theworldofdreams.com

For the past few weeks, I've been getting a number of "interesting" emails from the people of traditionalvalues.org website (mind you, I don't recall having subscribed to their mailing list, and I've tried to get my email removed twice to no avail).
It is obvious where the writer of this essay stands on the issue of same-sex marriage. I have heard quite a few arguments for and against this issue, but this particular one is rather new to me.
I'm curious as to what you think. Regardless of your position on the issue, what weakeness or strengths do you see in this argument? How would you refute and/or endorse it?

Grandma, Will You Marry Me?

I love my grandmother very much, and I think it's time to ask for her hand in marriage. Since I live in San Francisco, I think there's a pretty good chance we can get the license approved. If banning same-sex marriage violates California's equal protection clause in the constitution, then certainly banning incest marriage also violates that equal protection clause.

I know, most of you out there are saying "dude, that's pretty freakin' gross!" Whatever. That's really not your concern. How many people think same-sex marriage is gross? That shouldn't be the measure of whether or not we allow people to marry. Just let me do what I want to do, since I'm not hurting anyone else. How am I really affecting any of you if I want to marry my grandmother, huh? Don't discriminate against me and my grandmother just because you wouldn't do it yourself.

It's time for me to stand up for my civil rights. The government has no right to disqualify me from marrying my grandmother if that's what I want to do. I'm guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm just pursuing happiness, and it's not impacting anyone else. Who is this hurting? People might think we'll have a rough time making it due to the lack of acceptance out there, but I'm determined to make it anyway. That's my decision to make. Not yours or the government's.

And don't tell me I can get most of the same benefits of married people without actually redefining marriage and becoming husband and wife with my grandmother. Marrying my grandmother will give me several benefits that are currently only available to married heterosexual couples, newly married same-sex couples, and same-sex domestic partners (a new law in California gives certain rights to same-sex domestic partners that are not available to opposite-sex domestic partners). Once we're married, I can mooch off her healthcare benefits, reduce my insurance rates, and transfer her estate to me without any taxes being deducted (since it will now be community property).

Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of San Francisco, was so proud to thumb his nose at the law and redefine marriage for same-sex couples. I'm quite sure he'll be just as proud to bless my marriage to my grandmother and break down the walls on yet another unfair discriminatory practice in this country. Bill Lockyer, California's Attorney General, seems content to let Newsom define marriage law however he pleases, so that's another barrier out of the way. Since Lockyer doesn't enforce state law, I'm not quite sure what his job is. But hey, why asks questions? I know Bill won't stand in my way. The judges in California also seem to think that laws and public referendums don't matter, so I can't see how anyone can stop me. Heck, if I convince everyone that redefining marriage in this way might get more votes, I could probably get John Kerry to be my best man right there at City Hall. He stands up for the little guy, you know?

One small problem occurs to me though. I'd really like to have a family some day, and I'm certainly not planning to do that with my grandmother. Hmmmm…. What can I do about that? Wait! I know. I can just marry someone else who wants to have children as well. I know what you're thinking. Polygamy is illegal, stupid. Not in California! Gavin Newsom is certainly not going to discriminate against polygamists. Equal protection, baby! As long as we're all consenting adults, we should be allowed to have the same rights and privileges as those elitist monogamist heterosexual married folk.

If you think about it, why do we even have laws that prevent polygamy and incest marriages? I mean polygamy is actively practiced in many countries throughout the world and has a history dating back centuries. No such history exists for same-sex marriages. I know people have concerns about birth defects with incest marriages, but come on. I'm not having any kids with my 87-year-old grandmother. What reason would society have for preventing us from getting married?

Come to think of it, California's constitution and the ballot measure passed a couple of years ago don't specifically disallow my marriage with my grandmother anyway. It specifically defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. Well, I'm a man, and my grandmother is a woman. I'm half way home with my plan! Now I just need to get the whole polygamy issue resolved. I guess I can address that when I decide to marry my second wife and start a family.

In the meantime, I think I'll just encourage current polygamists to storm City Hall in San Francisco and demand marriage licenses to put an end to their discrimination. But if you're a conservative Catholic woman living in the San Francisco area who might want to marry me and my grandmother, I'd certainly love to hear from you. The three of us could live a wonderful life together. And hey, if you've got a hot friend, maybe she'd like to marry us too. Don't worry about the legal logistics. The term "marriage" is meaningless now.

In the purest terms, marriage is about love. It should not have anything to do with tax breaks, etc, etc, etc.

The recent outbreak of hostility and awareness of same sex marriages is a seasonal thing. We've seen it so many times in the past.

Some people claim religious objections to same sex marriage but they never seem to be able to precisely define where in their specific holy book it is written that same sex marriage is evil or wrong.

The author of your article is attempting a weary, very common approach. He could have done a better job at expressing a sense of ridiculousness though. Rather meagre fare.

I don't quite understand why some people feel so threatened at the concept of homosexuality and same sex marriage. I wonder if those who make the most noise have repressed homosexual proclivities and are frightened.

Perhaps, it is the story that is as old as humankind. As a race, we are afraid and feel threatened by those that seem "different" to us, however "us" is defined. Humans are very insecure animals.

I don't quite understand homosexuality, doesn't make sense to me. But I don't feel threatened by it. If one person is drawn to another of the same sex and they are happy, that is great. The world needs more happiness, more love, more tolerance.

This is clearly homophobic propaganda from the extreme right, perhaps written by republican senator Rick Santorum of my home state Pennsylvania. He said something close to that when the sodomy laws fell. Clearly all we are asking is that no one be denied their 14th Amendment right, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “

To that degree, I wouldn't offer any counter to that statement as it would just make us look bad, like we wanted you to be able to marry your grandmother. Cleary in this case we should stay on topic, Which is equal protection to all.

Bayn wrote:... claim religious objections to same sex marriage but they never seem to be able to precisely define where in their specific holy book it is written that same sex marriage is evil or wrong.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I would think that this speaks for itself.

Bayn, please do not take this as an attack on you. It to try to clear a misconception about what God "apparently" did not "mention".

I think that the point is not "where in their specific holy book it is written" but where is it NOT written. Throughout the entire bible, God talks of man marrying woman ... not man marrying man, man marrying beast, woman marrying woman, or woman marrying beast.

Bayn, you said with your own words that those with religious objections cannot define where it is in the bible. That in itself is the answer. It does not discuss it because He meant for man to marry woman. He has already expressed His laws about about homosexuality. Between that and the fact that He never references man marrying man should make people realize that is it wrong.

Macitor, that passage from the Bible assumes that everyone is a Christian and in and of itself, answers the challenge posed by Bayn. While I agree that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, the Constitution expressly provides for freedom of religious practices.

Many of us are NOT Christian. Many of us believe that the Bible was written by the Jews as a series of bedtime stories or plays, and is NOT in fact the word of God.

I am not Christian, but I have strong beliefs in my faith, which is Wiccan. My faith preaches tolerance of other's beliefs, which is part of the reason I say this now: I could care less if a man wants to marry a man. Marriage is about love, and in this wonderful world of diversity, that can mean (to me): man and woman, man and man or woman and woman.

To me, the government should keep its collective noses out of it.

I agree with you Atei although i am closer to aetheism sp? than anything, i have my own beliefs with no set parameters.

You also have to remember that the Bible was Written a couple thousand years ago in a nearly lost language, take into effect that french doesnt translate to english all the time now take Aramaic i believe and translate to english translated at a time when the church controlled what the kings and queens did not which stood for around half of all things going on. I think it stands to reason there could be mistakes or i could be wrong and translation could be precise but either way the laws are rewritten every day to accomadte the way things are why is the good book have to be set in stone so to speak.

Ok ill stop now

Many biblical scholars believe the term “homosexual offendersâ€

Another passage, for those who believe in Christianity and the Bible.

Romans 1:27  "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (KJV)

Would someone be kind enough to explain the "natural use of woman"

Also need I point out that The United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, campaigned starting in 1977 to have the federal government add sexual orientation to federal non-discrimination laws, which was accomplished in 1996. The Canadian church affirms that homosexuals are welcome in the church and the ministry.


Even if it is in the bible, what does that have to do with our laws?

Bayn wrote:In the purest terms, marriage is about love. It should not have anything to do with tax breaks, etc, etc, etc.

By that argument Bayn, homosexuals have no strong basis for demanding marriage rights seeing that marriage is firstly a ceremonial/religious ritual, then a legal status. Homosexuality has been around almost as long as humankind has, but homesexual marriage is quite a new phenomenom. In fact, even in ancient societies where homosexuality was not seen as a moral/social problem, people did not seek official, legally recognized status for their personal sexual practices. It was accepted (or at least tolerated) but the marriage ritual was reserved for couples wanting to start a family (i.e. have children, continue the family line, etc).
By your argument, there's nothing preventing homosexuals from loving each other without a legal document that says they're married. If it was just about love this issue wouldn't be a non-issue. Obviously, there are other--political maybe even philosophical--factors (not to mentioned the religious) to take into account here.

The recent outbreak of hostility and awareness of same sex marriages is a seasonal thing. We've seen it so many times in the past.

Again, we haven't seen it before because homsexuals haven't been asking for marriages until recently (and by that I mean in the past century or so). Hostility towards homosexuals is something else. People have been abused, persecuted, and killed for having unpopular (i.e. those that do not conform to the norm) beliefs, ideas, and practices since the beginning of history. It is unclear how much homophobia existed (in the west) before the advent of the medieval Christian church but we can safely trace the roots of homosexual persecution back to those days.

Some people claim religious objections to same sex marriage but they never seem to be able to precisely define where in their specific holy book it is written that same sex marriage is evil or wrong.

Actually, unlike other hotly debated issues today (abortion, gun 'rights,' etc), the Christian holy book is very clear on where Christains ought to stand in same sex sexual behavior. Both the old testament and the new testament have something to say about homosexuality, and not in a good light either. Of course, no where in the Bible does it say Christians should embark on a crusade/persecution against sinners (homosexuals or otherwise). Within the Church, however, there are specific guidelines as to what should be done with the sexually immoral brethern (the "immoral brother" of 1 Corinthians is a great case in point--he was not a homosexual, mind you). Paul's take on sexually immorality (in so many words) is that the Church should not tolerate it. The Corinthians prouded themselves on being "tolerant," "open-minded," liberal individuals, who believed "love" made all things permissible (sounds familiar? ). Paul dispels these doctrinal shennanigans in ch. 6 of 1 Corinthians and is very explicit in demanding the immoral brother be disfellowed from the congregation. Indeed, we must have love towards our brothers/sisters whether they'd be in sin or not, but we should have no love for sin (loosely paraphrasing). Later in 2 Corinthians Paul asks for the brother (now reformed) to be allowed to be reinstated.

ANYHOW, getting back to the subject at hand. The argument presented here makes no reference to the Bible or religious reasons for rejecting same-sex marriages. If I understood it correctly, the underlying argument is a moral one, one that (implicitly) asks, 'where does one draw the line?'

The author of your article is attempting a weary, very common approach. He could have done a better job at expressing a sense of ridiculousness though. Rather meagre fare.

Umm . . . that's all nice and great, I mean that you have an opinion on the matter, Bayn, but saying I agree and you disagree isn't really saying anything, now is it? We need to get at the core, underlying premises of this argument. What is wrong with it? Are the premises valid? If they're not, why is that the case? The way to attack and argument is with a counterargument, proving the argument is fallacious, invalid, or weak. Saying, 'your argument is ridiculous' isn't saying much at all.

I don't quite understand why some people feel so threatened at the concept of homosexuality and same sex marriage. I wonder if those who make the most noise have repressed homosexual proclivities and are frightened.

Ok NOW we're getting somewhere Why do people feel so threatened by homosexuality. More to the point, why would homosexual marriage be a problem for our society? IF I understood the argument correctly, I'd say that this person is arguing that if we allow homosexual marriages, it's bound to lead to a number of other 'extreme' (in his view) examples of how far can Americans extend their freedoms. The author of this essay seems to be saying 'where do we draw the line?' If we allow homosexuals to marry, what basis do we have for denying incestuous relationships or polygamy? Heck, I think I've heard of people wanting to marry their pets! You can see how diverging from the norm isn't necessarily always a good thing.

A stronger case (against homosexual marriage) is the issue of whether homosexual marriages (or homosexuality in general) is an attack on the moral fabric of American society.

Morality is a big issue here. People who have a relativistic view of morality make a poor case (and believe me I've heard just about all of the arguments for it). Post-modernism and its virulent form of relativism on all aspects of human thought have done us a great diservice as far as putting morality in the realm of personal opinion. Of course, everyone has to decide whether they admit or reject the socially accepted form or morality. Society isn't always right on these issues. But that shouldn't lead us to believe that EVERYONE is right and there's no truth, and there is no right and wrong, and all is good and fine so long as we have "love" (a counterfeit, mass-marketed-for-the-mentally-lazy form of love that is). Believe me when I tell you this, it does not help you, it does not help society, it does not help friggin' humankind to be 100% permissible towards all trains of tought and behaviour. Somewhere, somehow we have to set limits and order otherwise our civilization will collapse.

Whew, but I digress. Is homesxuality a moral problem for our societ? THAT is the big question and that is what we should be trying to decide in this discussion?
Ok, that's all for now. I'll came back later with more food for thought

If one person is drawn to another of the same sex and they are happy, that is great. The world needs more happiness, more love, more tolerance

Ahh if only things were as simple as that, Bayn. I think God in his infinite wisdom (and excuse me for alluding to him but he's already part of the discussion) decided that homosexuality would be a problem for us in the long run. Of course, biologically and philosophically homosexuality doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, but my main reason for not accepting homosexual behavior (notice I didn't say people) is grounded on the word of God.
Guilty as charged

Macitor wrote:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I would think that this speaks for itself.

Homosexual offenders. Hmm. How does one interpret "offender"?

King James version:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Hmm, no mention of homosexuals in that version at all really.

New American version:
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals

Ahh, according to this version, they have to be "practicing".

These are all modern versions too. Every version phrases things differently and everyone can interpret the words to mean something different.

The original old testament was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, Latin and Syriac. The first written English version of the Bible was taken from the Latin Vulgate version rather than the original Hebrew and Greek. The Latin Vulgate version was a mixture of Hebrew and Syriac.

Misinterpretations also abound in every version.

For example,
it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God

This putative saying of Jesus is almost certainly the
result of misinterpretation of Jesus' own language, Aramaic/Hebrew. The Aramaic word GMLA (Heb. GML) can mean (a) Camel (b) Rope. Aramaic speakers even today put this phrase in context and read "rope," not "camel."

How many of you grew up trying to imagine how tough it was for a camel to get through the eye of a needle? hehe.

Throughout the entire bible, God talks of man marrying woman ... not man marrying man, man marrying beast, woman marrying woman, or woman marrying beast.

God doesn't talk about it at all, prophets and various authors do.

Bayn, you said with your own words that those with religious objections cannot define where it is in the bible. That in itself is the answer.
It does not discuss it because He meant for man to marry woman.

Did God tell you this himself or is this just one of those things that are "understood" by all? This isn't an attack, Macitor, but "god" didn't write the bible, humans did.

He has already expressed His laws about about homosexuality. Between that and the fact that He never references man marrying man should make people realize that is it wrong.

I note that you say "man marrying man" and indeed, the Bible makes no mention about females marrying other females. Hmm, curious, wot?

The bible, as well as all other sacred texts, were written by humans. Thus, it is basically a collection of stories, history, folklore and whatnot.

The bible, as all other holy books, was written by people, translated, changed, modified, and edited throughout thousands of years. The original tales of the old testament come from oral stories passed from generation to generation.

Trying to use the bible as a tool to prove yourself in any debate is doomed to failure because there are plenty who can use the same source to prove you wrong. It is all subject to personal interpretation.

BUT, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the Bible actually did state that homosexuality was evil and wrong. That would only be pertinent to christians and other religious cults that utilize the bible as their holy book.

Interestingly, there are a lot of christians that are homosexual and use the bible to prove why it is ok. They focus on the words of Jesus rather than the old testament denunciations.

Ahhh, too confusing for this heathen. I'll just stick with tolerance, peace, love and compassion.

Atei wrote: Marriage is about love, and in this wonderful world of diversity, that can mean (to me): man and woman, man and man or woman and woman.

what about gophers?

yeah, yeah, I know. Some of you are gonna shake your heads when you read that. Hey, I can dig that. I just try to avoid tunnel vision in these matters and like to toss out those little zingers to remind myself to keep grounded.

Trakas wrote:i have my own beliefs with no set parameters.

That's what you think

You also have to remember that the Bible was Written a couple thousand years ago in a nearly lost language, take into effect that french doesnt translate to english all the time now take Aramaic i believe

Eh...actually only (small) portions of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic (more than a couple thousand years ago; ranges from 3.5k to 2.5k years ago, give or take a couple hundred years ). Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, which is not a dead language.
Now the New Testament WAS NOT WRITTEN IN ARAMAIC. I find it extremely funny that Mr. Gibson had to go from an english translation BACK to Aramaic in order to come up with the script for his movie. The New Testament was of course written in Greek (which also is not a dead language, though it has changed quite a bit in the past couple thousand years).

and translate to english translated at a time when the church controlled what the kings and queens did not which stood for around half of all things going on.

The argument from translation is kinda weak considering we can read and examine the original text (well if you have some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew like I do you can ), and because the Bible has been translated and re-translated hundreds of times in several different languages, at different periods in time. Just take the vulgate (the Latin translation by Jerome in the 4th century A.D.) or the Syriac (pretty self explanatory). Very early translations when the church was NOT in control of the doctrinal result of the translation. Incidentally, the official Catholic Bible is based on Jerome's Vulgate.
In short, we have a variety of early sources (in the original language and text) that allow us to compare and come up with a relatively valid English translation. Despite what some Orthodox christians may want to assert there really isn't a translation that is the official one and we all should read before all others (oh say... like the King James ). The best thing you can do is to learn a bit of Greek and Hebrew and read the original text on your own. It is true certain nuances are lost in the translation but the fundamental doctrinal point is pretty easy to discern, translation or not.
(And that's just my educated, experienced, opinion )

I think it stands to reason there could be mistakes or i could be wrong and translation could be precise but either way the laws are rewritten every day to accomadte the way things are why is the good book have to be set in stone so to speak.

Eeek, well on the issue on homosexuality it would be VERY VERY difficult to miss the Bible's condemnation of it. And no the Bible isn't being rewritten everyday to accomadate anyone, hehe. Heck, even Jesus and the apostles ALWAYS went back to the Old Testament to prove the point they weren't really teaching new doctrines, but just really realy old ones that people have forgotten/ misunderstood/ignored.

Joram Lionheart wrote:

Bayn wrote:In the purest terms, marriage is about love. It should not have anything to do with tax breaks, etc, etc, etc.

By that argument Bayn, homosexuals have no strong basis for demanding marriage rights seeing that marriage is firstly a ceremonial/religious ritual, then a legal status.

Wake up, bub. I said "love", not ceremonies and religion. Are you saying homosexuals can't love?

Homosexuality has been around almost as long as humankind has, but homesexual marriage is quite a new phenomenom.

Ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Chinese did it...so, it has been around an awfully long time.

Again, we haven't seen it before because homsexuals haven't been asking for marriages until recently
(and by that I mean in the past century or so).

That is quite inaccurate but regardless, I think it is more a symptom of the sickness of the American society. More and more intolerance has becoming evident over the last several decades. Once our Imperialistic stage slowed down in the early 1900s, it is as if societal mores have become cancerous, eating us apart.

A stronger case (against homosexual marriage) is the issue of whether homosexual marriages (or homosexuality in general) is an attack on the moral fabric of American society.

The American society has a very tattered moral fabric. If money or power is involved, anything goes.

Somewhere, somehow we have to set limits and order otherwise our civilization will collapse.

The Nazis had a good method for clamping down. They are not alone in their harshness. Our American society could be heading towards that extremeism.

If one person is drawn to another of the same sex and they are happy, that is great. The world needs more happiness, more love, more tolerance

Ahh if only things were as simple as that, Bayn.

It IS that simple. Why does everyone have to make things difficult. Silly people.

Ok, I will state the irrefutable truth. You asked for it, you got it.

This all is so silly, someone has to take a stand, so I WILL!

Y'all are dumbasses.