I had an interesting discussion with Marsist in her questbook at the end of last week. I knew I shouldn't have said ANYTHING about gay marriage but we'd (Marsist and I) always had been able to be civil with our disagreements in the past as we'd debate in a pretty respectful manner even when we held deeply different opinions. Below is the discussion we had in her questbook related to the topic of gay marriages.

Let me set it up a bit. Many of you will remember that I'm not against the concept of civil unions. In fact, I think they make the most sense as a win-win situation. My problem has been with the moral superiority of not just this, but all movements that fundamentally change they way we've done business for years. Yes I know, "isn't that how everyone does it?" the argument goes. It's this idea that I can't raise my station without attacking yours. What is the alternative? Reason and logic, plain and simple. It's EASY to attack such thinks as "the church," "religion," or even a generic political party as it is almost a guarantee that at some point in their history, someone somewhere said or did something that offended your subclass. And there is no one that can stand up and speak in defense of such institutions. For example, who could possibly defend an attack that starts off with "christians believe..." when there are so many different type christians AND the same can be said of nonchristians? The question also is, is this a "belief" or an isolated incident? Does Pat Roberts speak for Christianity, his faith, or his congregation? Do the "bug-chaser" homosexuals the Rolling Stones reported represent the whole community, the male community, or a subculture?

Why oh why are we caught up in our own agenda's that we can't civilly explain our propositions and objections? And how is it that we can, with a straight face, decry someone else's moral beliefs that don't agree with our moral beliefs? It's that simply evangelizing? If you are attempting to convert me, you are "simply helping to correct my faults." If I try to convert you, I'm a "religious fanatic bent on oppressing the minority with my Vatican dictated, parishioner regurgitated propaganda."

In a way it's funny. It reminds me a bit of watching kid movies. You know, the ones where the kids have all the brains and make things happen while the parents and other adults bumble around getting into trouble. Kids ALWAYS think they are smarter than adults. They think they have problems that no one else has ever had to face and that if only people would LISTEN to them, the world would be a better place (and they could save the world too if they didn't have to be in bed by 9pm on school nights). It is great to have the simplistic views of a youth to sometimes counterbalance the analytical, cluttered mind of an adult. But kids also need to understand and learn that they lack the experience of what will work and what won't.

If we take this and apply it to generations, these recent generations that grew up in the 20th century have seen a lot of changes. So far, we have determined that there really isn't anything we can't do such that we've developed an appetite for change that is insatiable. And like kids, we sometimes think our answers were smarter than the previous generations. In our exuberance, we ignore the lessons of those older and wiser generations and ASSUME that if they had "just been as enlightened as us" they would have made the right decision years ago.

To that I say BS. If I should value your morality than you should value mine. If you want to live in a society where gay marriages is the norm, than convince those who disagree using logic and reason instead of attacking the government and religion. When Martin Luther King Jr. wanted to bring about change, he did so by challenging individual laws in individual counties and states and you are successfully doing the same. But calling those that disagree with you names is what? Doing unto them what you complain they do unto you? King said, "In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action." Where in there do you see insult, demean, and dismiss? Do you wish to win your point or browbeat all opposition into submission? What a wonderful world to live in that would be.

Anyway, please feel free to read through the below and see if you can figure out why I was getting frustrated. Comments and criticisms are welcome. Attacks will be deleted.

(And yeah, before you say it, I shouldn't have gotten snippy either with that education comment. I meant it as a joke but of course it wasn't received as one.)

colin-g - One minor point. You said, " Justice Scalia says that making sodomy legal opens the door to gay marriage AND polygamy." Actually, he said the way the ruling was worded will open the door. There's a difference. And I'm not sure I agree that Gay Marriage and Polygamy are NOT different sides of the same coin. As you said, you can't change who you fall in love with, right?

marsist - 1) I wasn't quoting Scalia directly, I was paraphrasing, but the meaning was the same, and how would it have made a difference to my point anyway? 2) gay marriage and polygamy are not two sides of the same coin because not all gays are poly and not all polys are gay and polygamy has nothing to do with sodomy. as far as the gay marriage movement as a whole is concerned, that is the issue, period: giving gays equality (not separate-but-equal, but *equal treatment*) to heteros. polyamory has not been designated a sexual orientation, and if it ever is, they can fight their own fight-- probably far in the future. by the way, I said "none of us can choose whom we fall in love with". there's a difference. ;)

colin-g - I think you are going the wrong direction with the gay marriage/polygamy comparison. For the "two sides of the same coin" argument to hold, one would only need to draw a correlation not a direct link. For instance, I wouldn't need to show ANY gay's were polygamists or that ANY polygamists were gay. I'd only need to show that they are both "non-standard relationships" (I'd use the word deviant but that seems to piss everyone off) that are based on love but whose rights are limited in the eyes of the government. I don't think the gay movement can get away from the polygamy/polyandry crowd just because they are not a separate sexual orientation. If we are going to make the argument that, "none of us can choose whom we fall in love with," than we logically can't choose how many people we fall in love with either. If we are going to make an equal protection argument, than one's orientation becomes completely irrelevant. All have a right to live by their own moral code. That is why it is two sides of the same coin and cannot legally be extricated from the polygamy/polyandry discussion. And you're better off sticking with them anyway because based on historical practices, they've got a better case. Oh, and I'm giving you the Scalia point as it IS nitpicky for me to continue parsing words on that one. :-)

marsist - if legislation were based on *logic*, it would go like this: all humans are created equal and should be treated equally under the law. straight people can marry, gay people can't. this is illogical, therefore it must be rectified by either 1) making it illegal for straights to marry or 2) legalizing gay marriage. unfortunately, legislation is based on politics, lobbying, majority vote, money, public support, (all-too-often) religion, and other complex interlocking factors. simply speaking, there are a lot more gay people than polyamorists who want to get married, and the gays have a large political movement and a lot of non-gay support. all non-standard relationships are NOT in the same category, either; each has its own set of issues making it unique and therefore an issue that must be treated uniquely. anti-gay-marriage people like Scalia tend to lump it in with polygamy, bestiality and pederasty, but there are large differences. no gay person is insisting that marriage should involve more than the traditional two people. marriage involving more than two people would involve an overhaul of every single bit of legislation regarding marriage, and there's just not enough of an advocacy movement to make that worth addressing at this time. (whereas gay marriage would change nothing about the institution of marriage except adding an extra check box to the "gender" line on your license application.) bestiality involves animals, which are property and obviously unconsenting. pederasty involves children, who are also, under the law, incapable of consenting to a sexual relationship or a legal commitment. but let's say for the sake of argument that drawing correlations among different types of relationships IS a valid basis for judgment. in that case, here's another "logical" problem for you: interracial marriage used to be illegal on the various bases that it was immoral, un-Christian, just plain *wrong*, or (the more moderate people argued) the children of such relationships would suffer undue difficulty due to their parents' "nontraditional relationship." in the light of history-- taking into account that opposition to interracial marriage was actually greater percentage-wise than opposition to gay marriage is today-- explain to me why the two issues should be treated differently.

colin-g - You first argument is logically incorrect as our government didn't create marriage. It chose to take advantage of the historical class known as "married" to associate various privileges it wished to endow on those who historically engaged in activities they wishes to encourage (traditionally like breeding and raising of well adjusted children). Now as definitions change, as they are often want to do, it is the right of society to resist/support such delusions in meanings as is consistent with the current society norms. (I may write a post next week to better explain this theory). Nonetheless, you attack your own argument when you state, "no gay person is insisting that marriage should involve more than the *traditional* two people." [emphasis added] It is that "moving the bar" even lower to a newly defined "traditional marriage limited to two people BUT of any sex." As to the question of prohibitions on interracial marriages, this had its roots not in religious or historical beliefs but in the cultural moray of the time. While wrong, in the history of man, this 50 year blip of time was quickly corrected after a period of soul-searching self examination. Juxtaposed to the interracial marriage question, the argument for gay marriage doesn't hold up well as resistance IS rooted in both religious and historical beliefs. Truth is, the article you sent me that spoke of privatizing marriage wasn't that bad of a thing. If the government gave the term "marriage" back to the various churches and instead used the term Civil Union to define everyone, well then we have parity. (Jeez this is getting long). As an example of this whole concept brought together and put in SCA context, why aren't Pelicans simply service Laurels? The Society created a NEW peerage instead of trying to shoehorn something new into something old. While both are considered "Peers" (Civil Unions) they are different "Orders" (Marriage). Think about that for a while and see if it makes any sense. And you know I respect your opinion right?

marsist - um, just a couple of points before I go home today: our government created the way that *it* sanctions marriage, and can change it, democratically, according to its first principle, equality. God didn't create marriage either; it's an invention of humans and the reasons why people get married have changed and evolved throughout history to the point where it is now a discrimination against gays to deny them marriage. (that is, marriage was originally arranged for property purposes, and now, in this country, it's mostly done freely out of love. gays love each other. ergo...) also, people have the right to resist any change that comes about in society, but they must do so legally and constitutionally and using the proper channels. this precludes a bunch of emotion- and prejudice-based arguments anti-gay-marriageists use such as "it's immoral" (based on whose constitutionally established religion?) and "this will destroy the institution of marriage" (prove it), among others. also, you may see including gays as "moving the bar even lower," whereas gays and many others see it as... inclusion. which is a fine and constitutional precept. also, resistance to interracial marriages was ABSOLUTELY based on religious and historical beliefs, as any cursory examination of the last several thousand years of history will show. cultural mores very often (arguably, ALWAYS) have their roots in religion and history. I think we agree on the idea that marriage should be handed over to the religions and other organizations that wish to practice it-- everyone's equal, everyone can say they're married, and as far as the gov't is concerned it's ALL just "civil union." regarding your SCA analogy, I can't comment because I know next to nothing about the whole cookie system-- perhaps someone else can comment. I appreciate your responses today-- you're helping me clarify the issue in my own mind, and demonstrating how the other side thinks.

0 - Sorry bub, but the Bible has been used as one of the main justifications for prohibition of interracial marriage. Canaan, the cursed of the son of Ham ring a bell? That little chestnut has been dug up by people over the centuries to justify any number of racist policies, including bans on interracial marriage. Wrote a paper on it a few years ago, very deep subject. Got an A too. So to say that this is just a 50 year blip in the history of mankind is, to be very nice, just plain uninformed.

colin-g - According to the Layman's Bible Book Commentary, Vol 1, pg 48 the authors explain the section you refer to that appears in Genesis 9:24-25 with the following note "...the curse was not placed on Ham, the ancestor of black-skinned people. It is consequently a tragic misinterpretation of Scripture to identify black skin color as a curse...there is no indication that the curse was to pass to his descendants..." While this section has been from time to time used to justify slavery, it is not now nor has it ever been used by a religion for grounds to stand against interracial marriages. Hell, a quick scan of the bible would show you that Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman who was understood to be black and when his sister criticized him for the marriage, God slapped her with leprosy (Numbers 12:1-14). I'm sorry to say it but if that was what got you the A it is another example of the failure of our educational system. Religions care if you marry out of the faith, not out of the race. Just because one disagree with their purposes doesn't mean one should line up Christians, Muslims, and Jews as the "usual suspects" whenever a new idea challenges existing moral believes.

marsist - um, Colin, I hate to say it, but you're wrong, wrong, wrong. I mean it-- I can't even respect this as a difference in belief between us. I guess in some twisted way it might be considered admirable how steadfastly you're willing to defend your prejudices even to the point of making up fantasies, but there's no way to give you the benefit of the doubt when you're so, deliberately, ignorant. you not only attended different schools but must be living on a different planet from the rest of us. jesus christ, even the other Christians I know are at least willing to admit the horrible things that have been done *in the past* in the name of religion, but you... (shakes head) I give up, I'm done. this has ceased to be intelligent debate. anyone else care to chime in?

0 - Pal, I went to school for a year at a Benedictine Abbey. I spent my formative years in Catholic grade school, so don't you talk to me about the failure of the education system. I know what I am talking about, you do not. Taking five minutes to look up a reference in a Bible book commentary won't change the facts of history, nor will 15 minutes googling the words "son of Ham" in order to back up your ill-informed excuse for an opinion. In the future try doing some actual research in a library or archive before you so smugly insult my educational credentials.

colin-g - As you both wish. I can see this is too heated a topic for either of you two to discuss logically...which of course is the reason I said I wouldn't touch it to begin with. I shouldn't have let myself get involved as any opposite opinions is characterized as twisted, ignorant, and ill-informed. It's sad really when individuals get so caught up in what they perceive as other's biases and attacks against their believes that they can't see their own. Instead of refuting the facts I present (which by the way is not opposite of yours, just different), I'm attacked as being from another planet and, apparently, uneducated. Nice. I never stated or implied that Christians haven't done horrible things in the past but I also refuse to universally apply all these "bad things" to my problems willy nilly without any logical link because 1) it is an easy target, and 2) because it is fashionable to assault. Thank you for the discussion. I'm done with being insulted. Good day.

0 - Boy, all the rumors I've heard about you from SCA folks really ARE true. You would be more interesting if you could get over a seemingly paralyzing inability to see or correct your own faults. Not an insult, just sincere advice freely given. Perhaps a few months of reading at the Union Theological Seminary will help you expand upon your present epistemology. Sigh, go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

previous - next - links