Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Here is another take on the gay 'marriage' topic.

Basically, it is a confirmation that gays don't actually form relationships like heterosexuals do, so the idea of a parallel marriage scheme is really nonsense. It is likely that an initial burst of activity will die down as the novelty wears off. So why did we whine?

What the ruling has done, however, is to place discrimination against gays on the same level as discrimination against blacks. The end result is a legal weapon that can be used to bash anyone who gays find offensive. A number of lawsuits have already been launched, such as this one regarding a Christian doctor who refused to do artificial insemination on a Lesbian woman. And predictions of a tsunami of lawsuits are out there. What it means for Christians is that they must either comply with a militant LGBT community's demands to be in-your-face and violate your Christian conscience, or possibly face financial ruin. I don't think there will be a huge number of lawsuits, but there will be enough to instill fear. It is a good reminder of what early Baptists faced in England and which caused many of them to flee to America. In the 17th and 18th century, there were waves of persecution where Baptists had their property confiscated by the state for not attending the Church of England. Today, the concept of "separation of church and state" - which Baptists coined to avoid this kind of persecution - has been twisted to become a tool to impose the kind of thing that Christians feared.

The other side of the ruling is that it debases race, culture and religion. Yeh, that's right. Whether you are Black or White, Asian or Native American, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu, your race, culture and religion are worth less than a gay orgy. That is what the ruling is really all about.


Drew said...

"Basically, it is a confirmation that gays don't actually form relationships like heterosexuals do"

How? Heterosexuals divorce 50% of the time. This statement simply makes no sense Looney and there is no evidence to suggest it.

If homosexuality is not a simple choice, and the evidence to date is clear in this regard, then it is discrimination.

"either comply with a militant LGBT community's demands to be in-your-face and violate your Christian conscience, or possibly face financial ruin."

Regardless of the stance the state takes on marriage, any pastor of any church can refuse to marry any couple. This statement is zealously paranoid in my judgment.

Separation of church and state was coined by Jefferson on behalf of New England Baptists due to their being persecuted by Congregationalists. This has nothing to do with this issue at all.

Looney said...

Drew, I was actually corrected on the idea that Jefferson "coined" the idea of separation of church and state by Chris Heard over at Higgaion. After checking a bit, I did find that it long predated Jefferson. My other comments about the Baptists were from my time in England when I was reading through the history of an old Baptist church there.

Yes, it is true the Heterosexuals divorce 50% of the time. Does that mean that God doesn't hate divorce?

The other item is that the link I showed - as well as the NPR list that Jim West posted - are lawsuits which don't involve activities in the church.

I also think the choice/compulsion argument is a red herring. Just because someone is biologically compelled to be a drunk doesn't require me to accept him vomiting anywhere he likes. Just because I have had temptations doesn't mean I have a right to dump my wife. With this kind of thinking, there is no valid morality of any kind.

Delirious said...

I thought we lived in a country that believed of a government of the people, for the people and by the people. But obviously, we are in a country that believes in whatever the supreme court judges decide is politically correct.

Looney said...

Delirious, one thing I have been pondering is that even if the ruling is overturned by the amendment in the fall, it still stands as a legal precedent for activist judges which can be applied both outside the state of California and to areas not touched directly by gay marriage. Thus, the amendment won't come close to undoing the damage to society that is unleashed by the ruling.

Drew said...

1. Wall of separation was Jefferson's phrase. The concept was something that we can find in Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration among others, but the phrase itself was Jefferson's. Locke was a proponent of non-confusion where the civil magistrate and the Church would practice legal strictures according to their proper domain, hence non-entanglement.

2. Issue of raising divorce here is that you claim that "gays don't actually form relationships like heterosexuals do". This has no bearing in any evidence whatsoever and if there is evidence it would suggest that gays and heterosexuals practice fallen relationality with other humans quite equally.

The pragmatic result of your statement about God hating divorce might indicate that if we legislate against gay marriage as most states currently do, then the Catholic church of Ireland was right when it legislated against divorce regardless of circumstances. Thus, what needs to happen along with legislating against gay marriage is an equal legislation against divorce no?

Problem invoking the first amendment here is that the very definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman must be, in the final analysis, either an arbitrary and uncritical acceptance of "tradition" or something rooted in religion, hence it betrays the separation norm. And that, my friend, is a real logical fallacy.

3. My argument is not a red herring at all. A red herring is when the conclusion does not follow from the premise(s). The association with addiction does not work. Can an addict or a drunk person reasonably receive Christ? I think we might agree that the answer is no. Addiction overtakes all sense of rational choice in favor of the substance. So can a homosexual couple receive Christ in that relationship? You might say that it's really the devil n sheep's clothing or the Anti-christ they are actually receiving rather than Christ. However, that is something that we are not in a position to judge. Moreover it is clear that there are many homosexual relationships that have actually resulted in stronger church ties and greater spiritual wholeness due to a perception of liberation from bondage not unlike the Exodus. Not unlike freedom from slavery. IF it is true that Christ has has been received by anyone in a committed homosexual relationship, then the analogy to drunkenness, pedophilia, etc. fails.

4. But the above is moot. The issue I continue to raise is that there is not rational legal argument to forbid homosexual or gender neutral marriage. The argument is either arbitrary, religious, or likely a combination of the two and that is the real issue here.

Looney said...

Thanks Drew. Some responses:

1. I may have been too loose with the specific phrase, "separation of church and state", but the concept long predated Jefferson. It is also important to note that Jefferson was in France when the US Constitution was written and probably returned with some "French" ideas which aren't particularly American.

2. Regarding the relationships of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals, the Center for Disease Control (and comparable bodies around the world) is the only authority I accept. Yes, there are a lot of divorced people out there. Yes, it causes a lot of damage. There are lots of other kinds of problems which are consequences of sin and frequently fall on loved ones and the innocent. We have a lot of work to do, but re-defining sin is not one of them.

3. I believe people suffering from addiction certainly can be saved by reaching out to God, confessing and requesting God's forgiveness, without entirely being healed of those addictions. I suspect this is Paul's "thorn in the flesh", but would have to admit that to be an oddball view. In fact, you don't need to spend long in church before you will find someone suffering from some sort of addiction. I am certainly not a universalist, but believe that God cares about someone who is crying and hurting, while being less impressed by someone without problems to apologize for and a proud attitude.

We also know that a long running addiction will bring about physiological changes, especially to the brain. This can happen through drugs, sex, tobacco, gambling or video games. Certainly that will effect how we interact with people, but it does not change any facts regarding what is or is not sin.

4. I partially agree with fourth point. The original invention of law was intended to promote what was good for society and what was considered morally proper. Morality, however, is always connected to religion and the modernist interpretation of separation of church and state precludes legislation regarding religion, therefore, it can no longer legislate with regard to anything moral. In California, however, this is breaking down because some of the legislation is putting LGBT activists in charge of the moral teachings in the schools.

The other question is whether or not gay marriage is good for society. Given that gay marriage wasn't invented in formally atheist societies such as the communist countries, I think the answer to this is clearly no. Given what historically has happened in societies that have condoned homosexuality, it seems to me to be a disaster, but out economy is strong enough to cover things up.
Thus, I can only imagine that the invention of gay marriage is largely driven by novelty value.

My last point (and the point of the referenced article), however, was that the gay marriage ruling was never about gay marriage. It was about establishing gay sex acts as being equal or superior before the law than race, religion or culture. This is your victory.