Gay Marriage Bill Passed in New York's State Government.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Mainstream values have changed to be more accepting, less judgmental. If they feel as if this is bad or are threatened by that somehow, then they are living in the wrong century and should go back to the 1300s.

See below...

I'd say the change in traditional marriage has far more to do with no-fault divorce and women's rights than anything to do with our queer friends. And let's not forget that "traditional" marriage is a relatively recent construction. That used to mean ploygamy and/or what we would consider incest. Read your OT, it's full of it. Furthermore, throughout the middle ages and the Renaissance, formal marriage was at least as much about property and power as anything else. That's what happens when you have venereal transmission of position and land.

Also, the notion that men are supposed to be faithful and not have whores, mistresses, office wives and travel wives is a relatively recent development.

Things change.

Remember, when we talk about American conservatives, we are being very vague. The small-government type folks have fairly mainstream, if not liberal social values - they are one type.

But then you also have the religious, usually Evanglical hardliners. There's not really anything 'conservative' about them. I think in a lot of ways the Evangelical movement captures the spirit of the radical Protestants that played such a big role in shaping the American identity. They are not really conservative in the sense they are trying to preserve the status-quo (or any recently lost status-quo). Maybe they are reactionary in that they have some sense of returning to a prior golden age. But then you wouldn't call an Islamist 'conservative' because they want to return to the days of the Caliphate.

No, I think that we should stop conflating the two types of groups people usually lump together as American conservatives, and recognise that the more religious elements are actually pretty radical.

And let's not forget that "traditional" marriage is a relatively recent construction. That used to mean ploygamy and/or what we would consider incest. Read your OT, it's full of it..

What is it with this gem and the internet. It should be completely discredited along the same lines as Godwin's law. There does seem to be some rule that whenever Christianity is discussed on this series of tubes, the probabilility that someone starts quoting the Mosaic law to Christians reaches 1.

Christians are not bound by the civil and ceremonial laws that Moses gave to the Israelites. I don't know why people think we are. Because the NT makes it very clear that we are not. Its a major part in the whole narrative of how Chrsitianity came about and what it means. Read Hebrews to see the significance of the civil/ceremonial laws.

The union of one man and one woman is not an arbitary legal contract (as PVC would I think argue), but a natural law instituted by God at creation. It is just one of those things that is natural to the human condition. Just remember what Jesus said to the saducees when they accused him of having false teachings on marriage - "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The union of one man and one woman is not an arbitary legal contract (as PVC would I think argue), but a natural law instituted by God at creation. It is just one of those things that is natural to the human condition. Just remember what Jesus said to the saducees when they accused him of having false teachings on marriage - "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so".

What I would say is that the (physical) union of one man and one woman is the means by which we procreate, and once a man and a woman do procreate they are linked for life by the child they share. You might say that with was a "natural marriag" and our marriage laws are merely fitting the facts of biology into our civil code.

Of course, once you accept that these people are indelably linked through their children the advantages of monogomy (especially for the woman and child) are quite obvious, as is the preferability of having a partner you are compatable with on a more than physical level.

[Lemur]

Remember, when we talk about American conservatives, we are being very vague.

I don't believe I mentioned the word "conservative" even once in this thread, so I'm not clear on whom you are addressing, even though you're quoting me. Defining that slippery word "conservative" sounds like gist for another thread.

The union of one man and one woman is not an arbitary legal contract (as PVC would I think argue), but a natural law instituted by God at creation.

Ah, the natural law school of thought. To which I would respond, how many gay men, women and animals does the Lord God need to make for you to get his point?

Furthermore, is oral sex between a married couple part of "natural law"? How about anal sex? Are sterile heterosexual couples part of "natural law"? Again, filler for another thread, but invoking the contemporary Catholic understanding of "natural law" seems quite iffy to me.

And yes, of course, you can read the Gospels as a repudiation of the OT if you like. Makes you wonder why the two are bundled together in that inconsistent library we call The Bible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ah, the natural law school of thought. To which I would respond, how many gay men, women and animals does the Lord God need to make for you to get his point?

Furthermore, is oral sex between a married couple part of "natural law"? How about anal sex? Are sterile heterosexual couples part of "natural law"? Again, filler for another thread, but invoking the contemporary Catholic understanding of "natural law" seems quite iffy to me.

None of that bears on my point, does it? That marriage is about licensing a specific sexual act with specific consequences. That isn't to say that all other sexual practice is wrong (different debate), merely that it is irrelevent to "marriage" as an institution.

[Strike For The South]

but a natural law instituted by God at creation. It is just one of those things that is natural to the human condition

But If their is no God than this is invalid

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't believe I mentioned the word "conservative" even once in this thread, so I'm not clear on whom you are addressing, even though you're quoting me. Defining that slippery word "conservative" sounds like gist for another thread.

It was response to ACIN who I quoted first, since he was suggesting that the religious folk in question were just opposing things because they were opposed to change.

Ah, the natural law school of thought. To which I would respond, how many gay men, women and animals does the Lord God need to make for you to get his point?

lol, that's a cheeky little jibe there Lemur.

In any case, your argument doesn't really disprove natural law theory any more than the fact that God created people who turn out to be murderers and such.

Furthermore, is oral sex between a married couple part of "natural law"? How about anal sex?

Well I am not part of the "sex is only for reproduction" school of thought but I am not honestly sure about those.

Are sterile heterosexual couples part of "natural law"? Again, filler for another thread, but invoking the contemporary Catholic understanding of "natural law" seems quite iffy to me.

Is a homosexual orientation without acting on it OK? No. Because it's not just about acts its about intentions. Jesus says being angry at someone makes you a murderer, and that looking upon a woman with lust makes you an adulterer.

And yes, of course, you can read the Gospels as a repudiation of the OT if you like. Makes you wonder why the two are bundled together in that inconsistent library we call The Bible.

I have no idea what made you think that this is what I did.

[Fragony]

I don't understand why the 'it's not natural' argument is so easily dismissed. I think I can understand our more conservative members. Marriage is also a commitment to a future, gay couples don't have that for obvious reasons, when considering that it is way too much to ask to think of it in the same way imho. Imho opinion gay activists are tresspassing, they want others to pretend there is such a thing as the existance of something that simply cannot be. Pretend. And they aren't asking they demand it.

[Lemur]

In any case, your argument doesn't really disprove natural law theory any more than the fact that God created people who turn out to be murderers and such.

Much like Intelligent Design, Natural Law is not what most people mean when they say "theory," in that it is not falsifiable, testable, repeatable or disprovable. So it isn't even wrong. It is founded on—and cannot exist apart from—faith. So it has no bearing on: atheists, Taoists, Buddhists, non-Catholic Christians, agnostics, Muslims (Fragony bait!), pantheists, pagans, Jews ... the list goes on and on. (Note that many other religions have their own unique reasons for condemning the queers amongst us.) So while you are free to read up on the current Catholic literature of Natural Law, it has little relevance to the population as a whole, and should hold no position in forming law.

Question: If it is wrong in some meaningful sense to have homosexual urges even if you don't act on them, how is a gay man or woman to live? How are they to reach out to God? Or are they shut out from the divine?

Marriage is also a commitment to a future, gay couples don't have that for obvious reasons

By the same line of reasoning, a woman with a hysterectomy should be barred by law from marriage, as should a sterile man. Furthermore, straight married couples that fail to reproduce should be prosecuted for fraud, since they are not engaging in the sole reason for marriage, by your logic.

Tell the gay man who can't inherit from his lifelong partner how he's playing pretend. Tell the lesbian who can't visit her dying mate in the hospital how it's pretend. And ask yourself, who is harmed by these people being allowed to marry? Please be specific.

Finally, one of my favorite conservatives has a good column up today: I was wrong about same-sex marriage

I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state's vote to authorize same-sex marriage -- a vote that probably signals that most of "blue" states will follow within the next 10 years.

I don't think I'm alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm -- if not outright approval -- to New York's dramatic decision.

Why?

The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.

Since 1997, same-sex marriage has evolved from talk to fact.

If people like me had been right, we should have seen the American family become radically more unstable over the subsequent decade and a half.

Instead -- while American family stability has continued to deteriorate -- it has deteriorated much more slowly than it did in the 1970s and 1980s before same-sex marriage was ever seriously thought of.

[Fragony]

Conservatives aren't my thing, but why not tGay-activists are much more hostile towards conservatists than the other way around, they want it gone and will destroy what they can find because of a particularly foul smell of narcism

[Lemur]

Conservatives aren't my thing, but why not tGay-activists are much more hostile towards conservatists than the other way around, they want it gone and will destroy what they can find because of a particularly foul smell of narcism

If I'm reading this correctly (and that's a big if) you're saying that gay-rights activists are hostile to conservatives, but not the other way around, and gay activists are narcissists. That's your argument, is it?

As for hostility, all you need do is read any comment thread on any conservative-leaning website where someone has spoken in favor of gay marriage, and you will read appalling levels of hostility, as PJ attested earlier. Exemplum gratum. I do not think hostile internet posters are representative of all conservatives, and I am not condemning opponents of gay marriage as bigots, but—but!—this sort of thing puts your unsourced claim in question. If you have any sort of evidence to back up your assertion, I'd like to see it.

Your narcissism point borders on madness and incoherence. All humans are narcissists in some degree; are you saying that the desire to form lifelong monogamous unions is some particularly pernicious form of self-regard? That is measurably worse amongst gays than straights? What are you saying?

[Kralizec]

If I'm reading this correctly (and that's a big if) you're saying that gay-rights activists are hostile to conservatives, but not the other way around, and gay activists are narcissists. That's your argument, is it?

My guess is that Fragony is thinking about Dutch conservatives and is conflating them with conservatives in general (correct me if I'm wrong)

As far as the conservatives, or opponents of gay rights in the Neth's go (the parties SGP and Christenunie mostly), he's somewhat right. They're generally civil and eloquent when defending their viewpoints. But that's mostly because they're a tiny minority here, and invoking fire & brimstone all the time would turn public opinion against them even more.

[Rhyfelwyr]

But If their is no God than this is invalid

U mad bro?

Much like Intelligent Design, Natural Law is not what most people mean when they say "theory," in that it is not falsifiable, testable, repeatable or disprovable. So it isn't even wrong. It is founded on—and cannot exist apart from—faith. So it has no bearing on: atheists, Taoists, Buddhists, non-Catholic Christians, agnostics, Muslims (Fragony bait!), pantheists, pagans, Jews ... the list goes on and on. (Note that many other religions have their own unique reasons for condemning the queers amongst us.) So while you are free to read up on the current Catholic literature of Natural Law, it has little relevance to the population as a whole, and should hold no position in forming law.

Very cheeky...

Anyway, with natural law its one of these things that boils down to it being self-evident. You do the exact same thing yourself with your own fundamental beliefs, everyone does.

I just think it is significant that I am appealing to a natural, universal law, since thats a lot different from just forcing arbitrary rules on everyone.

Question: If it is wrong in some meaningful sense to have homosexual urges even if you don't act on them, how is a gay man or woman to live? How are they to reach out to God? Or are they shut out from the divine?

Well they are no different from the rest of us in that we are all born predisposed to sin. Then again I am coming at this from a different angle from the typical American Evangelical that will tell you that sin is a matter of personal responsibility. I would say it is not, there's a quote from Luther where he says he committs adultery and murder a thousand times a day and that captures the spirit of the Christian faith as well as anything could.

The point is you do not just say... well I can't help it, and then blame God. It's not about taking responsbility for your actions, its about realising you have none. Why do I sin? Because I am by nature sin! That's right, sin itself... which is why Paul in fact calls sinful acts the fruits of sin. Which is why it is ridiculous to apply Gandhi's old "hate the sin love the sinner" routine to Christianity.

Gays are no different I don't care if they are gay or if they choose to be gay, because we are all born in sin and so they are no different from the rest of us. What I don't like is people saying being gay is OK just because it might be a predisposition and not a choice.

Of course this is all in terms of my own belief system, and ultimately gays don't have to give a damn what I think. And its mutual, they can have their world and I can have mine. Why is this too much to ask?

The thing is they can't do that, its like with immigrants they never leave you alone until everyone is assimilated. And its not even the fault of gays or the immigrants themselves, its always gutmensch as a certain Dutchman would say.

[Fragony]

@Lemur, no, I have no place in their game. Do I have to see it as normal, do you? If your neighbours are a nice gay couple, do you think 'nice couple' or ' nice gay couple'.

[Lemur]

Anyway, with natural law its one of these things that boils down to it being self-evident. [...] I just think it is significant that I am appealing to a natural, universal law, since thats a lot different from just forcing arbitrary rules on everyone.

Ah, my bad, when you start talking about God and Natural Law in the same sentence, I thought you were referring to the Catholic movement, which is a very specific intellectual thing, and often invoked to attack gay marriage. You can see how I got confused, surely, given the topic and your phrasing.

I think your take on natural law fails to apply in any sort of universal way because it rests on a very specific sort of theism. Again, this means it's perfectly valid for you and anyone who shares your faith, but it is irrelevant to the population as a whole.

Gays are no different I don't care if they are gay or if they choose to be gay, because we are all born in sin and so they are no different from the rest of us. What I don't like is people saying being gay is OK just because it might be a predisposition and not a choice.

Try reversing the equation and see how it fits. If homosexuality were the norm, and we all had babies in artificial wombs, how would you feel about your perverse desire to have sex with women? Indeed, if the majority of churches were telling you that heterosexual sex is a sin, and that your urges come from Satan, how would you react? (Note that the vast majority of neurological research suggests that homosexuality is an inborn trait, so this isn't quite as out-there as it may sound.)

[Gays] can have their world and I can have mine. Why is this too much to ask?

The thing is they can't do that, its like with immigrants they never leave you alone until everyone is assimilated. And its not even the fault of gays or the immigrants themselves, its always gutmensch as a certain Dutchman would say.

I dunno, when I start hearing about how the gutmensch are to blame for every ill in society, I figure it's time to wander off to a different thread. Very easy to argue against a person who is (a) not present, (b) can take whatever position you want him to take, and (c) can't argue back. The entire gutmensch thing is the most elaborate, long-running strawman in the history of the Org. How's about we talk to each other, instead of idealized imagined foes?

@Lemur, no, I have no place in their game. Do I have to see it as normal, do you? If your neighbours are a nice gay couple, do you think 'nice couple' or ' nice gay couple'.

Since I am probably one of those gutmensch who are responsible for Everything Bad, I tend to think "nice couple." And I have lived next to several such nice couples. The downside is that they keep up their properties much better than the average straight couple, so there's a bit of pressure there. In fact, I had a divided balcony with a gay couple in Chicago, and it was infuriating. Theirs was always meticulous and perfect. Ours was always a mess. I usually felt as though I was letting the team down.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ah, my bad, when you start talking about God and Natural Law in the same sentence, I thought you were referring to the Catholic movement, which is a very specific intellectual thing, and often invoked to attack gay marriage. You can see how I got confused, surely, given the topic and your phrasing.

I think your take on natural law fails to apply in any sort of universal way because it rests on a very specific sort of theism. Again, this means it's perfectly valid for you and anyone who shares your faith, but it is irrelevant to the population as a whole.

Well I wouldn't say my views on marriage really come from the 'theism' part so much. Do I need to go over why God/mother nature/x years of natural selection has created a certain framework for sexual relations? It's really obvious but people just forget that.

Try reversing the equation and see how it fits. If homosexuality were the norm, and we all had babies in artificial wombs, how would you feel about your perverse desire to have sex with women? Indeed, if the majority of churches were telling you that heterosexual sex is a sin, and that your urges come from Satan, how would you react? (Note that the vast majority of neurological research suggests that homosexuality is an inborn trait, so this isn't quite as out-there as it may sound.)

I don't know how I would react but in any case that would have nothing to do with whether my predisposition was in itself sinful. I might want to try to pretend it was OK but that doesn't mean that it really would be.

I dunno, when I start hearing about how the gutmensch are to blame for every ill in society, I figure it's time to wander off to a different thread. Very easy to argue against a person who is (a) not present, (b) can take whatever position you want him to take, and (c) can't argue back. The entire gutmensch thing is the most elaborate, long-running strawman in the history of the Org. How's about we talk to each other, instead of idealized imagined foes?

But did I call you one of them, or maybe just in your mind you wanted me to?

The fact is, for activists not liking gayness is sinful. If you don't you will be ostracised. Which I would be fine with but then they want to teach your kids that it is 100% OK. And you can't not let them, because suddenly not teaching their values is child abuse.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Rightly or wrongly what has actually happened is that the mainstream conception of "marriage" an an institution and it's purpose has changed.

The "traditional" concept of marriage as the means by which the sexually reproducutive relationship is legitimised and regulated has essentially ceased to exist, but no one wants to talk about it - everyone would rather just shouth about Gay Rights or Gay Evils, depending on your preference.

What is there to talk about? We are not draconian anymore. Marriage has been less about wealth, status and bearing children and more about love and joining two people together as a single entity under the tax code since the late 1800s.

Remember, when we talk about American conservatives, we are being very vague. The small-government type folks have fairly mainstream, if not liberal social values - they are one type.

Those are the libertarians, not conservatives. Both vote for Republicans, but they are very different. Just as Ron Paul was almost nothing like any of the other candidates in the recent Republican debate.

But then you also have the religious, usually Evanglical hardliners. There's not really anything 'conservative' about them. I think in a lot of ways the Evangelical movement captures the spirit of the radical Protestants that played such a big role in shaping the American identity. They are not really conservative in the sense they are trying to preserve the status-quo (or any recently lost status-quo). Maybe they are reactionary in that they have some sense of returning to a prior golden age. But then you wouldn't call an Islamist 'conservative' because they want to return to the days of the Caliphate.

These people are actually the mainstream conservative and is the biggest group of the Republican base. And they actually are preserving the status quo, here's why.

The current wave of religiousness in American politics sprouted in the late 1970s and manifested itself as a powerhouse in the political system with the birth of the Reagan conservative revolution that took control of office in 1980. They are a bit reactionary in the sense that it was the social revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s that spurred this new wave of religious conservatism, but the liberal social revolutions were not done deals by any sort of measure. Blacks were not suddenly completely equal, nor gays, nor women, nor transexuals, etc... in fact all the social revolutions did was simply to end the legalized active persecution against those groups not the legalized passive persecution. So the status quo was shaken but not dismantled. The passive laws that held down minority groups are ultimately religious in nature, stemming from the 1950s McCarthy days, where being religious was one of the few "sure" tests to make sure that you were not some Godless, Marxist, Communist traitor. Women had their place, blacks had their place, gays were not to let themselves to be known, and trying to shake things up against these traditional (religious) roles was analogous to being a socialistic revolutionary, trying to subvert America. God was injected everywhere during these days as a cleanser against any sort of leftist taint, shoving it onto all money and coinage, our pledge of allegiance etc... You probably get my point by now.

So what this new wave of religious conservatives are doing and have done since the late 1970s, has been to continue to hold onto those policies of the 1950s, of forced social structure, which any American who lived through that time period can tell you was completely hollow and fake. But it was dependent on religion, and the religious want that to continue. Thus they are fighting for it, the status quo.

No, I think that we should stop conflating the two types of groups people usually lump together as American conservatives, and recognise that the more religious elements are actually pretty radical.

Yes, we should stop conflating the two, and yes the more religious elements are radical, but the religious are the conservatives, the small government, socially liberal completely fall into the libertarian camp, many of which share Ayn Rand's atheism.

[Graphic]

I don't think the government should recognize marriage in the first place, gay or straight...but that's another topic.

However, since they do, it should not discriminate. So hooray, I suppose.