Thoughts on gay rights?

[jafs]

And I am.

As well as polyandry and group marriages.

Wow, I was surprised by this.  I watched quite a few episodes of Sister Wives, and I guess they seemed happy enough...but it was just unsettling to me.  I knew those women were jealous and really battling that continuously. 

Now I wonder if we will move in that direction.  I feel like all these options would make it harder to stay committed, but I had never even considered this before.  What would happen if "marriage" became such an open term?

If the people involved are consenting adults, I see no problem with them.

Generally, I feel that more ways for people to structure relationships will mean a greater possibility of people creating stable, functional ones.  Monogamous straight marriages aren't for everybody, and the success/failure rate of them indicates that they're difficult to maintain.  Why not let people experiment with other structures?

[Mountaineer]

And I am.

As well as polyandry and group marriages.

Wow, I was surprised by this.  I watched quite a few episodes of Sister Wives, and I guess they seemed happy enough...but it was just unsettling to me.  I knew those women were jealous and really battling that continuously. 

Now I wonder if we will move in that direction.  I feel like all these options would make it harder to stay committed, but I had never even considered this before.  What would happen if "marriage" became such an open term?

If the people involved are consenting adults, I see no problem with them.

Generally, I feel that more ways for people to structure relationships will mean a greater possibility of people creating stable, functional ones.  Monogamous straight marriages aren't for everybody, and the success/failure rate of them indicates that they're difficult to maintain.  Why not let people experiment with other structures?

A couple of pertinent quotes from the most popular book ever:

Psalm 81
11 “But my people did not listen to my voice;
    Israel would not submit to me.
12 So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts,
    to follow their own counsels.
13 Oh, that my people would listen to me,
    that Israel would walk in my ways!

Romans 3
11    no one understands;
    no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
    no one does good,
    not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
    they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”

... M

[jafs]

Since we're not a theocracy, Biblical verses have little relevance to this discussion.

[Mountaineer]

Since we're not a theocracy, Biblical verses have little relevance to this discussion.

You had best pray hope believe think you are correct! 

And, it never ceases to amaze me how the "tolerants" can quote from any old source on the planet, but when the most popular book ever is quoted, and on point to a subject being discussed, it is mocked.  Tolerance my ass!  (er. donkey). 

... M

[jafs]

I didn't "mock" it.

I just pointed out that this question is a question of how our constitutionally-based government treats the issue, not a theological conversation.

Because of our constitution, you have the right in this country to believe whatever you believe, as far as religion goes.

What's wrong with polyandry, polygamy or group marriages?  And, you don't seriously think that anything I might say would persuade Mountaineer or other folks that believe as he does of anything different about this issue, do you?

People have pointed out that the proscription against homosexuality is in Leviticus, which also contains a lot of other proscriptions which have been discarded/ignored by Christians, that the verses in question are in a certain context, in which giving away your virgin daughters to be raped is seen as more moral than homosexuality, that there is no Biblical proscription of lesbianism, that Biblical marriage was often polygamous, that Jesus said nothing at all about homosexuality, etc.  All of which has no effect whatsoever on people who believe as Mountaineer believes.

And, he (and others) has the right to believe as he likes about the issue, whether it's well supported/reasoned or not. 

It's just not a fruitful discussion, when theology enters into the picture.  And, our founding document is the Constitution, so that's what should apply here.

[Michellebell]

I see no reason that a straight family is more likely to be stable than a gay or lesbian one.  Infidelity and divorce statistics among straight people show that pretty clearly.

Stable families are a good thing, if the families are happy ones, of course.

Infidelity and divorce statistics are significantly higher amongst homosexuals though, from the sources I have encountered. 

Now is this grounds to deny adoption rights to gay men who may indeed be one of the small minority that is able to stay committed?  It's not fair to them, but I wouldn't feel comfortable giving a baby or seeing a baby I care about to be adopted to a couple like that.

Please share your sources.

Something like 70-80%of straight couples experience infidelity, and about 50% of straight marriages end in divorce, last time I looked.  Those are staggeringly high numbers.

And, until recently, gay/lesbians didn't have the legal right to marry in all states.  We should wait until some time has passed in which they have that right across the country to compare statistics with straight couples, I'd think.

Why not?  If I were working in the adoption field, sexual orientation wouldn't be a major factor for me in placing children.  I'd be concerned about things like financial stability, a healthy/happy relationship of the couple, thoughtfulness about how to raise children, etc.  Also, I'm not sure why you think that gay male couples are more stable than lesbian ones - in my experience, that's not necessarily true.

I already shared some here.  From what I read, I'd say the gay male couples are the least stable.  Lesbian couples are a little more stable, and heterosexual marriages are the most.  One of the sources I linked here talked about divorce rates of married gay and straight couples in Sweden.  I would search for them again but I don't have time at the moment.  But just read several of the links posted here for statistics and surveys of the grown children of gay parents.

[Michellebell]

<snip> We are as a culture moving toward celebrating homosexuality.  It's all over our media and seen as almost an elite club to me.  I don't believe homosexuals should have equal rights to adoption as much as committed married heterosexual couples.  Intolerant?  Yes, and maybe I'm wrong.  But as of right now that is my opinion. <end snip>

Michellebell,

Eugenics is no longer popular like it was in the early 1900s; it seemed to reach its peak in Nazi Germany but may be making a comeback via assisted reproductive technology.  Those who are concerned about over populating the planet (typically those more liberal in their thoughts and actions, e.g. the media, e.g. acedemia) need something to replace eugenics (an aim of which was to create smarter peope who will save us) without the stigma of the word eugenics.  It appears they have chosen to make abortion and homosexuality glamorous as the current strategy to save us (via limiting successful births) from ourselves.  You may wish to counsel your sister about other possibilities for her chosen lifestyle and help her see how she is likely being manipulated by pop culture.  All my opinion.

... M

Mountaineer, this concept was always something I kind of wondered but had never heard anyone actually say it.  Obviously you are opposed to these cultural changes.  What do you suppose is our best solution to our overpopulation and overconsumption problems?

(Sorry if it's a loaded question.  bTW I have three kids and want four, but I justify it by noticing that most kids today are born to the more poor population and so many are out of wedlock, I feel like I'm doing good by having children in a stable environment - I know it's not the most logical and probably just a way of feeling better about selfishly wanting a big family).

[dualstow]

I'm not religious at all, nor do I know the Bible.  And I am in favor of gay people having access to all the same things that I have access to.  So I support same-sex marriage. (I don't support polyandry though).

But I think it is not really true that the Bible has little relevance to the discussion.  It is a book that forms the cultural backbone for many in the U.S..  To reflexively dismiss it demonstrates little regard for those who attach importance to it, which, IMO, is not really an effective way of persuading.

The Bible may form the cultural backbone for many, but maybe it shouldn't. Maybe it's way too convenient a vehicle for some to hold onto their prejudices.

[jafs]

Infidelity and divorce statistics are significantly higher amongst homosexuals though, from the sources I have encountered. 

Now is this grounds to deny adoption rights to gay men who may indeed be one of the small minority that is able to stay committed?  It's not fair to them, but I wouldn't feel comfortable giving a baby or seeing a baby I care about to be adopted to a couple like that.

Please share your sources.

Something like 70-80%of straight couples experience infidelity, and about 50% of straight marriages end in divorce, last time I looked.  Those are staggeringly high numbers.

And, until recently, gay/lesbians didn't have the legal right to marry in all states.  We should wait until some time has passed in which they have that right across the country to compare statistics with straight couples, I'd think.

Why not?  If I were working in the adoption field, sexual orientation wouldn't be a major factor for me in placing children.  I'd be concerned about things like financial stability, a healthy/happy relationship of the couple, thoughtfulness about how to raise children, etc.  Also, I'm not sure why you think that gay male couples are more stable than lesbian ones - in my experience, that's not necessarily true.

I already shared some here.  From what I read, I'd say the gay male couples are the least stable.  Lesbian couples are a little more stable, and heterosexual marriages are the most.  One of the sources I linked here talked about divorce rates of married gay and straight couples in Sweden.  I would search for them again but I don't have time at the moment.  But just read several of the links posted here for statistics and surveys of the grown children of gay parents.

From Wikipedia, rates of divorce of gay/lesbian couples are the same or lower (sometimes substantially lower) than divorce rates of heterosexual couples in all countries mentioned except for Sweden/Norway.

And, surprisingly to me, lesbian couples are actually divorcing at a slightly higher rate than gay male couples a lot of the time.

[Xan]

Those gay male marriages are largely not monogamous.  It's a different kind of marriage.  There was a link posted here earlier about that.

[jafs]

Open relationships, in which partners don't expect monogamy, are perhaps more common in gay male circles.

And, that fact makes getting useful infidelity statistics difficult, because studies don't account for it.  They just measure how much sex outside of relationships is going on, but it's clearly not "cheating" if the relationship is understood to be non-monogamous.

[Xan]

Open relationships, in which partners don't expect monogamy, are perhaps more common in gay male circles.

And, that fact makes getting useful infidelity statistics difficult, because studies don't account for it.  They just measure how much sex outside of relationships is going on, but it's clearly not "cheating" if the relationship is understood to be non-monogamous.

It certainly makes such relationships much less worthy of the title of "marriage".

[jafs]

Not to my mind.

It's actually a lot better from where I stand than being in a supposedly monogamous relationship and cheating on your partner, which is quite common.  If two people want to create a commitment to each other that includes the possibility of sex with other people, that's their business.

[Xan]

Maybe it's their business, but that doesn't make it a marriage.

Redefining “Fidelity”

McWhirter and Mattison believe that gays must redefine “fidelity” to mean not sexual faithfulness, but simply “emotional dependability.”

How can a relationship without sexual fidelity remain emotionally faithful?  Fidelity as such is only an abstraction, divorced from the body.  The agreement to have outside affairs precludes any possibility of genuine trust and intimacy.

[Mountaineer]

<snip> We are as a culture moving toward celebrating homosexuality.  It's all over our media and seen as almost an elite club to me.  I don't believe homosexuals should have equal rights to adoption as much as committed married heterosexual couples.  Intolerant?  Yes, and maybe I'm wrong.  But as of right now that is my opinion. <end snip>

Michellebell,

Eugenics is no longer popular like it was in the early 1900s; it seemed to reach its peak in Nazi Germany but may be making a comeback via assisted reproductive technology.  Those who are concerned about over populating the planet (typically those more liberal in their thoughts and actions, e.g. the media, e.g. acedemia) need something to replace eugenics (an aim of which was to create smarter peope who will save us) without the stigma of the word eugenics.  It appears they have chosen to make abortion and homosexuality glamorous as the current strategy to save us (via limiting successful births) from ourselves.  You may wish to counsel your sister about other possibilities for her chosen lifestyle and help her see how she is likely being manipulated by pop culture.  All my opinion.

... M

Mountaineer, this concept was always something I kind of wondered but had never heard anyone actually say it.  Obviously you are opposed to these cultural changes.  What do you suppose is our best solution to our overpopulation and overconsumption problems?

(Sorry if it's a loaded question.  bTW I have three kids and want four, but I justify it by noticing that most kids today are born to the more poor population and so many are out of wedlock, I feel like I'm doing good by having children in a stable environment - I know it's not the most logical and probably just a way of feeling better about selfishly wanting a big family).

I'm going to give you a faith based answer.  If you have only faith in the things of this world - that which you can see, smell, taste, hear, touch, and prove - I agree overpopulation and overconsumption is scary, right up there with being annihilated by a nuclear bomb, a financial crisis, an uncontrollable virus, or plague (pick your fear that you wish to spend a lot of time wringing hands over).  If, on the other hand, your faith is based on the Word of the triune God, whatever happens in this world is of only a fleeting consequence even if terrible suffering is one of those happenings.  Scripture does not promise a temporal life of happiness, it is quite the opposite.  Believing in the promises of Jesus brings one hope and joy, no matter how bad the present situation may be or may become.  In my opinion, there is a huge gulf between joy and happiness.  A child brings joy, even though it may be the source of much unhappiness.  Do I seek unhappiness?  Of course not.  Do I expect unhappiness?  You bet.  Do I think we should use our God given brains to better mankind, that is, help my neighbor?  Of course.  Do I think man is capable of solving all problems before him?  Absolutely not.  My God given reason looks at the mess the world is in.  Every time we make a step forward, there is always another mountain in front of us that was previously unseen - for example, we invented antibiotics.  A few decades later, antibiotic resistance is becoming widespread.  We discovered how to do heart transplants.  People still die from them.  We invented cars, trains, planes and a huge transportation system.  People do not follow the civil laws and die.  We have not figured out how to stop traffic deaths and plane crashes.  I think you can see hundreds or thousands of examples of this.  The ultimate example is "we die" a physical death.  So, having said all this, feel free to have as many children as you can support and ignore the naysayers who have a knack for telling others how "they" should live.  If you have faith in Jesus, it will be more people to live eternally with God.  Death has been defeated.  Thanks be to God!

... M

[Pointedstick]

What is "marriage," after all? What does it mean? Who gets to define it? Can its meaning evolve over time? If so, what constitutes such an evolution?

yes it can evolve over time if the majority of what it means stays the same and the difference is only that same sex couples are added to the definition...
but its meaning shouldn't be changed by political activism forcing government decree, that is not the same as adopting the definition and slowly being accepted as a part of it., nor should the meaning be radically changed, two men who cruse hwy rest stops together for anonymous sexual gratification from strangers do not have a marriage they have a "depravity carpool" don't call it a marriage or demand that the rest of us do..

[Mountaineer]

I didn't "mock" it.

I just pointed out that this question is a question of how our constitutionally-based government treats the issue, not a theological conversation.

Because of our constitution, you have the right in this country to believe whatever you believe, as far as religion goes.

What's wrong with polyandry, polygamy or group marriages?  And, you don't seriously think that anything I might say would persuade Mountaineer or other folks that believe as he does of anything different about this issue, do you?

People have pointed out that the proscription against homosexuality is in Leviticus, which also contains a lot of other proscriptions which have been discarded/ignored by Christians, that the verses in question are in a certain context, in which giving away your virgin daughters to be raped is seen as more moral than homosexuality, that there is no Biblical proscription of lesbianism, that Biblical marriage was often polygamous, that Jesus said nothing at all about homosexuality, etc.  All of which has no effect whatsoever on people who believe as Mountaineer believes.

And, he (and others) has the right to believe as he likes about the issue, whether it's well supported/reasoned or not. 

It's just not a fruitful discussion, when theology enters into the picture.  And, our founding document is the Constitution, so that's what should apply here.

You are certainly free to limit your view to the Constitution, based on manmade civil law which has only been around for less than a thousand years (hooray for the Magna Carta).  It is a great document for our way of life in many regards.  Personally, I defer to the righteousness of Jesus as a better way to live live life (even if you use the Jefferson Bible instead of the real one for a guide).  That method has been around for several thousands of years (and before you ask, the preincarnate Jesus was present in the OT) and has long proven successful as beneficial for society.  This way of life does not center on theology, it is far more centered on common sense and natural law, flawed as it may be, and the practical aspects of living in harmony with ones neighbors.  I care about the future for my progeny.  That is why I am not for polygamy, polyandry, same sex coupling, and the like - it just isn't beneficial for longevity of a society - at least so far in recorded history.  I would say the same thing to a Hindu, Confucianist, Muslim or Zoroastrian - Christian theology is not necessary to know all this abnormal sexual behavior is wrong.

... M

[jafs]

I have a different view than you do of the Bible, and of Jesus.

And, yes, if we're discussing gay rights in our society, and what rights they should have, then the important document is the Constitution, since that's what our system is based on.

Given that many sexual practices have existed in many different societies, I don't see how one can conclude it's "abnormal", at least statistically speaking.

You have the right to be against all of the things you mention, and I wouldn't take that away from you.

[jafs]

The same arguments were made against interracial marriage, and until around 1967, some states still outlawed interracial marriages.

Fortunately, the SC finally stepped in and found that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional.

It's the same with gay marriage, it just took us until 2015 to do it.  Social change is slow, and often follows, rather than leads the way, and when basic rights are involved, it's not right to demand that people wait until everybody accepts them before granting those.

Our system isn't based on majority opinion of the overall population when it comes to those kinds of rights.  But, even if it were, the majority now supports the right of gay and lesbian folks to marry.

i haven't posted my full position in this thread, and who knows where it is buried in the earlier threads on the topic.. so in brief

1- the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.... civil unions (contracts ) for all (including men with women), and the same and equal rights to have a contract for all..

2- marriage is the union of a man and woman in a religious ceremony before god.. if a gay couple can find a religion that thinks they can be joined before god ... it is none of my or anybody else's business.. they can be married before god in the eyes of the religion and any who care to recognize it..

3-marrage is also a cultural institution, the meaning of what is or isn't a marriage is not up to government (see #1) it is defined by the people who use the word and share the common understanding of what it entails, if enough gays behave according to the common definition for a long enough time (probably not that long) then the term will come to be commonly understood to include gay couples who share the common understanding of marriage values..

[Xan]

The same arguments were made against interracial marriage, and until around 1967, some states still outlawed interracial marriages.

I don't think that's true.  The bans on interracial marriages were there precisely because those WOULD BE valid marriages.  The "ban" on same-sex marriage was no such thing: those "marriages" simply aren't marriages.

[dualstow]

~

The Bible may form the cultural backbone for many, but maybe it shouldn't. Maybe it's way too convenient a vehicle for some to hold onto their prejudices.

Or perhaps people will decide that the Bible has useful parts and not-so-useful parts.  But, ideally, people will come to this conclusion on their own.

It just seems like "the useful parts" = what someone already believes.

[jafs]

The same arguments were made against interracial marriage, and until around 1967, some states still outlawed interracial marriages.

I don't think that's true.  The bans on interracial marriages were there precisely because those WOULD BE valid marriages.  The "ban" on same-sex marriage was no such thing: those "marriages" simply aren't marriages.

If same-sex marriages wouldn't be real marriages, then there'd be no need to ban them.

The arguments were the same, that interracial marriage was wrong, unnatural, against God's will, disgusting, etc.

[jafs]

The same arguments were made against interracial marriage, and until around 1967, some states still outlawed interracial marriages.

Fortunately, the SC finally stepped in and found that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional.

It's the same with gay marriage, it just took us until 2015 to do it.  Social change is slow, and often follows, rather than leads the way, and when basic rights are involved, it's not right to demand that people wait until everybody accepts them before granting those.

Our system isn't based on majority opinion of the overall population when it comes to those kinds of rights.  But, even if it were, the majority now supports the right of gay and lesbian folks to marry.

  i haven't posted my full position in this thread, and who knows where it is buried in the earlier threads on the topic.. so in brief

1- the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.... civil unions (contracts ) for all (including men with women), and the same and equal rights to have a contract for all..

2- marriage is the union of a man and woman in a religious ceremony before god.. if a gay couple can find a religion that thinks they can be joined before god ... it is none of my or anybody else's business.. they can be married before god in the eyes of the religion and any who care to recognize it..

3-marrage is also a cultural institution, the meaning of what is or isn't a marriage is not up to government (see #1) it is defined by the people who use the word and share the common understanding of what it entails, if enough gays behave according to the common definition for a long enough time (probably not that long) then the term will come to be commonly understood to include gay couples who share the common understanding of marriage values..

#1 and #2 are fine with me, but that's not what we currently have.

If you want to push for that version of things, go ahead.

[Mountaineer]

I have a different view than you do of the Bible, and of Jesus.

And, yes, if we're discussing gay rights in our society, and what rights they should have, then the important document is the Constitution, since that's what our system is based on.

Given that many sexual practices have existed in many different societies, I don't see how one can conclude it's "abnormal", at least statistically speaking.

You have the right to be against all of the things you mention, and I wouldn't take that away from you.

Here is something to ponder, just for fun.

Case 1 - The Christian religion was founded after Christ came, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.  Slowly, over several hundred years, corruption crept in to His message of:  “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”  First, all the heresies that were in conflct with orthodox Christianity finally were dismissed after the various early Ecumenical Councils got back to basics.  Big split in 1054 AD between eastern and western Christianity.  Further big split in the mid-1500s with the Reformation, again getting back to basics.  It appears that every 500 years or so enough corruption creeps in that some critical mass takes notice and "reforms" the corruption and gets back to the basics of the central essential message of Christianity is about Christ and Him crucified.

Case 2 - Mankind has some inate need to have rulers.  First a plethora of societies with the King or Chief model, usually a theocracy of some sort.  Whatever the King said was absolute law.  It seems this was the primary model most everywhere we know about - Egypt, Europe, Asia, North and South America.  Then came the Emperor model, even to the point of some Emperors declared themselves to be god.  Fine and dandy for a while.  Then, in the case of the Roman Empire, the barbarian hordes come to take over.  Skip forward to 1215 AD and the Magna Carta.  The people beging to have a few "rights".  Skip forward again to 1787 AD when the Constitution was signed and then 1791 AD when the Bill of Rights was implemented.  This was when men married women and families were honored.  Think about the situations in other countries with Kings, Dear Leaders, Presidents, and dictators.  Skip forward to today.  How's that working out for us?  What do you see on the news every morning?  Peace?  Harmony?  Everyone getting along?  Constitution being followed? 

To ponder:  See any parallels between corruption in the church and corruption in our methods of government?  Do  you think any "reformations" or "revolutions" are on the horizon as our church and civil government spiral ever downward from the ideals on which they were founded?

OK, back to wedding cakes, the Kardashians, reality TV, gay preachers, incest, president wanna-be liars, centralization of government force, glamorization of perverts, and sheep-human hookups on the horizon.  Pondering over. 

... Mountaineer

[jafs]

I don't understand your comments.

Granting equal rights to homosexuals is in line with our founding principles as I understand them, not a falling away from those principles.

Corruption and the possibility of corruption exist everywhere we find human beings, I'd say, both in secular and religious settings.