Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage

[Koopaslaya]

**This is a post designed for a mature audience. It uses precise terms and does not shy away from scholarly discussion of human biology and anatomy. **

I think that this is the post everyone has been waiting for. This is meant to be an argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage on purely secular grounds. I am not appealing to God, the Bible, the Q'ran, the Pope, or anything that could be confused for the holy.

Before I begin, I think I have to start with some caveats.Keep these things in mind as you read my post, for they will drive the entirety of the argument. First of all, recognize that I am coming from the perspective of the principle of non-contradiction. Same-sex marriage is either possible or it isn't. Moreover, same-sex marriage is either morally repugnant or it is not, regardless of how many people think it's okay or it isn't. And so, in order to refute me, don't try to use arguments of moral relativity, unless you want to back the argument up to first principles (in which case the argument will no longer be about same-sex marriage but will be about something with much higher stakes).

Next, I should like to frame my argument. I am not talking about the moral imperfection of same-sex acts. That is a related to this argument, but my argument stands without making such claims explicit. In other words, exposing the moral repugnancy of same-sex marriage is not the thrust of my argument, and if you think it so, you are missing a major element of my post, which is more about the government's interest in legalizing and offering marriage benefits to same-sex couples (I know the objection here, which is “if its not immoral, what's wrong with it?” I have two responses. 1. Driving on the right side of the road is not immoral per se but it is not good for society because of the structure of the way things are. 2. I do think they are immoral and I think my argument is weakened if that is not properly in place). Nevertheless, I think what I'm trying to say can be said without having to systematically explain the moral imperfection of same-sex acts. Next, I need to establish what I mean by love: to will the good of another. Love cannot merely be reduced to sentiment or feeling, it needs to be a free choice of the will to work toward another's perfection, perhaps even at the expense of one's own time or own interests. Love so described is by its very nature fruitful. What good is a friendship that does not bear the joys of virtue, mutual enjoyment, and quality time? What good is the love that one coworker shares for another if that work relationship does not bring forth some product? Notice that in in the fruitfulness of each relationship, I am speaking of a fruitfulness proper to its essence: friendship begets quality time, not apples. Work-relationships beget products, not baby salamanders. Musical relationships beget good music, not rocket ships. This will be the thrust of my argument, that a sexual relationship has a fruitfulness proper to its order.

Having established first principles, and having framed the argument, allow me to present a very tentative thesis which will need to be fleshed out in the ensuing argumentation. My thesis is: same-sex marriages ought not be given by the government the same rewards and benefits as a heterosexual marriage precisely because the integral component of childbearing can never be present. While this argument says nothing about whether two people may or may not, of their own choosing, engage in same-sex genital stimulation, it does maintain that because of the nature of a same-sex couple, the government has no interest and is actually harmed in granting the same benefits to same-sex couples as it does to heterosexual couples.

Let us begin with a thought experiment. Suppose I lived in a community with all males. I, a male, might have any number of friends and I might enter into a professional relationship with that person. The government of that community would have interest, for the common good, to regulate my trade affairs with these other gentlemen. Now, suppose, one of these other men and I were to strike up a friendship – not a professional relationship. What interest would the government have in regulating our discussions, the games we play together, or the activities that we do? None, we are acting as private agents with respect to the whole. Our friendship might be a good for the society (as we might model virtuous living and the like) but we do not receive any special benefit for this. Now, suppose, this friend of mine begins giving me very pleasurable foot rubs. This is done without compensation. Does the government have, as its prerogative, to regulate this? No, this remains proper to our friendship, and it is not related in any way to the commerce of the community. In other words, that we give each other foot rubs, which might indeed feel very good, is not sufficient grounds for the government of this community to recognize our friendship as anything more than the fraternization of two private citizens. We might even choose to live together, but the government is not going to reward one of its citizens for finding a very particular or special friend.

Now, let us suppose that one day, I am walking about the country and I come across a new, yes analogous, community of individuals who are like me, but have very different parts. One of these individuals, let us call her a woman, and I strike up a friendship. Again, neither community seems to have much interest that we might enjoy bowling together. Now, however, let us suppose that she and I engage in a copulative act. For the sake of argument, let us imagine that she and I have no idea that this act is conjugal. Soon, she begins to elicit signs that this act has changed her. Her natural rhythms and such are interrupted and changed precisely because of the sort of act in which we engaged. Nine months later, a child appears. Well, not the society has another mouth to feed. Is it now time for the government to step in? Yes. This new couple is the sort of couple that would be able to do something of a completely different order if everything is working (which it is). They can produce a child. The government's interest in this sort of relationship is significant because this relationship ensures the future of the society and provides for the futures upbringing. This is precisely why the government should reward heterosexual married couples.

Now allow me to shift my focus. I am going to be making another argument. Consider your lungs. They are complete with respect to your own body. They execute their function as lungs in a working body complete unto itself. The same is true of the heart, skin, liver, and kidneys. These organs complete their function with respect to the body to which they belong. Both the male and female reproductive organs make little sense on their own. A penis or vagina is incomplete in its functionality with respect to the body to which it belongs. They only do that which they do in terms of one another. To say that stimulation alone is the telos of these organs is a lot like saying the function of the lungs is to hold air, but not to process it. That only identifies a contingent element of the organ's functionality. Thus, the argument can be made that what is going on in same sex genital activity is, at best, mutual masturbation. It is quite analogous to the foot rubs in the above example. It may well feel good to the individuals engaged in it, but it does not provide for the good of the society in the manner that a heterosexual marriage does. Thus, the government should have no more of an interest in making homosexual partners on par with heterosexual marriages (as if it could change or lessen the significance of the sort of relationship which would end in child-rearing) than it does in having an interest in recognizing me and my best friend as partners worthy of some governmental benefits.

Here is another argument. It is often dismissed as a “slippery slope fallacy,” but it could more accurately be called a argument of trajectory. It is the sort of reasoning the Supreme Court uses when trying to establish a ruling. It asks: If we legalize this for reasons x, y, and z, what else, of necessity, must we legalize? If we legalize same-sex unions and grand them benefits equaling those of heterosexual marriages, what else must we also allow? Since the criterion of what can marry is no longer child-bearing but is attraction (cf “Born this Way”) we must allow any person to marry whomever or whatever he or she was born attracted to. What if I am attracted to my brother? I was “born that way,” how can you tell me not to marry him? What if I am sexually aroused and attracted to a dog or a tree? With the emphasis no longer on something discernible but on something flimsy (like attraction), we have no reason to hold back on any of these examples. Moreover, a legalization of marriage that sees child-bearing as peripheral and not contingent treads into dangerous waters. Without a clear definition of who can marry whom, which is written into the very flesh of human beings, marriage as an institution becomes fuzzy at best, and meaningless at worst. Consider somebody who is, for lack of a better term, asexual. He was born not attracted to anyone. How is it fair that he cannot receive any of the benefits of a married person? He could argue that he deserves government compensation for not having the capacity to marry. Attraction being so fragile a criterion, this person could well change his mind and end up taking advantage of the system in new ways.

Perhaps at this point you want to maintain that the criterion is not attraction, but consent. This would solve the problem of bestiality, one might say. It does not, however, solve the problem of incest, nor does it solve the problem of the system being more vulnerable to swindlers. Over and against the criterion of consent, those who would want attraction to be the defining character of marriage would continue to argue, and if the criterion can be shifted from child-bearing to consent so easily, how much easier could it be shifted again to attraction?

And so, there is much at stake here. Much more than recognized at first glance. In short, suffice it to say that the government ought not have any interest in changing the definition of marriage precisely because same-sex marriage offers nothing to society that conventual friendship does not.

I did not cover the moral status of the homosexual act. I did not cover the nature of marital love as such. I did not cover the biological questions that same-sex actions raise. I did not cover the rights of children. I did not cover the significance of marriage in the face of ecclesial institutions or places of worship. There is much to be said, but I suppose we can call it a day.

My only request is that responses be polite, articulate, and well-reasoned. I am certainly open to discuss any of my arguments.

[Luigison]

If the male in your post happens upon a group of women and has sex with one or many of them without any children being born than that is not any of the government's business, but if the male and a female have a child the government should be involved. Did I read your post correctly on this matter?

Now say the female dies leaving the male with the child. Does this also concern the government? What if he adopts another child so that his offspring will have a playmat and to help out another couple that had a tragedy?

If the male goes back to his male foot rub partner and they take care of the child together should the government have as much of a say in this relationship as it did in the original male-female relationship that bore the child? What if the two males adopt another child? 

---

What if another male had also visited the female colony and had relations with one of them. This male and female get married and have a baby which involves the government as it did with the first couple.  After visiting the male's village the female realizes her male partner's preference for foot rubs and had an operation the removes her ability to have children. The government tragically (see above adoption) takes the child away for this or other reasons. Is this couple that was married by the government earlier now forced by the government to divorce?

[Hello:)]

*Playmate.
Anyway, religion originally didn't interfere, so it shouldn't now.

[Markio]

Same-sex marriages ought not be given by the government the same rewards and benefits as a heterosexual marriage precisely because the integral component of childbearing can never be present. While this argument says nothing about whether two people may or may not, of their own choosing, engage in same-sex genital stimulation, it does maintain that because of the nature of a same-sex couple, the government has no interest and is actually harmed in granting the same benefits to same-sex couples as it does to heterosexual couples.

OK.  So marriage in which procreation is impossible ought not to be legal, because the gov't would not receive the benefit of another young citizen to support that gov't in the future.  But how about this?

• Gay people can and do raise children.  Some gays/lesbians have children from previous heterosexual relationships; others adopt; and some rely on surrogacy or artificial insemination.  And these aren't just a few families: there are currently about 1-5 million lesbian parents and 1-3 million gay parents in the U.S. today, with children.  If marriage requires the capacity to produce and raise children, then certainly many same-sex couples would meet this requirement. EDIT: Luigison addressed this before I did.
• Sterile opposite-sex couples can get married.  So can opposite-sex couples who choose not to have children.  If procreation should be the basis for legalizing marriage, then it is not logical or consistent to allow marriage to opposite-sex couples who will not yield children.
• Marriage provides other beneficial functions for the government (and couple) besides producing children.  Economically, marriage is a form of social insurance: the benefit of a marital “partner” is to help guarantee that one will not have to rely on the government during times of need.  Individuals with Alzheimer's or cancer, who are single, and whose family and friends are unable to care for them, will fall under the responsibility of the State, often at a substantial cost.  Aside from providing individual and societal stability, marriage also functions as an expression of love.  When people choose to marry, it is not simply for the economic benefits or potential to create children, but rather it is usually because they are in love and want to make a binding commitment to be together for life.

With regards to the slippery slope fallacy, or argument of trajectory, here is a quote from Andrew Sullivan: "Do homosexuals actually exist? I think so, and today even the Vatican accepts that some people are constitutively attracted only to members of the same sex. By contrast, no serious person claims there are people constitutively attracted only to relatives, or only to groups rather than individuals. Anyone who can love two women can also love one of them. People who insist on marrying their mother or several lovers want an additional (and weird) marital option. Homosexuals currently have no marital option at all. A demand for polygamous or incestuous marriage is thus frivolous in a way that the demand for gay marriage is not."

Finally, if my post were an essay, I would be penalized for plagiarism:  Most of my information was taken nearly verbatim from this website: http://www.arguingequality.org/chapter5.htm  There's much more information in the link, but I wanted to hone it down to address the specifics in your post.

[Luigison]

Sorry, but I made a major edit/addition to my previous post before the two post above were made. 

[Koopaslaya]

Don't have a  lot of time, but here's a quick response.

1. Notice the emphasis is on bearing the children, not simply raising them. Also, I'm not so sure that it is best. (I can explain).

2. Yes, but remember my use of the subjunctive. "The type of relationship which would result..."

3. True. Not sure that's sufficient grounds to change the institution, however.

I agree that homosexuals truly exist. I also agree that there are people who, and please do not take this the wrong way, have pika or are predisposed to pedophilia. I say this only to demonstrate that having an orientation is not sufficient grounds for acting on said orientation.

I'm very glad that this has remained civil.

Luigison, I'll get to you later. This is sort of a 1 against many thing going on here, so I have a lot more people to respond to.

EDIT: I'm also impressed with the sharpness of the responses. If nothing else, this is a very good intellectual exercise.

[CrossEyed7]

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?

I think making Jesus' statements in Matthew 19 relate to same-sex marriage, either pro or con, is a stretch. Jesus was asked a specific question about divorce in opposite-sex marriage (the only kind of marriage that existed at the time), and he answered it. Giving an answer at all was already risky, considering Jesus was now in the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, who just beheaded John the Baptist five chapters ago for nagging Herod about marriage (specifically, Herod marrying his own sister-in-law), so even if Jesus had wanted to throw in "Oh, by the way, while we're talking about men divorcing their wives, just wanted to mention that men can totally marry men too if they want," (as ridiculous as that would have sounded to a culture that still largely saw wives as property) I certainly wouldn't expect him to.

As for the longer essay linked there, the main response I'd make is in relation to the treatment of the Romans and Corinthians/Timothy passages. In both cases, I don't think we can just look purely at the words and figure out an application -- we need to look at the culture of the time and know what Paul was referring to. Is Paul making general statements about any relations between people of the same sex that we can apply today to modern-day loving, monogamous relationships between Christians of the same sex, or is he referring to a specific practice at the time that may well have been wrong for other reasons? Did same-sex relationships exist in a form resembling their modern day form back then, or were they characterized by exploitation and abuse? If we don't examine the historical context, we run the risk of taking a passage that reads "Don't be like those child molesters -- you know, the ones who drive around in white vans and kidnap children" and coming away from it condemning the act of driving a white van. I haven't read the full essay yet, but skimming through it, I don't seen any treatment of the historical context of the passages in question.

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.

See, this is where I think it gets into letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 that it would be awesome if everyone could be celibate like him, but if you don't have the self-control for that, go ahead and get married rather than burning with passion. In the immediate context, of course, he's referring to opposite-sex marriage (again, the only kind that existed at the time -- Paul would not have been familiar with any contemporary examples of healthy, loving, monogamous same-sex relationships (though it should be noted that a modern-day egalitarian opposite-sex marriage, with no presumption or legal formality whatsoever that the man owns the woman, would have seemed rather odd to a first-century Roman citizen as well)), but what about people for whom an opposite-sex partner provides no satisfaction? Are all gay people unknowingly gifted with extraordinary self-control?

It's about the definition and has nothing to do with withholding rights. 

Are we talking about religious marriage or legal marriage? Because there are a lot of rights (or privileges, if you prefer) tied to legal marriage.

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.

His point is about divorce, though. Using it to prove a point about same-sex marriage isn't too far removed from arguing that it's immoral to marry women who aren't named Eve.

As far as imposing celibacy goes, your argument seems to be that "restrictions are unlawful because it's not Christian to impose them." 

Not all restrictions in general -- but this specific restriction that Paul specifically refused to impose, yes.

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.

But again, you don't even have to extend the "forbidding marriage" argument to same-sex marriage. Even assuming that marriage only means marrying someone of the opposite sex, and saying that gay people are free to marry people of the opposite sex and therefore it's okay, what about intersex people? What about people with ambiguous genitalia, or people whose chromosomes don't match their external body? Note that I'm not even talking about transgendered people here (people who don't identify as their assigned/physical gender) -- I'm just talking about the physical. People who, regardless of their state of mind, cannot objectively be classified simply as male or female. Who can they marry? Either we say "Well, we can't figure out what the opposite sex would be for you, so you can't possibly get married", or we try to agree on a standard for exactly how to measure whether someone is male or female -- which will inevitably be controversial and arbitrary and not based on a Biblical standard.

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.

Even so, not everything that is immoral ought to be illegal. Like I said, if the conservative Christian definition of marriage were fully instituted in United States law, my parents' marriage would be invalidated because my dad divorced his first wife for reasons other than Biblically valid ones, and he would not be able to marry anyone unless he went back to her or if she died (of course, incidentally, if we took a literal reading of the Biblically valid reasons for divorce and took them as the only possible ones, then abuse would not be grounds for divorce (which far too many churches do teach)).


To Koopaslaya: Again, the problem I see in your argument is that infertile opposite-sex couples are (under current law, and, I assume, in your example as well) allowed to get married (and adopt, if they so choose), and enjoy the same legal privileges as a child-bearing couple. If I am allowed to marry an infertile woman on the grounds that, while that specific woman can't produce natural children with me, a relationship with Woman as an ideal is fundamentally procreative as compared to a relationship with Man and therefore ought to be encouraged, then I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to marry a man, on the grounds that, although that specific human can't produce natural children with me, a relationship with Humanity as an ideal is fundamentally procreative as compared to a relationship with, say, Flora or Fauna, and ought to be encouraged.

You say the point is that that "that type of relationship" -- not specifically the instance of me and an infertile woman, but of Man and Woman -- leads to procreation, but that can only be said meaningfully in comparison to something else. Man and Woman is procreative compared to Man and Man, but Human and Human is procreative compared to Human and Animal, or Human and Building. So why draw the lines around Man and Woman? Why not more narrowly around Fertile Man, Infertile Man, Fertile Woman, and Infertile Woman? Why not more broadly around Human? Who defines these monads?

I agree that homosexuals truly exist. I also agree that there are people who, and please do not take this the wrong way, have pika or are predisposed to pedophilia. I say this only to demonstrate that having an orientation is not sufficient grounds for acting on said orientation.

This is a good point, and one that can often be overlooked. Focusing solely on the "Born This Way" argument can be problematic for LGBT people.

[Markio]

I also agree that there are people who, and please do not take this the wrong way, have pika or are predisposed to pedophilia. I say this only to demonstrate that having an orientation is not sufficient grounds for acting on said orientation.

The quote I posted that began with "Do homosexuals actually exist" was meant to demonstrate that homosexuality is not as frivolous as other types of attraction (such as incest, polygamy and pedophilia).  With pedophilia, it is very apparent why a person should not act on those attractions: it is harmful toward children, who are emotionally, physically, and mentally vulnerable, and cannot give legitimate consent to such behavior.  How are same-sex relationships more similar to pedophilia than to healthy, functional opposite-sex relationships?

[Turtlekid1]

I think making Jesus' statements in Matthew 19 relate to same-sex marriage, either pro or con, is a stretch. Jesus was asked a specific question about divorce in opposite-sex marriage (the only kind of marriage that existed at the time), and he answered it. Giving an answer at all was already risky, considering Jesus was now in the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, who just beheaded John the Baptist five chapters ago for nagging Herod about marriage (specifically, Herod marrying his own sister-in-law), so even if Jesus had wanted to throw in "Oh, by the way, while we're talking about men divorcing their wives, just wanted to mention that men can totally marry men too if they want," (as ridiculous as that would have sounded to a culture that still largely saw wives as property) I certainly wouldn't expect him to.

He is not specifically speaking to homosexuality.  That does not mean that He's not explicitly defining what a marriage is.  It's not at all a stretch to say that His stated definition of marriage applies to the entire institution, not only when divorce is considered.

As for the longer essay linked there, the main response I'd make is in relation to the treatment of the Romans and Corinthians/Timothy passages. In both cases, I don't think we can just look purely at the words and figure out an application -- we need to look at the culture of the time and know what Paul was referring to. Is Paul making general statements about any relations between people of the same sex that we can apply today to modern-day loving, monogamous relationships between Christians of the same sex, or is he referring to a specific practice at the time that may well have been wrong for other reasons? Did same-sex relationships exist in a form resembling their modern day form back then, or were they characterized by exploitation and abuse? If we don't examine the historical context, we run the risk of taking a passage that reads "Don't be like those child molesters -- you know, the ones who drive around in white vans and kidnap children" and coming away from it condemning the act of driving a white van. I haven't read the full essay yet, but skimming through it, I don't seen any treatment of the historical context of the passages in question.

Culture only makes a difference if it actually makes a difference (and there's a difference between reading distinctions in the Bible and adding your own).  There's no reason to assume that whether a relationship is loving/monogamous/committed or not has any bearing on its being lawful.  God is love; love is not God.  Reading into the principle God puts in place, restricting sexuality to one man and one woman is meant to match a certain order He put in place from the moment He created us.  Additionally, part of why I don't buy the idea of "Paul only referred to child molesters and the like" is because if that had been the focus, then it would have been the focus - meaning, it would not have been difficult to include more than "men who lie with other men" to clarify the specifics of what was wrong.  But no such distinction exists in the text.  If we are operating under the assumption that an omniscient God intended Scripture to serve as our moral standard for all time, then it's quite silly to think that He intended for much of it to be void beyond one specific culture.

This is almost the inverse of what some Jews did at the time - except rather than think Christ's law was a gift only to them and not to the Gentiles, it implies that His law is a curse only for the ancients, and not to us moderns.  Now, I don't think this is what you're deliberately trying to say here, but it is something I see stemming from your argument.

See, this is where I think it gets into letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 that it would be awesome if everyone could be celibate like him, but if you don't have the self-control for that, go ahead and get married rather than burning with passion. In the immediate context, of course, he's referring to opposite-sex marriage (again, the only kind that existed at the time -- Paul would not have been familiar with any contemporary examples of healthy, loving, monogamous same-sex relationships (though it should be noted that a modern-day egalitarian opposite-sex marriage, with no presumption or legal formality whatsoever that the man owns the woman, would have seemed rather odd to a first-century Roman citizen as well)), but what about people for whom an opposite-sex partner provides no satisfaction? Are all gay people unknowingly gifted with extraordinary self-control?

The letter and spirit of the law are not mutually exclusive.  God gives self-control to people as they need and ask for it.  This applies to anyone who has a choice between an immoral relationship and no relationship.

Are we talking about religious marriage or legal marriage? Because there are a lot of rights (or privileges, if you prefer) tied to legal marriage.

I guess the idea I'm getting at is that there should be no such thing as legal marriage.  The reason the government protects marriage is because they have an interest in protecting marriage (as pointed out by Koopaslaya, although I would also say that a moral government is going to have a moral reason to protect marriage as well).

His point is about divorce, though. Using it to prove a point about same-sex marriage isn't too far removed from arguing that it's immoral to marry women who aren't named Eve.

Sure it is.  He said "male and female," not "Adam and Eve."  When people make the argument using the latter terminology, it's still illustrating the principle of the former.

Not all restrictions in general -- but this specific restriction that Paul specifically refused to impose, yes.

Well, sure, but he only refused to impose the forbidding of marriage.  Which is already defined as male and female.

But again, you don't even have to extend the "forbidding marriage" argument to same-sex marriage. Even assuming that marriage only means marrying someone of the opposite sex, and saying that gay people are free to marry people of the opposite sex and therefore it's okay, what about intersex people? What about people with ambiguous genitalia, or people whose chromosomes don't match their external body? Note that I'm not even talking about transgendered people here (people who don't identify as their assigned/physical gender) -- I'm just talking about the physical. People who, regardless of their state of mind, cannot objectively be classified simply as male or female. Who can they marry? Either we say "Well, we can't figure out what the opposite sex would be for you, so you can't possibly get married", or we try to agree on a standard for exactly how to measure whether someone is male or female -- which will inevitably be controversial and arbitrary and not based on a Biblical standard.

Again, some are born eunuchs.  Meaning, some are biologically born that way.  Jesus acknowledged this - right before saying "let those who are able receive it."  It seems like you're over-complicating this, like it's somehow unthinkable for Jesus to say "this is not for you" to a certain group of people based on a physical factor they've had since birth.  I would refer to Romans 9, especially 9:20 - it isn't for us to protest how we're made.  What we have in common is to obey God.

Even so, not everything that is immoral ought to be illegal. Like I said, if the conservative Christian definition of marriage were fully instituted in United States law, my parents' marriage would be invalidated because my dad divorced his first wife for reasons other than Biblically valid ones, and he would not be able to marry anyone unless he went back to her or if she died (of course, incidentally, if we took a literal reading of the Biblically valid reasons for divorce and took them as the only possible ones, then abuse would not be grounds for divorce (which far too many churches do teach)).

Not everything that is immoral ought to be illegal, no.  Referring specifically to the issue stated in the topic, it's not about making something illegal; it's about preserving something and clarifying the stance that has long been in place.  More generally, it takes wisdom to determine.  To start, which sins are attached legal punishments under the law?  I'm not saying the punishments themselves must necessarily be the same, but it is useful for examining which sins should be regarded as criminal.

I'm not sure of the specifics of your family, and I won't pry.  That said, 1 Corinthians 7 also talks about what makes a marriage no longer binding.  Let it be so when an unbelieving husband separates himself from his wife; this does not have to mean physical separation exclusively.  If he's abusive, then he is probably both unbelieving and separated from her, regardless of whether he calls himself a Christian and/or lives under the same roof.

[Sapphira]

I know this is sort of shifting the topic, but, Koopaslaya, I'm curious to know your thoughts about two hetero-romantic asexuals getting married. Would such a marriage be considered invalid or incomplete, in your mind? Should said individuals remain single/unmarried forever, even if they romantically love and want to commit to each other, simply because they are not interested in having sexual intimacy? (Or are not "burdened" or "burning" with such a desire?)

To that end, what about homo-romantic asexuals who do not engage in sexual activity? (On another note, is that even considered immoral?) And if they want to marry?

(I could make an argument against an asexual marrying a non-asexual person, due to being "unequally yoked"--the sexual person not receiving the intimacy they need, and the asexual person feeling obligated to fulfill that need without mutual desire, each resulting in causing tension in the relationship. But I'm not speaking of such an instance.)

Note I'm asking these questions wanting to know your religious/personal perspective as well as a secular point of view (i.e. your opinion regarding government and benefits and whatnot). I realize your posts and arguments have been secular in nature, but I am curious about your religious view in this instance.

I'm especially interested to see others' views (particularly Christian ones) on the matter considering I identify as hetero-romantic asexual. (Heh, I just outed myself, so to speak.) I'm not sure how I feel about the matter, myself, but part of me feels kind of cheated, knowing I possibly should not be allowed to marry (or it being considered unwise), should I so desire marriage at some point.

[CrossEyed7]

He is not specifically speaking to homosexuality.  That does not mean that He's not explicitly defining what a marriage is.  It's not at all a stretch to say that His stated definition of marriage applies to the entire institution, not only when divorce is considered.

Again, I think we have to be careful about applying that when the gender of the people involved was clearly not the immediate point Jesus was making. If the big moral debate of our day were over whether it's immoral to live with your parents after you're married, or whether it's immoral to marry the child of a single parent, we'd be quoting ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife’ and debating those nuances.

Culture only makes a difference if it actually makes a difference (and there's a difference between reading distinctions in the Bible and adding your own).

But we can't know if it makes a difference if we aren't aware of the culture.

There's no reason to assume that whether a relationship is loving/monogamous/committed or not has any bearing on its being lawful. 

Not any bearing? The morality of a marriage comes down solely to the genders of the people involved, and has nothing to do with whether they are loving or not? Again, Paul, as I read him, would have some major problems with that.

Additionally, part of why I don't buy the idea of "Paul only referred to child molesters and the like" is because if that had been the focus, then it would have been the focus - meaning, it would not have been difficult to include more than "men who lie with other men" to clarify the specifics of what was wrong.  But no such distinction exists in the text. 

Actually, it might. One possible reading of the Timothy passage notes that arsenokoitai and malakoi are right next to "kidnappers" or "man-stealers." The rest of the list is organized into groups of two or three -- lawless and rebellious people; ungodly and sinners; unholy and profane; father-killers, mother-killers, and murderers; sexually immoral people (pornos; possibly referring to prostitution, as it literally comes from the word for "to sell") and arsenokoitai (literally, "man-bed"); kidnappers; liars and perjurers. What are kidnappers doing there all on their own? One explanation is that "kidnappers" is meant to be grouped with pornos and arsenokoitai -- thereby referring to male prostitutes, the men who frequent them, and those who kidnapped them to sell them into slavery.

If we are operating under the assumption that an omniscient God intended Scripture to serve as our moral standard for all time, then it's quite silly to think that He intended for much of it to be void beyond one specific culture.

We differ on our beliefs on the nature of inspiration. While I believe the books of the Bible were orchestrated by God, I do not believe they were dictated by Him word-for-word, and overall put a noticeably higher emphasis on the human aspect of the Bible than you seem to.

The Bible is divine, but it is also human, and just as with Jesus, we need to be mindful of both aspects.

This is almost the inverse of what some Jews did at the time - except rather than think Christ's law was a gift only to them and not to the Gentiles, it implies that His law is a curse only for the ancients, and not to us moderns.  Now, I don't think this is what you're deliberately trying to say here, but it is something I see stemming from your argument.

We also differ quite a bit here. Christ did not bring law; he fulfilled the law and brought freedom. The dispute in the early church over including or not including the Gentiles hinged on whether Gentile Christians should be made to follow the whole law.

For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery. Listen! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you at all! And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace! For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait expectantly for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight – the only thing that matters is faith working through love.

The letter and spirit of the law are not mutually exclusive.  God gives self-control to people as they need and ask for it.  This applies to anyone who has a choice between an immoral relationship and no relationship.

This, of course, is too subjective to get into a dispute over, as any anecdotes of people who earnestly asked for years and never received can be written off as "not real Christians" or "not asking hard enough" or whatever, but suffice it to say I disagree with this.

Again, some are born eunuchs.  Meaning, some are biologically born that way.  Jesus acknowledged this - right before saying "let those who are able receive it."  It seems like you're over-complicating this, like it's somehow unthinkable for Jesus to say "this is not for you" to a certain group of people based on a physical factor they've had since birth.  I would refer to Romans 9, especially 9:20 - it isn't for us to protest how we're made.  What we have in common is to obey God.

Admittedly, this is a good response, and one I kind of saw coming (and it may have been a bit disingenuous of me not to anticipate it in my arguments). I don't have a specific response other than to point back to 1 Corinthians 7. When Paul said "It is better to marry than to burn," he didn't say "except for eunuchs." So if we're going to harmonize his teaching with Jesus's, then we kind of have to assume that Paul was grouping eunuchs in with people who don't want to get married, which still leaves the question of what eunuchs who do want to get married are to do. Not to mention that in most cases, "eunuch" referred not to people who were in an ambiguous grey area of gender, so much as people who had male genitalia that was not fully functional (for example, Deuteronomy 23:1 refers to eunuchs "by crushing or severing" (the Hebrew is literally "bruised by crushing" and "cut off with respect to the penis")). It doesn't work, and parts might be missing, but you can at least tell what their body was going for. That doesn't cover more ambiguous cases, or cases where chromosomes don't match, or when a person has the external organs of one gender and the internal organs of another (because at the time Deuteronomy was written, they didn't know about those possibilities).

Not everything that is immoral ought to be illegal, no.  Referring specifically to the issue stated in the topic, it's not about making something illegal; it's about preserving something and clarifying the stance that has long been in place.  More generally, it takes wisdom to determine.  To start, which sins are attached legal punishments under the law?  I'm not saying the punishments themselves must necessarily be the same, but it is useful for examining which sins should be regarded as criminal.

Under the law, disrespecting your parents, gathering wood for a fire on the Sabbath, being a woman who had sex before her wedding night, and living in a city where people worship other gods are all punishable by death (Exodus 21:17, Numbers 15:32-36, Deuteronomy 22:20-12, and Deuteronomy 13:12-18, respectively). So there's that.

I'm pretty sure there are people in my city who don't worship the same God as I do. Should I move?

On the flipside, Leviticus 19:9 prohibits vineyard owners from harvesting their entire field -- they are required to leave the corners unharvested and leave behind anything they drop, and Deuteronomy 23:24 says that when you're in a vineyard you don't own, you can eat as much as you want as long as you don't take any with you in a container (In context, the prohibition in Leviticus 19:9 apparently carries the punishment of being cut off from the people). So are we abolishing property law? Leviticus 19:34 says "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born." Are we abolishing national borders and citizenship? (As for punishment for this one, I don't see a specific punishment mentioned, but it's right next to "You must keep my Sabbaths and fear my sanctuary," so in light of the severity of the Sabbath laws, I'm pretty sure this is serious)

That said, 1 Corinthians 7 also talks about what makes a marriage no longer binding.  Let it be so when an unbelieving husband separates himself from his wife; this does not have to mean physical separation exclusively.  If he's abusive, then he is probably both unbelieving and separated from her, regardless of whether he calls himself a Christian and/or lives under the same roof.

That's what I say, but a lot of fundamentalists say "No, it doesn't mention abuse specifically, so that's not a valid reason." In addition to being stupid and legalistic, their position also ignores that in the culture of the time, they didn't really have a word for abusing your wife because it wasn't taken for granted that that was something to be avoided. Much like Mark Driscoll claiming that, since the word "rape" is never used in the story of Esther (as though modern concepts of consent existed back then), obviously Esther was a money-hungry slut, not a teenaged-at-best girl who was forced into a harem by an absolute monarch (no, seriously, that's the argument he makes).


Asexuality adds an interesting aspect to the debate. We don't really have clear Biblical principles relating to marriage for asexuals -- both Jesus and Paul basically say that marriage is for people who want sex. However, this is again where we need to be aware of cultural context. If Paul said the exact things he said in today's society, then the point he would be making would be "You guys are too egalitarian. You need more patriarchy." And indeed, many see that as the main point to take away from Paul's words on marriage. But Paul didn't live in 21st century America, he lived in 1st century Rome. In that culture, extreme patriarchy was a given. To the original audience, Paul's words would have sounded aggressively egalitarian. In Colossians 3 (and verse 1 of chapter 4... whoever made the chapter divisions for this book was clearly drunk), he takes the common Roman "household codes" -- basically along the lines of "Children, obey your father; wives, obey your husbands; slaves, obey your masters" -- and twists them into something beautiful, pointing toward perfect Christian love, mutual submission, free of the slavery of hierarchies and castes, living somewhere in the "now-not-yet" tension of the new covenant.

Here there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and in all.

Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with a heart of mercy, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if someone happens to have a complaint against anyone else. Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also forgive others. And to all these virtues add love, which is the perfect bond. Let the peace of Christ be in control in your heart (for you were in fact called as one body to this peace), and be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and exhorting one another with all wisdom, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, all with grace in your hearts to God. And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing in the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, so they will not become disheartened. Slaves, obey your earthly masters in every respect, not only when they are watching – like those who are strictly people-pleasers – but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you are doing, work at it with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not for people, because you know that you will receive your inheritance from the Lord as the reward. Serve the Lord Christ. For the one who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there are no exceptions. Masters, treat your slaves with justice and fairness, because you know that you also have a master in heaven.

It's kinda like how Obama gets called a socialist in America, whereas in just about any other first-world country, he'd be in the conservative party.

Anyway, the point is, just because marriage is described in the Bible as being primarily an issue of property, politics, progeny, and patriarchy doesn't mean it's proscribed that way. Marriage today has become more about romance and companionship and mutual partnership, and that's certainly something that asexuals can have -- it is not good for man to be alone -- and something that we can live out in a Christlike way, in the same vein as married couples like Priscilla and Aquila Christianly living out the Roman convention of marriage.

For asexuals specifically, I do think, as a general principle, it would be wise for aces to marry other aces (you guys get the coolest abbreviated name), but there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to say that can't be an absolute ruling. Instead, I'll just say that people should know each other very well and know what they're getting into when they get married -- that obviously applies to asexuals and... whatever non-asexuals are called. I guess we'd just be called sexuals?

Is it just me, or does sexual not look like a word anymore? I think I need some sleep (in context, that sounds better than the alternative, "I need to get to bed.").

[Turtlekid1]

Again, I think we have to be careful about applying that when the gender of the people involved was clearly not the immediate point Jesus was making. If the big moral debate of our day were over whether it's immoral to live with your parents after you're married, or whether it's immoral to marry the child of a single parent, we'd be quoting ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife’ and debating those nuances.

I don't know about that.  I think the example you bring up would be quibbling over language because we're talking about a principle behind those words - that a man starts his own family upon marrying.  But just like that should be kept in mind when appropriate, a definition of the institution, even when it's not the main point (and I hesitate to say it wasn't the main point because these issues are all intertwined anyway), shouldn't be ignored when dealing with a matter that also pertains to that institution.

But we can't know if it makes a difference if we aren't aware of the culture.

Seems like it would be a whole lot better to air on the side of caution if you can't know.

Not any bearing? The morality of a marriage comes down solely to the genders of the people involved, and has nothing to do with whether they are loving or not? Again, Paul, as I read him, would have some major problems with that.

Heh, admittedly poorly worded.  The point I was attempting to make is just this: while a good marriage is going to have love, commitment, and monogamy, it does not follow that love, commitment, and monogamy justify a relationship or equate/qualify for a marriage regardless of gender.  In fact, I would question why monogamy is such a huge deal at this point.  How do polyamorous relationships fit into this all-inclusive view of sexuality?

Actually, it might. One possible reading of the Timothy passage notes that arsenokoitai and malakoi are right next to "kidnappers" or "man-stealers." The rest of the list is organized into groups of two or three -- lawless and rebellious people; ungodly and sinners; unholy and profane; father-killers, mother-killers, and murderers; sexually immoral people (pornos; possibly referring to prostitution, as it literally comes from the word for "to sell") and arsenokoitai (literally, "man-bed"); kidnappers; liars and perjurers. What are kidnappers doing there all on their own? One explanation is that "kidnappers" is meant to be grouped with pornos and arsenokoitai -- thereby referring to male prostitutes, the men who frequent them, and those who kidnapped them to sell them into slavery.

Just looking at this on the face of it, it seems unlikely.  Every other grouping contains sets of synonyms that more or less all mean the same thing.  Now, of course, it's entirely possible that male prostitution and homosexuality and kidnapping coincided a lot, but they are not by necessity all in the same category.  It should also be remembered that pornos does not always refer to prostitution specifically, but sometimes to sexual immorality as a whole.

We differ on our beliefs on the nature of inspiration. While I believe the books of the Bible were orchestrated by God, I do not believe they were dictated by Him word-for-word, and overall put a noticeably higher emphasis on the human aspect of the Bible than you seem to.

Out of curiosity, would you say, then, that you hold to inerrancy?

The Bible is divine, but it is also human, and just as with Jesus, we need to be mindful of both aspects.

I'm not sure what this means in practical terms.  I would say that, since you compare the Bible to Jesus in terms of being divine and human, it would be good to remember that Jesus' divinity was not diminished because of his being human.

We also differ quite a bit here. Christ did not bring law; he fulfilled the law and brought freedom. The dispute in the early church over including or not including the Gentiles hinged on whether Gentile Christians should be made to follow the whole law.

Okay, but despite saying "fulfilled" what you seem to be meaning by it is basically just "abolished."  Christ didn't need to bring the law because it had already been given.  But a big part of His ministry was getting people back on-track with what all of it really meant.  Kind of a waste of time if He would soon render it all moot in short order.  He also said that not even a small part of the law would pass away - and that's true; even the need for atonement is still there, it's just that we no longer have to use animals as the sacrifice because the perfect one has been made for all time and people.

Admittedly, this is a good response, and one I kind of saw coming (and it may have been a bit disingenuous of me not to anticipate it in my arguments). I don't have a specific response other than to point back to 1 Corinthians 7. When Paul said "It is better to marry than to burn," he didn't say "except for eunuchs." So if we're going to harmonize his teaching with Jesus's, then we kind of have to assume that Paul was grouping eunuchs in with people who don't want to get married, which still leaves the question of what eunuchs who do want to get married are to do. Not to mention that in most cases, "eunuch" referred not to people who were in an ambiguous grey area of gender, so much as people who had male genitalia that was not fully functional (for example, Deuteronomy 23:1 refers to eunuchs "by crushing or severing" (the Hebrew is literally "bruised by crushing" and "cut off with respect to the weenus")). It doesn't work, and parts might be missing, but you can at least tell what their body was going for. That doesn't cover more ambiguous cases, or cases where chromosomes don't match, or when a person has the external organs of one gender and the internal organs of another (because at the time Deuteronomy was written, they didn't know about those possibilities).

This is trickier than other areas.  However, I don't think the principle drastically changes because of the specifics - that is, if there are biological anomalies, that's how it is for that person.  This again relates to the issue of self-control that's been touched upon already.  And there really isn't a convenient solution that many would want to hear.  I don't mean to be dismissive here, but I'm seeing certain things in Scripture that I also cannot dismiss.

Under the law, disrespecting your parents, gathering wood for a fire on the Sabbath, being a woman who had sex before her wedding night, and living in a city where people worship other gods are all punishable by death (Exodus 21:17, Numbers 15:32-36, Deuteronomy 22:20-12, and Deuteronomy 13:12-18, respectively). So there's that.

I'm pretty sure there are people in my city who don't worship the same God as I do. Should I move?

On the flipside, Leviticus 19:9 prohibits vineyard owners from harvesting their entire field -- they are required to leave the corners unharvested and leave behind anything they drop, and Deuteronomy 23:24 says that when you're in a vineyard you don't own, you can eat as much as you want as long as you don't take any with you in a container (In context, the prohibition in Leviticus 19:9 apparently carries the punishment of being cut off from the people). So are we abolishing property law? Leviticus 19:34 says "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born." Are we abolishing national borders and citizenship? (As for punishment for this one, I don't see a specific punishment mentioned, but it's right next to "You must keep my Sabbaths and fear my sanctuary," so in light of the severity of the Sabbath laws, I'm pretty sure this is serious)

I do think we would do well as a culture to shift more toward many of these ideals and principles, especially recognizing the Sabbath again.  Not that we can do any of this just by forcing them in and of themselves.  There would have to be a huge change in the hearts of people first, and a build from the ground up.  And I don't know quite how I regard the relationship between sin and crime (it's always been more important to me to identify sin as the larger issue that it is and deal with crime on a more case-by-case basis).  I would just point out that just as immorality is not always grounds for criminalizing an action, neither should this principle be treated as an absolute condemnation of criminalizing actions on the basis of their immorality.  As an aside, the latter passage is not talking about living in cities with those who don't worship God, it's talking about people deliberately going into cities and leading people away from God.  False teachers, in other words.

[Luigison]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois</a>

[Weegee]

Those liberal glasses were a dead giveaway.

[Suffix]

I know this is sort of shifting the topic, but, Koopaslaya, I'm curious to know your thoughts about two hetero-romantic asexuals getting married.

From what I understand about Koopaslaya's position, the government's preoccupation with hetero-romantic marriage is that it can bring about the birth of a new citizen, and from the acceptance of that institution, "what else, of necessity, must we legalize?" The answer is marriage for all heterosexual couples, regardless of whether or not they "intend" or even have the physical capability of bearing children. I figure that it is easier at the sociological and bureaucratic level to just say that all couples who theoretically could bear children should come under the wing of the institution of marriage, than to pick and choose.

This is my first post in this thread-- a topic that I cared little about, and thus did not express an opinion. That changes now. Koopaslaya has obviously put some thought into his post, but I have serious qualms concerning the focus of his argument: that child-bearing is good for the country, and thus assistance (through the form of marriage) should be given to increase the quality of quantity of children.

From what I see, this overlooks the fact that children are only loosely associated with marriage. The government doesn't give us the means to have children. Plenty of children are born out of wedlock, and similarly, plenty of children are relinquished to the lottery that is adoption (metaphor stemming from the quality, and availability of foster care). These are all children that will have a place in society, yet many of which will not have caregivers who receive the blessings of the time-honored institution of marriage.

Foster care is a problem that I feel could be mopped up in part by gay marriage, assuming the proper tax benefits are handed out, and the screening process remains rigorous. Unless someone can prove to me that same-sex couples cannot provide the same level of care as heterosexual couples (with the exception of infants, which do reportedly benefit from breastfeeding), I will have a difficult time stepping away from this standpoint. I cannot deny that this may promote homosexual tendencies in children, but I would raise a guess that this will come from increased tolerance of its existence, as opposed to somehow changing the biological makeup of the child. In evolutionary terms, we have a lot going for heterosexuality as opposed to homosexuality, anyway.

From the child's point of view, the relationship of their gay, married caretakers may (or rather, should) be seen as a strong sense of friendship and altruism, qualities which make for a good marriage regardless of sex.


...note that I will refuse to engage in any religious debate over the nature of homosexuality. Old Testament rules concerning homosexuality may as well just be enforcing "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth," (Genesis 9:1) which amusingly reminds me of like Koopaslaya's approach to the matter. And although I have yet to witness otherwise, homosexuality need not be viewed as equivalent to promiscuity.