Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

[Tychicus]

If we return to the situation where the state does not issue marriage licenses, then marriage becomes a religious ceremony defined by the church alone. There would be no civil rights violations involved for churches which only conduct heterosexual ceremonies, for homosexuals remain free to arrange and hold whatever ceremonies they wish at their own expense.

Excellent point that our whole problem is derived from the fact that the government issues the marriage license, and thus gets to define the definition of marriage (at least under that government).

That raises an interesting question. What do we mean by the "definition of marriage"? Is there such a thing as a single definition that applies across national boundaries and is language independent. A single definition for "marriage/matrimonio (Spanish)/결혼 (Korean)/γάμος (Greek), etc.". Of course these words are not 100% exact translations of each other, but the basic idea is the same.

I'll suggest that the answer used to be "Yes". Virtually every language and culture would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman into a family; and this family unit would be essential to raising the biological children of the pair. Even cultures that allowed polygamy would accept this definition; they would just allow one man to have multiple marriages, but each of the marriages would be one man with one woman. Some cultures have more elaborate family structures involving the "extended family", but the biological parents are still involved with their children.

This universal definition of marriage arose because that is what people did. A man and a woman had a child, and raised that child. No king, legal system, or religious authority had to create a "definition of marriage". If a society chose to create more specific rules or laws, it would still be based on the same universally understood definition of a marriage that was a union of one man and one woman who would care for their biological children.

If this basic definition is no longer considered valid, will it ever by replaced by a new definition that will have such universal acceptance, short of massive pressure by big governments and other such powerful forces to conform to the new way of thinking?

[Singalphile]

Good points, Tychicus.

It is worrisome. Once they - government or a few judges - define it, it's theirs (the voters in my state will not approve of it). Some kind of civil union contract would solve all of the supposed problems, I think, but that's not the point, as was mentioned.

Oh, well. Ya'll have a good day!

[morbo3000]

I totally agree with what has been said about government issuing marriage certificates.

The church has given the state authority to
- Grant marriage certificates
- Educate our children
- Allow our churches to receive tax benefits if we register as a 501c3

The list could go on..

Thus
- When Christians believe that their children should be taught Creationism, they are upset when the state won't teach them. Instead of realizing that maybe the problem is letting the state teach their children
- When Christians believe that the state should only grant heterosexual marriages, they are upset when the state approves gay marriages. Instead of realizing that the Christian understanding of marriage goes far beyond the recognition of the state.
- When churches want to speak out about political figures, they are upset when the state tells them that they can't or else lose their non-profit status, maybe the church has no business trading what they believe is their message for non-profit status.

I do believe, however, that the government has a role in intervening in civil rights issues. I know that's muddy for people who don't believe that gay marriage, or whether a gay couple can buy flowers for their wedding, is a civil rights issue. But granting that argument, inter-racial marriage, which race could drink out of the same drinking fountain, which colleges blacks could go to, which part of the bus they could ride, were appropriately fought for by the government. I don't have the government chops to debate the civil rights approach.

[morbo3000]

It Is homosexual and same-sex attraction, not gay. Another example of forced acceptance.

It is not forced acceptance. Words change meaning.

Here is a fun forum post on the evolution of word meanings. There is probably a zillion discussions and blog posts on the fact that words change meanings over time.

http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/post ... nings.aspx

[MMathis]

Homosexual is still homosexual, and calling it something else does not change that.

[thrombomodulin]

I do believe, however, that the government has a role in intervening in civil rights issues. I know that's muddy for people who don't believe that gay marriage, or whether a gay couple can buy flowers for their wedding, is a civil rights issue. But granting that argument, inter-racial marriage, which race could drink out of the same drinking fountain, which colleges blacks could go to, which part of the bus they could ride, were appropriately fought for by the government. I don't have the government chops to debate the civil rights approach.

morbo3000,

If you're not up for debating whether or not it is appropriate for there to be civil rights laws, that's fine. I would like to say that i hold the opposite opinion as yourself on this topic. Namely, the State should not have any law whatsoever prohibiting discrimination (whether racial, or by sexual orientation, or otherwise).

A reason for this is that a person's private property belongs to himself and represents an extension of his own labour that was expended to acquire it. The civil rights legislation under discussion defines a positive benefit for one person by requiring another to suffer loss (in a praxeological sense) through compelling their unwilling participation in a transaction. Who can really say that one party's benefit somehow outweighs the losses suffered by another? For example, does the joy of a homosexual buying flowers outweigh the violation of conscience that occurs in a man who is compelled to provide them? There is no measurement for the quantities of joy, satisfaction, or conviction, let alone a way to compare them to each other. compelling such is like stealing: taking from one to give to another. It would be my view that I do not wish to impose losses one anyone at all, for in contrast voluntary transactions are not unjust, being an exchange of equal values but exchanges where both parties value what they receive more than what they part with (both find their state of affairs improved). To be clear by example, i am affirming that a person should be allowed to sell flowers to only homosexuals, or only heterosexuals, or by whatever criteria they wish.

If one goes the other way on this topic, it strikes me as a problem to define the end at which civil rights stop. For example, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate in their choice of an employee based on race. But is this not unfair to employers? i would like to submit the idea that employees should not be allowed to discriminate when choosing an employer on the basis of race. Or in a similar way, shall we say that shoppers should not be free to purchase from stores wherever they wish, for it affords no protection to business as some part of their decision to buy at store A vs B may be due to the race or sexual orientation of those who own or work at the respective places?

[morbo3000]

That's very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to share.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[darinhouston]

I'm with thrombo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve]

So am I. It is amazing how, in a single generation, nonsensical political correctness can have entirely displaced classic understanding of justice.

[morbo3000]

So am I. It is amazing how, in a single generation, nonsensical political correctness can have entirely displaced classic understanding of justice.

Classic does not necessarily mean true/best/right.