Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage

[Koopaslaya]

You brought religion into this, not I. Notice that I have not yet made one appeal to any "religious book." I've used only reason in my arguments.

Also, is it not possible, in your description of happiness, that somebody's "happiness" could be completely contingent upon somebody else's misery? What is the only thing that makes me happy is schadenfreude? Who are you to tell me that my personal happiness can't be at the expense of others? If all happiness is relative, as you are suggesting, what does it matter that my happiness interferes with yours?

Sincerely loving somebody means willing his or her good, and not giving him or her license to do anything at all. If your eight-year-old were to reach for a pan on the stove, wouldn't you try to stop him? What if my happiness were at nobody's expense, but it involved me breeding rabbits in the basement and torturing them? That doesn't hurt anybody who can be happy in any human sense.

Again this is not to put homosexual actions on par with any of these things, this is only to say that you need a more robust account of happiness before you can hurl that argument around.

[Markio]

I'm still waiting for your reason-based arguments against same-sex marriage.  You say you don't mean to put gay sexual activity on par with your examples of detrimental behavior, but then I'm not sure why you're bringing them up in the first place.  Do you think that same-sex relationships are not capable of secular stability, happiness, or substance?

[Koopaslaya]

I will make the argument once I have a clear amount of time to make it articulate and easy to follow.

Before I make any arguments whatsoever, I will say this. These arguments are to be made in good cheer and do not express my personal judgement of any person, here or otherwise. I should also like to make it known that I have close friends who are homosexual persons and I do not "hate them" in any way. While my little argument won't come for possibly a few days, I would just like to acknowledge that in posting in this topic, it has never been my intention to hurt anyone or to start a flame war. I only wish to express clearly my reasoning for holding to what I do.

Preview of coming attractions:

In response to Markio, I will say this. Yes, I believe that homosexual acts are not perfective of the human person. I do not believe that they are good. In using the examples that I use, I mean it only in service of establishing first principles: That there is a good or bad, that happiness is not relative, that we can draw a distinction between people and actions. Sometimes harsh examples bring subtle distinctions into heavy relief.

Also, be careful in your terms. A same-sex relationship might not be sexual, and in this case, it can be "stable, happy, and substantive." If by same-sex relationship, you mean a same-sex relationship in imitation of a heterosexual relationship and with an element of sexual stimulation, then your claim is somewhat correct, but this would, of course, demand an exploration of the terms "stable," "happy," and "substantive," for which I have not the time.

Hope this helps :)

[Markio]

I admit I feel strongly about this subject because I am gay, but I also do not intend to react with hostility to dissenting opinions regarding homosexuality and marriage equality.  I wouldn't want this topic to crumble into a flame war because I think these discussions are really important to have, however uncomfortable they may be.

I also wanted to clarify that by "same-sex relationship" I am referring to the healthiest manifestation of a romantic relationship between a man and a woman, where love is unconditional, each individual is committed to the other, and sexual activity is merely one facet of the entire relationship...  except instead of one man and one woman there are two men or two women.  I hold the belief that two people of the same gender and/or biological sex are capable of having as healthy and moral a relationship as two people of differing genders/sexes.  I don't consider anything other than the gender of the parties involved to differ when comparing same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships (aside from potential sex positions, but I think that's a trivial difference of little consequence).  My opinions will usually extend from this belief.

[PaperLuigi]

You brought religion into this, not I. Notice that I have not yet made one appeal to any "religious book." I've used only reason in my arguments.

What reason? You've only said that you can love someone without allowing them to do what they want, which, while true in some cases, seems really contradictory and baseless when applied to gay marriage. "Yo man, I love you and all, but I hate that you love the color red. I'm going to do everything in my power to stop you from enjoying it even though it makes you happy and doesn't personally hurt me. But I still love you, man!" I assumed you were making an appeal to sin because the argument just sounds so baseless without it. 

Also, is it not possible, in your description of happiness, that somebody's "happiness" could be completely contingent upon somebody else's misery? Who are you to tell me that my personal happiness can't be at the expense of others?

...I said "not detrimental to anyone else." Wow. I never said that one's happiness can't be contingent upon someone else's pain, just that if you're not harming anyone and you're happy, you should be allowed to do it.

What if my happiness were at nobody's expense, but it involved me breeding rabbits in the basement and torturing them?

>at nobody's expense
>torturing rabbits

Are...are you just trolling now?

[Koopaslaya]

In response to Markio:

I think I now have a much clearer understanding of where you are coming from, and I will attempt to tailor my arguments to suit your vantage point. You must forgive me for holding off on a systematic response; I'm working on two master's degrees simultaneously right now and time to free write is sparse.

In any event, I appreciate your candidness and honesty. Having an open and honest  genuine discussion about these issues can only broaden our understanding of each other's opinions, even if in the end we continue to disagree. That's the beauty of being able to divorce actions for the worth of a person. Despite our seemingly distant viewpoints, in the end we can continue to both respect one another as members of the human family. 

[Koopaslaya]

What reason? You've only said that you can love someone without allowing them to do what they want, which, while true in some cases, seems really contradictory and baseless when applied to gay marriage. "Yo man, I love you and all, but I hate that you love the color red. I'm going to do everything in my power to stop you from enjoying it even though it makes you happy and doesn't personally hurt me. But I still love you, man!" I assumed you were making an appeal to sin because the argument just sounds so baseless without it. 

...I said "not detrimental to anyone else." Wow. I never said that one's happiness can't be contingent upon someone else's pain, just that if you're not harming anyone and you're happy, you should be allowed to do it.

>at nobody's expense
>torturing rabbits

Are...are you just trolling now?

1. You apparently missed the analogy, because your counterexample twists my words. Try to stick with examples of moral significance and not with contrived notions.

2. The rabbit example is harsh, yes. Remember what I said about harsh examples bringing subtle distinctions into broad relief. (Plus, who said rabbits are a "somebody" what if I think they are just a "something"? What if that is part of my happiness?

3. I don't think I'm trolling because I am being polite and am offering arguments that can be logically followed by anyone (it remains to be seen if they are sound, but it remains that they are at least valid reasoning). You implicitly agree to this because you respond to my arguments.

[PaperLuigi]

You apparently missed the analogy, because your counterexample twists my words. Try to stick with examples of moral significance and not with contrived notions.

Except that a person enjoying the color red-the "contrived" notion-and a homosexual wanting to marry someone they love-the "morally significant" case-are hardly that much different, insofar as there's no good reason to take a hard stance against them like one should save a child from touching a hot pan. I also get that it's possible to love someone while not letting them do something, just not in the instances I provided. In the case of the arsonist, you love him because he's your son, yet hate his actions because they harm others (and possibly himself). Fine. Perfectly justified. But what's so harmful about letting a gay person get married? Furthermore, how can you even claim to genuinely love them if you disapprove of something so harmless? The lack of an apparent base suggests that you don't love them as much as you say. Unless of course you believe being gay is harmful or that rightness (or love) has nothing to do with harm. 

Yes, I believe that homosexual acts are not perfective of the human person. I do not believe that they are good.

Ah. I see. Any argument from this point is inevitably going to involve religion and/or metaethics. Fun.

(Plus, who said rabbits are a "somebody" what if I think they are just a "something"? What if that is part of my happiness?

It doesn't matter if you do think it but whether you're right in thinking so. Seeing as how they're still suffering, it's really of little interest that you're getting a kick out of it.

I don't think I'm trolling because I am being polite and am offering arguments that can be reasonably followed by anyone with reason.

Of course I don't actually think you're trolling, but I am equating your argument about the rabits to trolling as a sarcastic jab. I apologize for my rudeness, but you can't blame me for finding your rabbit argument strange.

[Sapphira]

Markio, there's no video appearing for me.

...I said "not detrimental to anyone else."

Whether or not it's "detrimental"—to either one's self and/or to others—is one aspect of the entire debate. But just because you don't believe it's detrimental doesn't mean others don't view it as such. And vice versa. (I used too many negatives and am now confusing myself. XD) And it doesn't mean either view is necessarily right or wrong. I'm not going to get into that argument, though.

Moving on...
Since this is such a controversial topic, the idea of removing marriage from the government is the best solution I can think of to appease the most people. Nothing will ever please EVERYONE, but this solution seems to be the best compromise and middle-of-the-road approach.

Maybe we just need new words for both personal/religious marriage (the emotional and/or spiritual promise/union between two people) and legal unions to make the disassociation between the two fair; then neither will be called "marriage." Like "Life Partners" and "Legal Lovers" or something. I dunno. XD
But change the vocabulary for the two concepts to make it CLEAR they mean something different from each other. I think that's what's hanging a lot of people up; they end up associating the two as the same. When they're not. Or shouldn't be.

In response to the "religious" argument and my previous post: To clarify, I don't like the notion of "religion"—I prefer to think of it as one's personal beliefs rather than an organized dogma with rituals and whatnot. If those beliefs are shared among a lot of people, and they want to use them to form a religion (in the traditional sense), more power to them, but the term "religion" seems restrictive and, for many, holds negative connotations.

Another problem is that it's debatable whether marriage is a religious thing in the first place. Atheists can get married and no one complains.

While atheism isn't a "religion," it most certainly is a personal belief and outlook. Many people might CALL it a religion, though, because of lack of a better term. While Christianity is a religion in the traditional sense, certainly, it doesn't have to be. One can believe, follow, and live by the teachings of Jesus (and/or the apostles) without necessarily following the customs and rituals typically associated with religion of Christianity. But we're delving into a different topic, so...

What I'm trying to say is, approval or disapproval of homosexuality doesn't have to be connected to a religion. But it IS a personal belief/opinion/outlook. When I referenced "freedom of religion," what I actually mean is "freedom to believe whatever you want." I said "religion" because that's the term used in the Constitution, but I interpret that to actually mean "personal beliefs," at least in its intent.

It seems like what we're debating, at this point, is semantics.

This topic has spurred an interesting discussion. Koopaslaya, I agree with most, if not all, of what you've had to say in your recent posts, including your responses to Markio, and I think you expressed your views very eloquently and tactfully. CrossEyed, I'm in the process of reading those links you posted; so far they are interesting. I might have more to say later. PaperLuigi, let's work on keeping this discussion a little less...heated, I suppose.

[PaperLuigi]

If I sound heated, it's only because I feel so passionately about the issue AND I'm legitimately having fun.

[BP]

Why is gayness immoral

I'm curious, Koopaslaya, if it's not "because Satans," then what could it be? I mean I could even compare it to harmless things that, depending on whether you do it or not, give you a feeling of "Hee hee, I got away with something bad!" or "I'm not doing that, it's bad." Taking a second slice of pizza at a party, not pointing it out when the cashier gives you more change than you were supposed to get, jaywalking, hiding the last can of coke at the back of the fridge... What is inherently bad, even if harmless, about wedlock between two humans with boobs/dongs? What about it is supposed to pop the little conscience angel and devil onto the shoulders? What would the angel be saying?

I know sexual deviance is often referred to as a "guilty pleasure" but that doesn't literally mean you're guilty of something

[Markio]

Markio, there's no video appearing for me.

Here's a direct hyperlink: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY  If it still isn't working, then searching for "Matthew Vines" on Youtube ought to yield the right results.

I'm really curious to hear how homosexuality is understood as detrimental.  I would rather speak directly about those concerns than construct odd analogies about the issue.  Patience is a virtue, I guess...

[CrossEyed7]

Coming from a Christian perspective, the aspect that most convinced me that same-sex relations aren't inherently immoral is the existence of intersex people. I remember specifically thinking about it during the controversy in the fall of '09 over whether Caster Semenya was female enough to technically count as a female runner (This New York Times article is a good intro to the whole thing). I started wondering, if there's not really clear black-and-white boundaries between the sexes (let alone the genders), then where do we draw the line? If she's not female enough for whatever athletic federation's arbitrary standards, then would it technically be gay if she married a man? It's not like the Bible ever gives a specific scientific way to quantify what sex a person is. So is she just not supposed to get married then? But from a Christian perspective, that doesn't make sense. Paul liked celibacy a whole lot, but he never believed in forcing it on anyone (1 Corinthians 7) -- he even says in 1 Timothy 4 that that's the kind of thing that demons teach. If intersex people want to be celibate, more power to them, but it's entirely their choice, just as much as it is anyone else's.

The way I see it, we can either stay consistent to the clear teaching that we should not forbid marriage nor force celibacy on people against their will, or we can be against same-sex relations (based on significantly less clear passages), but not both. (Note that, at this point in the argument, I'm not applying the "forbidding marriage" thing to being against same-sex marriage. For argument's sake, I'm accepting the common rejoinder that if gay people want to get married, they have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a straight person does (even if that won't keep them from "burning" as per 1 Corinthians 7:9). However, intersex people have no options whatsoever under the traditional view of sexuality -- they can't marry someone of "the opposite sex" because they don't have an opposite (unless one wants to argue that, say, a male-bodied person with XX chromosomes should find a female-bodied person with XY chromosomes to marry... complementarians should have fun figuring out that situation).)

I don't see a way to maintain the traditional view (especially at a governmental level) without wronging others (admittedly, that "others" may well include me someday, as I am bi, but I don't think that makes me any more biased than a straight person who's opposed to same-sex marriage).

I'm interested to hear a secular argument for the traditional view, though (I'm also interested in hearing Christian arguments, provided they deal with the topics of modern ideas of gender and disputes over the translation of the Greek and Hebrew words at hand, rather than taking both for granted. And I suppose I'd also like to hear arguments from other religions too -- I wouldn't be equipped to respond to them, but I'd be interested to hear what they are.).

[Sapphira]

While I haven't finished reading everything you linked yet, CrossEyed, I must say, your link to Justin Lee's arguments has resulted in me re-examining my own perspective on the matter. Kudos!

I'm currently reading Ron's opposing argument.

EDIT: Oh yeah, Markio, I think my FlashPlayer plugin is acting up or something, because I currently can't get any YouTube videos to work for me. Might have to "reboot" my browser.

[Turtlekid1]

Coming from a Christian perspective, the aspect that most convinced me that same-sex relations aren't inherently immoral is the existence of intersex people. I remember specifically thinking about it during the controversy in the fall of '09 over whether Caster Semenya was female enough to technically count as a female runner (This New York Times article is a good intro to the whole thing). I started wondering, if there's not really clear black-and-white boundaries between the sexes (let alone the genders), then where do we draw the line? If she's not female enough for whatever athletic federation's arbitrary standards, then would it technically be gay if she married a man? It's not like the Bible ever gives a specific scientific way to quantify what sex a person is. So is she just not supposed to get married then? But from a Christian perspective, that doesn't make sense. Paul liked celibacy a whole lot, but he never believed in forcing it on anyone (1 Corinthians 7) -- he even says in 1 Timothy 4 that that's the kind of thing that demons teach. If intersex people want to be celibate, more power to them, but it's entirely their choice, just as much as it is anyone else's.

The way I see it, we can either stay consistent to the clear teaching that we should not forbid marriage nor force celibacy on people against their will, or we can be against same-sex relations (based on significantly less clear passages), but not both. (Note that, at this point in the argument, I'm not applying the "forbidding marriage" thing to being against same-sex marriage. For argument's sake, I'm accepting the common rejoinder that if gay people want to get married, they have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a straight person does (even if that won't keep them from "burning" as per 1 Corinthians 7:9). However, intersex people have no options whatsoever under the traditional view of sexuality -- they can't marry someone of "the opposite sex" because they don't have an opposite (unless one wants to argue that, say, a male-bodied person with XX chromosomes should find a female-bodied person with XY chromosomes to marry... complementarians should have fun figuring out that situation).)

I don't see a way to maintain the traditional view (especially at a governmental level) without wronging others (admittedly, that "others" may well include me someday, as I am bi, but I don't think that makes me any more biased than a straight person who's opposed to same-sex marriage).

I'm interested to hear a secular argument for the traditional view, though (I'm also interested in hearing Christian arguments, provided they deal with the topics of modern ideas of gender and disputes over the translation of the Greek and Hebrew words at hand, rather than taking both for granted. And I suppose I'd also like to hear arguments from other religions too -- I wouldn't be equipped to respond to them, but I'd be interested to hear what they are.).

Even somehow dismissing certain passages in both Old and New Testaments on the grounds of shaky-at-best theology and wishful thinking (which there isn't really room to do anyway), what do you do with the beginning of Matthew 19?

You're citing scriptures that deal with forbidding marriage as demonic.  But first of all, and as is unfortunately rarely brought up in the debate, "marriage" does not extend to people who cannot or will not enter into a heterosexual union.  It's about the definition and has nothing to do with withholding rights.  Again, see Matthew 19.  The "God created Adam and Eve" argument holds more water than its detractors think if one is even going to pretend to believe that Jesus is Lord, because that's exactly what He uses to make his point.

As far as imposing celibacy goes, your argument seems to be that "restrictions are unlawful because it's not Christian to impose them."  But restraint is a undeniably a huge purpose of God's law.  You say it's a matter of not wronging others, but you seem to be implicitly equating "wronging" with "offending" or "restricting" and ignoring Biblical standards of right and wrong.  There's a huge difference between forbidding people from enjoying what God promotes and encourages, as the Pharisees - and evidently the false teachers Timothy dealt with - did; and not allowing people to sin.  Being consistent with not forbidding marriage and acknowledging that "marriage" means a certain thing (while consequently not meaning certain other things) are not mutually exclusive.

It may be the choice of someone to be celibate, but by the same logic, it's the choice of someone to do anything he wants, from eating lasagna to committing murder.  Just because it's your choice does not make it the right choice.

Apologies if the structure of this post is a little scattered.  Kinda chopped it up over and over to make sure things fit, but I may have overlooked something.