 06 August 2008 at 10:06"]
-This comment relates to the crux of my argument: the right of procreation is a vital part of the individual's RIGHT TO PRIVACY. (An idea put forward by the 1992 Tennessee Supreme Court Case of Davis v. Davis)
-In the statement above and your P&R test, it appears to me like you are advocating the violation of the individuals right to PROCREATIONAL AUTONOMY.
(The right to procreational autonomy includes: both the right to procreate and the right not to procreate.)
-Therefore: any "entanglement (of) the relationship" that you mentioned should be irrelevant and outside of government mandate as the issue of whether or not the child seeks to discover the identity of "her true missing parent" should also be.
-Also, if your reasoning is applied. Wouldn't all married couples be mandated to conceive children: a clear violation of procreational autonomy and therefore an infraction on the right to privacy.
Secondly: If your test is allowed, what reason is there to allow sterile heterosexual couples to get married?
If it is because they are allowed to benefit society or even preserve the human species through adoption, then I ask what is the difference for gay couples?
If you refer back to the issue of child rearing- then you should argue against such comments as (Michael Covarrubias | 05 August 2008 at 12:46).
But the two-part test you propose is off the table.
My answers follow the name and date of posting of those who have directed their comment at me. Nic Samojluk.
Niemand, [06 August 2008 at 5:43]
It is true that same-sex couples also pay taxes, but they fail to contribute to the preservation of the human species. That was my point.
*********
Carlitas [August 2008 at 6:05]
True! There are exceptions for every rule. Nevertheless, I hope society will decide to preserve the distinction between the ideal situation where a child has a mom and a dad, and the other where the child is deprived of one of them. This can be accomplished by having a separate label for marriage and civil union, instead of dumping them all in the same basket.
*********
Niemand, [06 August 2008 at 6:21]
I know that homosexuals are not normally sterile, but their homosexual union results in a sterile union. That is what I meant!
*********
Tom Bestor, [06 August 2008 at 6:24]
You made a good point. I would like to see some statistics. Nevertheless, I would still object to identifying civil unions as marriage, which name should be reserved for those truly joined the way God ordained. I hope my views are shared by the majority of voters!
*********
Niemand, [06 August 2008 at 6:37]
Perhaps I am. Nevertheless, it would halp if you would take the trouble to explain why you think that I am nuts! Don't you think so? What's the point of guessing?
*********
Tom Bestor, [06 August 2008 at 8:00]
I think that I have answered most of the questions that you are asking. If I repeat myself, Jemand will come back at me arguing that I must be nuts doing this. [Sorry, Jemand, I have no option but to anwer these comments!]
I believe that there is an ideal for raising children. Said ideal is not reached by depriving a child from having a mon and a dad. God's design for marriage is the best. If society insists on allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, so be it, but let's not call this marriage. It is not. It is a poor substitute for what the Lord ordained!
I know that in many instances homosexuality is not a choice. Nevertheless, pretending that homosexual unions can be equated and confused with marriage is a choice: a wrong choice!
I still believe that God's purpose for marriage is procreation. God did not say to the first couple: Go and have lots of fun, but rather "be fruitful and multiply." You are right that denying homosexuals a marriage license will not prevent heterosexuals and homosexuals from adopting children; but it will keep God's ideal for marriage crystal clear.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic: So, your reasons for opposing legalization of gay marriage ARE mostly (entirely?) religious in nature?
Happy Tuesday
Already it has been demonstrated that removing the DNA from an egg and replacing it with DNA from another individual or individuals results in a viable embryo. I am guessing that in 25 years or less there will be IVF services catering to gays and lesbians nearly exclusively. The DNA nucleus from one woman will be used to fertilize the other woman's egg, and the resultant embryo implanted as in normal IVF procedures. The empty egg will probably be donated to gay men, and the DNA from one man (complete with an x chromosome) will be inserted and the result fertilized by sperm from the other man. To bring the embryo to term, they could either use a surrogacy service or a temporary uterus implant. Unfortunately, lesbians would not be able to have sons in this manner, but they would still be able to reproduce.
None of this is technically insurmountable, and the demand is there. What basis can you have for denying marriage when these people can BIOLOGICALLY REPRODUCE with BOTH of them DIRECTLY related to the resultant child!
But beyond this, reproduction is irrelevant to the debate about whether or not gays may be allowed to marry. I'm just pointing out that it isn't even necessarily correct.
"truly joined the way God ordained" and "keep God's ideal for marriage crystal clear," and "God's purpose for marriage is procreation."
Those comments clearly show that the argument is based on religious, not civil foundations. With such religious arguments you've given up the civil rights and been driven to religious beliefs to validate your position.
Is it also your position, based on statements made, that only couples planning on procreating should be allowed to marry? Doesn't it follow that to frustrate God's plan for procreation would be wrong?
Nic Samojluk,
What is "God's ideal for marriage"? And how can you be certain that it IS God's ideal?