The Religious Case For and Against Gay Marriage

What the hell did that have to do with anything?! Honestly... what was the point of that in a forum like this? Let us try to refocus here: What right is presently denied that you think changing the definition of marriage will solve?

The Word was written to reveal what is in one's heart. Tell me, What do you see, who do you hear. What does God create, dry land, seas, greater light for the day, lesser light for night, great whales, and “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life” As you can see, Darwinism, evolution and creationism are one in the same. They came from the sea. Do not those sinner creature gentiles say they are God's sheep. If this is so, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” then this must be “darkness was upon the face of the deep” “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” Who is the light of the world, the sun god, who is the light for those who dwell in darkness, the full moon god. I ask you wise men, does not the moon control tides. Who was the north star, the guide for traveling at night. Look at these Words, what do you think. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
darkness was upon the face of the deep
let the dry land appear
he gathering together of the waters called he Seas
two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night
Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life
God created great whales
every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female

First day
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

third day
Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
the gathering together of the waters called he Seas

fourth day
God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night

fifth day
Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life
God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly,
God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas

sixth day
God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

PAGANPLACE, no comment because I do not sit at this 24/7. I also do not know how to turn this into an RSS, so I apologize about that.

You are going a bit off the wagon there and way off topic. There is and never was anything in marriage that was about color. Marriage was between man and woman, no color implied, state approved or otherwise. That is why that argument was always flawed and ultimately was trounced.

The 5 previous posts of your platitudes aside, you still have not answered my basic question. What right are you presently denied that you think changing the definition of marriage will solve?

Oh, yeah, btw. Take it from a 'Witch.' If you let someone legitimize the idea that your human rights are 'alienable,' say on the basis of being gay or a non-Christian...

Well, no one said it had to be *true,* if experience holds, did they? Know what I'm saying?

No comment? Well Let me tell you this: those who try to tell black people that it somehow insults them for gay people to stand against those who try to legitimize the *exact same rationales* that convinced some white Christians it was Ok to enslave or do whatever to people...

Are the worst sort of demagogue there is.

Cause let me tell you this. And I tell you this as an Irish-American. If someone swings around to the notion that their religion trumps our unalienable human rights, no crucifix, no skin colour, no dissociation from skin color will save you.

This is the history of the Europe of the Protestant Reformation that was in the minds of our Founding Fathers when they set up our system of government, and when they not0carelessly phrased our American ideals.

Sometimes, those ideals take some work embracing and living up to.

But they are never secured by means of passing oppression on to someone else and thinking it can never happen to you.

Not to be too melodramatic, but if a religion is empowered to put *me* in chains, well, it never stopped em regressing before.

People who love to imagine a queer girl like me is some kind of comfy rich white whiner, ...wouldn't want to face my memories of the people they teach.

If they think their God can perform the 'miracle' of rearranging my brain, so they can blame me for he 'fruits' of their techings, they could maybe ask at least that much to happen before they go using these deceptions to reinforce injustice. Before they go claiming to represent 'love' through the means of *hate.*

No damn illusions.

Got no particular investment in your God or your savior, there.

But if he's any friend of man, *I* believe he's got to be better than that. So don't let these SOBs say queer folks are trying to ride some coat-tails of pre-civil rights, cause, for us, those ain't here yet. Come look at the state of my hands if you don't believe me.

"Civil Union IS equal to marriage and people still complain... because they want the definition changed. If not you would be fighting for the missing "right," and not the word."

For starters, how many times do I have to say it? We don't *have* civil unions yet, in the first place, while the anti-gay crowd try to ban even that possibility in the name of 'definitions of marriage.'

The courts have to rule that 'separate but equal' is a sham. If it was really *equal* you couldn't convince people they 'need' the *separation.*

Anyway, the fact is the *only* justifications for continuing discrimination are based in mere religious insistence by certain factions within monotheism. Nothing based in the *law* or *government* supports this.

And if you think the similarities to how black people have been treated in the past are offensive, try living them.

It's a disgrace that *anyone* should be treated this way in America, and it's completely backwards to assert that it takes something away from black people to continue claiming such behavior toward minorities is OK just cause a majority doesn't like them.

Ask Coretta Scott King how she feels about this.

"PAGANPLACE, marriage is not the same as being black. And that is a highly offensive analogy! To say that 300 years of slavery is equal to a relationship could not be any more trite of a comparison and does not serve you well if you want to pull people towards a common ground."

No, it's not an 'offensive analogy' when the anti-gay people aren't just using the same *rhetoric* as was used against *interracial marriage,* sometimes it's the exact same *laws* ...As in Massachusetts, where Romney didn't even take the racial references out of a segregationist law before appling it to gay people.

This is a nonsense argument meant to divide people.

PAGANPLACE, marriage is not the same as being black. And that is a highly offensive analogy! To say that 300 years of slavery is equal to a relationship could not be any more trite of a comparison and does not serve you well if you want to pull people towards a common ground.

To reference me when you state "my version of religion" is improper. You are obviously reading several posts and lumping me in with them -- I made no reference to God or any religion.

Marriage is NOT a civil contract. It is a relationship that predated our country, but our country recognizes as valid, just as it does a civil union. In all societies, the relationship existed before the formation of countries and borders. Your examples about sitting in different seats is silly. Those same doctors tell me where I can and cannot go when I am at a hospital too. They do not care what my relationship is to the patient either, so I am not sure why you brought up an example where you are "equal" to everyone else and decided to complain about it.

Regarding adopted children, I am not sure what country you are from or what state, but several gay friends have adopted children. You are creating examples of problems that do not exist!

Marriage is a contract?! Since when?? It existed before the state and before the government. It is a term that was not created by the USA, nor western society. If our government chooses to honor that relationship or recognize it, that does not mean it can change it. As a gay, you are created equal -- you are right and no one is arguing that, and I am sure you had fun retyping the Declaration. But we are talking about the definition of a term for a relationship. None of our relationships are about equality! Parents to children, landlord to tenant, doctor to patient, boss to employee, buyer to seller, and so on.... and none of these relationships you have a "right" to participate in. I cannot force someone to be my parent or my child; I cannot force someone to be my tenant or landlord; I cannot force someone to be my doctor or my patient, etc. If I could, then it would be defined as a right. But we can force someone to treat you personally equal to another person, regardless of gender, race, creed, etc. YOU are equal, not your relationship. Relationships are not rights, and they are not meant to be equal. "Doctor to patient" is not the same as "buyer to seller," or any other combination above. Yet oddly enough, Civil Union IS equal to marriage and people still complain... because they want the definition changed. If not you would be fighting for the missing "right," and not the word.

PAGANPLACE.

Thank you for your comments. You are civil, and I see you know some history.

No, I do not want you shut up, or executed. I fact, your arguments re your right to marry any sex you prefer, in justice, are irrefutable.

I made a short comment. It alludes to the interests of nations. Ours does happen to be an empire. Any nation built out of the goods of others is, by definition, an empire -- like it or not. A nation, an empire, has little interest in the interests of its homosexuals. There is no future in the practice, for a nation, and an empire is interested, mostly, in its survival and its future.

That is the problem homosexuals face, underneath it all. Religion has little to do with it, as my comment re Octavian alluded.

By the way, any nation, empire, that also loses interest in military conquest, for its riches, is doomed.

That's quite a statement, huh? But history shows it to be fact, and true. Hey, "G-d" preached that in the Old Testament, did He not?

Jesus tried to change things, and the first 300 years of His religion adhered to His teachings. Constantine talked the Christians out of some of it, especially the pacifism. Thus, the Roman Empire was able to continue another thousand years, until the Reformation.

There's more, much more. But I've got Mozart's "Voi Che Sapate" being sung on my sound system, and I merely want to lie back, and listen. Humans can be quite wonderful, sometimes.

"Ultimately, the specific case we make invoking scripture, whether pro or con, ought to be far less important than using religion to foster humility, modesty, and a capacity to appreciate paradox, contradiction, and ambiguity - to help us understand each other and embrace the sacred messiness of life."

Beautiful, but naive. When you thing in terms of those you label "conservatives" on this issue, think in terms of "Letter from a Birmingham Jail."

Well, Mark, the Religious Right in America tries to do as much as they can to paint people who are not straight-Christians as having been something something to do with the Nazis, but it wasn't those types who somehow managed to get killed by the millions among all those 'Good Germans.'

Lest we forget. Oh. Did we?

Where do you think the pink triangle came from, anyway?

the more i think about it, the more it seems to me that the "good people" in favor of prohibiting m/m and f/f couples to marry are like the "good germans" who turned a blind eye to the anti-semitism surrounding them in the late 1800's and early 1900's ...

(And, frankly, for such a legalistic religion, most conservative Christians just have a *terrible* ignorance about what laws are. Maybe it's just cause you confuse them with your faith.)

And, you see, Mark, as far as the *law* is concerned, the people looking to add stipulations and qualifiers to what 'marriage' is, are the anti-gay people, just like racism added stipulations to who were men,and even what fraction of a 'man' a black person was.

Marriage, as a civil contract, isn't what's changing. It's only a matter of who has *access* to it, and equal rights within it.

To say that any given straight person can tell any given queer person that they know better what their relationship is, is *manifest* bigotry and inequality. In America, the law can't countenance that.

If your version of your religion claims it makes your God happy for you to pretend to be straight whether you are or not, that's really your business. You have to find some other way than having the government pressure you to make that religious decision, or punish those who don't hold the same religious view.

Markv:

" The point that is rarely made is that the only thing that will change is the definition of a word: "marriage." "

That word occurs in over 2400 legal rights and protections, not to mention untold corporate policies and other things which affect the real lives of real people.

" No additional rights will be conferred that do not already exist for homosexuals or for their unions."

You assert this based on what experience? Trust me, when it's your own lack of rights, you get more familiar with what can hang on some religion's 'definition.'

" The are not currently forced to sit in different seats, use different restrooms, or work in separate facilities."

That shouldn't be at an issue, but, actually, yes, we're forced to sit in different seats than those by a dear one's bedside if a single Christian conservative in the hospital decides their 'definition of marriage' doesn't have to include us. We have to work in separate facilities from those who don't provide us equal pay for equal work, separate from those who don't feel like providing us the same benefits as straight married couples...

...And if my dear one and I build a house, and Gods avert anything should happen to her, I could end up using a separate bathroom from the one in the home I lost cause her relatives decided that our shared property belongs first to any straight relative rather than us.

" There is no lost right to vote, adopt children, or partake in society in any different way than anyone else."

It certainly does apply to adopting children, or even keeping our own. It applies to taxes and all of the ways in which civil marriage involve *anyone* partaking in society.

" The word, "marriage," only marks a difference in the relationship, not a difference in "rights."

"I have yet to hear any argument, see any coverage, or read any news article informing me what "right" will magically be granted once the definition is changed."

You obviously are uninformed, then. Turn the channel.

" During the Civil Rights Movement, blacks did not look to change their status by asking to be called "white." During the Suffrage Movement, women did not fight to be called "men" as if that would bestow upon them the missing rights."

Well, the word 'marriage' isn't the group in question, in the first place. It's a civil contract. So the analogy is a poor one.

But in effect, yes, *both* black people and women had to fight to be included under the term 'men' as it occurs in the United States Constitution.

We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal.

The 'definition' had to change, to include black men, and then to include women, and anyone else someone's 'definiton' felt like calling it 'traditional values' to exclude.

" Likewise the change in name from "civil union" to "marriage" for homosexual relationships will do nothing except change the definition a word."

For starters, then, pony up with the civil unions. The popular support is there for that, and there's no reason for the legislature and the executive branches to have been spending all that effort opposing them.

In fact, a lot of these measures that are claimed to be for the 'definition of marriage' are not what a lot of people think they're voting for: the phrasing is in fact designed to block civil unions as well, or make these rights alienable later.

Civil unions, we could have, by vote.

The judiciary has to rule, though, that 'separate but equal' is Unconstitutional. Cause all 'men' are created equal.

For many people, as with abortion, genetic modification, and cloning, it is just incomprehensible that such aberrant behavior and prurient pursuits should hold any sway whatsoever.

It has been said that "man is the highest of the beasts and the lowest of the spirits." There is obviously room in the bestial sphere for those who would look to descend to find new lows.

alltheroadrunnin

"I usually skip your comments because you are always the victim. This time, I read a few paragraphs."

Mighty *ahem* of you. :) Umm, yeah, on this topic, yeah, being a 'victim' of injustice doesn't actually change a whole lot... For that, there kind of has to be.... some change.

Straight people can walk away from this 'issue' any time they like. For me, it's *always there.* It's real life.

" I find it interesting that the greatest Pagan who ever lived, Octavian, Emperor of the Roman Empiror, 27 BC - AD 14 (known to most as "Augustus," an appelation his Pagan beliefs distrusted), would have had you executed, with a finger snap, for writing anything going against the prospects of the Empire -- of which he considered homosexuality one."

I find it interesting you're trying to compare the Unites States of America to Imperial Rome... and using a pretty thin chain of logic to claim Augustus would have had gay people executed for being gay. The patrician classes of the Roman Empire were in fact quite restrictive about marriage, ...were I born to one of the upper classes, it's highly likely that I would have had a marriage arranged *for* me and whatever else would go on would depend on the circumstances.

It wasn't really about sex or sexuality, though, that would have been about duty to the state and the authority of the paterfamilas. People weren't executed for being gay, though... Women could be, theoretically, for cheating on a spouse, and didn't theoretically have a lot of say in whether they were married to a man or not. Between men in practice, it wasn't considered the Roman ideal to be on the receiving end of gay sex, no.

Frankly, a lot of the forms of modern homophobia *come* from some of those classes within the Roman Empire, but moderns wouldn't like that 'definition of marriage' either.

Of course, it was different if you were a foreigner, and under a lot of other circumstances and practicalities.

As for writing anything about it, I don't think we've seen any evidence of *that.* In fact Greek writings were quite popular, and those often extolled same-sex love. We are, of course, talking about an *empire* here, though, which I hope you're not implying I should consider myself glad not to live in and shut up anyway, lest I be executed.

Irwin Kula - if you are aware about what you write in your article, which btw is the actual truth - why on earth are you a rabbi? Why are you religious?

Religion is history and humans' attempts to make sense of life and, even more, organize patterns of power. Religions change over time, they come and go. Obviously you know that. So why?

Maybe just a need for a culture to fit into?

Mr. Kula does an excellent job generalizing both positions and explaining neither. This is not a "scriptural" argument, it is a logic argument. The point that is rarely made is that the only thing that will change is the definition of a word: "marriage." No additional rights will be conferred that do not already exist for homosexuals or for their unions. The are not currently forced to sit in different seats, use different restrooms, or work in separate facilities. There is no lost right to vote, adopt children, or partake in society in any different way than anyone else. The word, "marriage," only marks a difference in the relationship, not a difference in "rights."

I have yet to hear any argument, see any coverage, or read any news article informing me what "right" will magically be granted once the definition is changed. During the Civil Rights Movement, blacks did not look to change their status by asking to be called "white." During the Suffrage Movement, women did not fight to be called "men" as if that would bestow upon them the missing rights. Likewise the change in name from "civil union" to "marriage" for homosexual relationships will do nothing except change the definition a word.

Another problem is that most gays that I know feel that their relationship is unique and special. I find it very odd, therefore, that so many are willing to sell out their belief of "uniqueness" for "sameness." Blacks did not want to be white, women did not want to be men, homosexual couples should not strive to "be" straight couples. We hear talk about "celebrating diversity" then we waste gobs of time and type to contradict such an argument on very basic levels of logic. This more than any church or protest will do the most to end any such "diversity" day or parade.

"Alltheroadrunnin wrote: I find it interesting that the greatest Pagan who ever lived, Octavian, Emperor of the Roman Empiror, 27 BC - AD 14 (known to most as "Augustus," an appelation his Pagan beliefs distrusted), would have had you executed, with a finger snap, for writing anything going against the prospects of the Empire -- of which he considered homosexuality one."

What Octavian would have done is irrelevant to this discussion.

PAGANPLACE.

I usually skip your comments because you are always the victim. This time, I read a few paragraphs. I find it interesting that the greatest Pagan who ever lived, Octavian, Emperor of the Roman Empiror, 27 BC - AD 14 (known to most as "Augustus," an appelation his Pagan beliefs distrusted), would have had you executed, with a finger snap, for writing anything going against the prospects of the Empire -- of which he considered homosexuality one.

Interesting. But in America, my marriage and my partner and my life, and our rights, are not... Something for religious conservatives to use as a 'bargaining chip' as if they had a right to take 'half' my rights and dignity away in the first place.

You may discuss it theologically till you're blue in the face, but established tradition and precedent here in America says that ultimately, no one *ever* has the right to denigrate or marginalize a minority, even if it takes a while for some to get it through their heads.

Sure, it took time to get over certain racial and interfaith tabooes about marriage: that doesn't mean it was ever right to treat people with less than full rights and dignity.

Period.

Rabbi Kula's piece is about the most sensitive and sensible I've seen in a long time. Underneath it all, however, the one argument that doesn't budge is the religious one: civil / state marriage is granted to all kinds of people who can't or won't procreate, so procreation is clearly not a requirement for marriage. All "secular" arguments against permitting m/m and f/f couples to marry can be disposed of by reference to the many people who are permitted to marry despite the tenor of those secular arguments. Only the religious argument (" ... for the Bible tells me so ...") doesn't cede to reality. Fortunately, the US Constitution forbids legislation that would impose religious requirements on civil status. The Bible belongs in the Church and not in the Legislature.

I agree with Dr. Anderson. He is correct in his assessment. Marriage is a sacrament of the church of the first order. The Church is the Bride of Christ not the groom of Christ. Marriage is fundamental, foundational and of the first order. If marriage for homosexuals were approved by God then he would have included it somewhere in the text of over 6,000+ years. Women were oppressed in the first century but Jesus' interaction with them, seeing them as equal, were not edited out so why would a practice that was happening on Mars Hill? It is simply not part of God's design.

I, as a voter, allow my faith to inform my views and I will vote based on this - just as all people do whether their faith is rooted in religion or not. The individual becomes a block of people, like in California, who will vote as their faith informs them - out voting another block of voters. It's called democracy.

However, if it had gone another way then I would have been satified that democracy had occurred on a state level and would have lived with the results. I would then have left it to rest once and for all. It would be a case where the people were ready for a change that was not conducive with Biblical principles but was what the people of the country wanted.

Finally, this support of marriage between a woman and a man is something the church itself must grapple with. It's an internal issue that needs more attention than it does on the civil side of things. But don't ever tell me that as a voter I cannot vote my conscience or allow my faith to inform my views and votes. You allow yours to inform you and your votes.

This is an incredibly revealing, humble, honest, and wonderful piece. Very thought-provoking indeed.

It is probably true that those opposed to same-sex marriage (who cringe, secretly or not-so-much) at homosexuals generally, marshall their arguments against marriage by pcking and choosing, so too might those of us who favor same-sex marriage (I was just married to a person of the same sex under the law of Connecticut) may commit some of the same faults.

But just as judges must resolve legal arguments leading to whether the civil law must admit of same-sex marriage, thinking believers must stsudy the conflicting passages of which you speak, and seek mechanisms for revelation of the truth instead of confirmation of our positions.

This may be a bit legalistic, and I am a lawyer, but for me, I consider what to do when provisions in a contract or a statute conflict. We favor the specific over the general, the more recent over the older, the reasonable and purpose-consistent over the "gotcha" and narrow. So if you are interested, here's my take:

First, as I said, there must be a hierarchy for interpretation of conflicting Biblical messages. Second, that hierarchy ought to start with the Gospels and their undiputed and unconflicting attribution to Jesus of the two Great Commandments: love God above all, and love your neighbor. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

Law and Prophets mean what they mean, but of course should be expanded to include any teaching in Jesus's name afterward. This means Paul of Tarsus, too. Paul's moralizing, no less than that of the Pentateuch, must be construed consistently with the Great Commandments as they are at a level below Jesus's words.

The struggle in the time of Paul of Tarsus to reconcile Jewish "cleanliness" practices and traditions with "conversion" of the 90%+ of the world who were Gentiles was just that, a struggle. We can easily see the flaws of humanity in some of the teachings of humans, flaws like inconsistency, or an excess of fervence in condemning contemporary immorality in eternal terms. Fallibility also might be seen in the human (and war) councils that settled disputes about the content of the Bible.

Sobeit, they must all answer the two Great Commandments. Mr. Colson and any other religious person opposed to same sex marriage must speak in those terms. That they never do reveals a fundamental (fundamentalist?) weakness in the earnestness to fortify their position of revulsion at homosexuals.

In any event, it is futile to seek an answer to a question unasked at the Biblical time (though Jesus's spoken thoughts on eunuchs still entering the kingdom of heaven are tough to square with an interpretation of Pauls' moral injunction to marry and procreate as a rejection of Heaven's Gate to committed same-sex couples).

It is also futile to seek a Biblical answer to the lay question. The civil law creates a status of marriage with rights and benefits with no pre-condition (no test, no qualification), open to all, sinner and saint. There is no requirement to procreate or parent, much less to do so better than anyone else. Artificial means of insemination are lawful, as is single-parenting. This may strike some as less than ideal (I disagree, as many marriage "traps" are much less healthy for the trapped children and the marital partners). Those are the people who argue (and argued in Iowas' Supreme Court this week) that marriage of two loving birth-parent heterosexuals is "ideal."

But so long as the legal institution is open to the wife-beater, the deadbeat dad, the sex offender, the geriatric, the infirm, the infertile, the angry, the unwilling to parent, then it is beneath contemptuousness to argue it should be denied to the loving, committed, same-sex couple.

It is also not "loving thy neighbor." It is denying thy neighbor and judging thy neighbor and being a hypocrite - three things for which the Bible offers no refuge no matter what position the author argues on a disputed Biblical point.

I am a 58 year old, white, married with children, non-conservative protestant, residing in Los Angeles. I think the gay movement has made many gains in the last several decades, none of which I am opposed to. I do not see the opposition to gay marriage as a religious issue, though it is often framed as one.

I have worked with and around gays for many years, have been propositioned by gays, have had the pleasure of being invited to, and spending time in, gay bars with gay co-workers. No, I don't maintain gay friends or cultivate gay friendships. And no, I was not immune to the insecurity that being propositioned can bring to some young men's masculinity. I am against gay marriage.

The gay marriage arguments, so far, seem not to address the importance of the traditional family – irrespective of religion. We are now at a point in our population and demographics where we can discuss these issues primarily because large numbers of heterosexual couples have no children. To baby boomer's parents generation, marriage nearly always meant family and children. In 1955, this gay marriage discussion was not possible. Not because of the Victorian like times, but marriage was not viewed in the context of just shared sexuality and companionship. It was viewed in the context of family and children. I will venture to say that marriage may never before have been viewed in a childless context by any meaningful number of the populace.

Now, immigrant groups and minorities seem to be attached to the largest families and hold to those traditional ideas. Whites generally from western Europe and America are seeing reduced rates of birth and having less and often enough, no children. For many of them it's not difficult to ponder marriage in a childless context. This would explain why liberal whites seemed not to be opposed to gay marriage, and why some other groups have been blamed for the passage of Proposition 8 in California.

We are talking about a major shift in the idea of marriage, not just the denial of 'rights' to homosexual couples.

I'm not sure we want to make this shift as a society. The problems of childless relationships in general have little impact on our society compared to the problems of families with children. We need that focus. If marriage statistics are skewed to water down statistics regarding families with children, it will trivialize the importance that the breakup of families have on society.

Lets face it folks, if a childless couple breaks apart, they divvy up the material stuff and pets and go their separate ways. As traumatic as we all know that can be, we also know the suffering of children of broken homes and the more-often-than-not female care-giver is infinitely greater.

Personally, I would rather we create a special childless category of marriage somehow than start lumping gay relationships into a category that has always stood for the having and rearing of children. I also realize there are going to be gray areas around gay couples that are raising children, but the root meaning and importance of the term 'marriage' deserves more respect than gays are giving it.

I think the opposition has been framed in the context of religion, but I do not believe that really reflects the truth of the opposition.

Not sure if I am answering these on the right authors post..but it is along the lines of the question.

>>The answer, of course, is that the Bible can be cited in support of or in opposition to any human behavior and human need.

True. But what are people citing? If they are citing slavery is ok, then they are citing the aspect of scpriture that chronicles man's ways and decisions of living his own way. If they are citing it is wrong, then they understand scripture - that slavery was devised of men. God was hands off overall due to our decision to keep Him away. Will explain that shortly. God has His purpose..regardless of how we do things. Interesting how He told those with slaves that they were to be released on Jubilee and/or 7th year cycles. Would the slave owners thought of that? Man was doing it their own way, but God set the bottom line rules. Did all heed? Of course not. Part of why the world, to this day, cannot help itslef in all the dire matters that face us.

The context and purpose of scripture is greatly misunderstood by most in the world today. Rev 12:9 was inspired to be written because that is basically what we have today. Religious confusion.
Why? All of the answers are in scripture. We have to go back to Eden first. In short, here, mankind decided to live life his way (partaking of the symbolic tree of the knowledge of good and evil instead of partaking of the tree of life). So man does what he sees as best for himself for time immemorial. The bible, along with instruction from God and Jesus Christ on how to live abundantly and in truth, also chronicles the mistakes that man has made over the ages. Today, we can see similar chronicles of mankinds missteps in newsprint, tv and the like. So there is a fundamentally sound reason why some take the bible to mean one thing and others take it to mean another thing. It all boils down to truly understanding scripture and its intent for us today. Simply, if one keeps the reality of Gods intent and mankinds decisions separate, then one can easily realize how things really should be with regard to slavery, marriage, other gods, lying, cheating, etc etc etc. The 10 commandments could never had been born of man's mind. Even the best of us couldnt have even come close to encapsulating a moral set of guidelines as these 10 comprehensive outlines...each of which are/have been part of much of our judicial and system of law...but sadly more and more discounted. Each one of them filled with deep meaning and far reaching purpose..but gross failure to see that deep meaning as many, if not all, societies lose sight of God. Here we humans find ourselves once again in that dilema

>>That is why, as voters and legislators, we ought not to be asking ourselves what the Bible or particular religions say about anything and should stick to what seems reasonable in modern society and legal under our Constitution.

Not much hope for humans to agree on whats reasonable...such is part of the mess we are in today...finacially, morally, physically and spiritually.

Hang in there, though. Another misunderstanding is that the scriptures talk of the 'end of the world'. Nothing of the sort. The end of our current age is coming..and seemingly shortly the way everything looks. But scripture gives us a positive outcome of that too that world leaders cannot.

"Impartiality" does not mean "believing everything I read". And ANY impartial assessment of the silly fairy tales at the core of all religions would come to the same conclusion: Mountains of evidence against their veracity, and none in support. It is only the brainwashed and/or delusional that are incapable of that type of "impartial" analysis. Then, we sit around and laugh at the mental knots you all tie yourselves up in trying to defend the truth of your beliefs.

Impartialobsesrver:

Your comment was anything but impartial. I suggest you look for a new moniker.

This is about as relevant as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - i.e., who cares?!? Angels don't exist. Neither does god, except in the deluded minds of the brainwashed masses. The bible is a piece of tripe as literature, and useless as a moral compass. Anyone who chooses to live his or her life according to the jesus myth or any other fairy tale is, quite simply, an idiot.

Some very good thoughts here. I've always argued that religion doesn't MAKE people think one way or another about anything, but that people take away their interpretations of religious texts based on what they go into the reading with. People who go into it looking for a justification for gay marrage will find it, those who go into it looking for a condemnation of it will find it. Personally, I see all this as just all the more reason to kick religion to the curb and try and actually think about things, but I know that isn't what you were getting at.