Straight Talk about Gay Marriage

Since you're an atheist, I suppose you support gay marriage?
Well, I don't know why you would think that one implies the other, but as a humanist,
I support basic rights and dignity for all people. So, yes, I support gay marriage.
I'll tell you why one implies the other. I'm a Christian, so as far as I'm concerned, gay
marriage is a contradiction in terms. Marriage is an institution created by God for one man
and one woman. So called gay marriage is a mockery of real marriage. That's why atheists
support it.
Seriously? You think gays want to marry just so they can mock straight marriage?
Gays are always trying to shove their lifestyle choice down everyone else's throat.
There's a joke there, but it's too obvious. Instead, let's talk about your definition
of marriage, which is highly ahistorical for a start. Throughout most of human history,
marriage was only an issue for the tiny number of the elite who held property. Marriage wasn't
about companionship or sex - it was about the man producing heirs so that he could pass
his property to them. Women were considered part of a man's property, and the more wives
a man had, the greater his status in society. Like David and Solomon, with their hundreds
of wives, not to mention concubines. If you had no property, like the vast majority of
people, then marriage was irrelevant. It's only in comparatively recent times that sex
has been used to define marriage.
You're talking about the Old Testament. That doesn't count any more. Jesus blessed the
sacrament of marriage by performing his first miracle at the wedding feast at Cana. That
was a marriage between one man and one woman. You can't arbitrarily redefine marriage.
Who were the man and the woman in that particular marriage? It's curious that the Gospels are
studiously silent on that point. Why would Mary care that the wine was running out, and
tell Jesus to do something about it, if they were only guests?
What are you getting at?
Never mind, I was just thinking out loud. My point is that society evolves, and marriage
evolves with it. Marriage is not fixed and absolute. We can and should redefine it to
better serve society.
But if gay marriage is imposed on society, it's a violation of my religious freedom because
I don't agree with it. My marriage to Mrs. Pillock is degraded if it's put on the same
footing as a sodomite "marriage". Anyway, there's nothing to stop a homosexual and a
lesbian from having a marriage of convenience while continuing to indulge in their chosen
lifestyle.
Why shouldn't they have the right to marry the person they love?
Why can't they be satisfied with civil unions? I might reluctantly concede that much, if
they would stop trying to force people like me to approve of their relationships as equal
to our marriages.
You raise an interesting point. There are two aspects of marriage: firstly, marriage
as a religious ceremony, and secondly, marriage as a civil contract which is recognized and
encouraged by the state, by granting certain privileges and protections. Conservatives
focus on the first definition, and liberals focus on the second when they ask for things
like inheritance rights, visitation rights in hospitals, and so on. I think that's why
gay marriage is such a contentious issue, because liberals and conservatives are talking
about different things, and marriage in the U.S. represents an entanglement of church
and state.
In most European countries, if two people want to have a marriage that's recognized
by the state, they just sign some paperwork at a government office. In effect, they enter
into a civil union. If they also want their marriage to be recognized by their religion,
they can have a religious ceremony, but that's completely optional and it has no bearing
on their legal status.
Look at it this way. In so far as marriage is a religious ceremony, the state has no
business saying who is or isn't married in the eyes of God. And in so far as it's a civil
contract, the state has no business discriminating against one class of citizens over another.
We should have civil unions for all couples, gay or straight, with no discrimination, and
if people want to undergo a religious ritual, that's entirely separate and optional, and
irrelevant to their legal status. That way, everyone gets what they want, and nobody's
religious freedom is curtailed. It may not fit on a bumper sticker, but that's my opinion
on gay marriage.
Oh, and another thing. Some progressive churches are quite willing to perform gay marriage
ceremonies, but currently the government prevents them from doing so. Isn't that an infringement
on their religious freedom?
But isn't this the start of a slippery slope? If a man can marry another man, why can't
he marry a child or an armadillo?
Duh! Because a child or an armadillo aren't competent to enter into a legally binding
contract, which is what marriage is. And homosexuality is not the same thing as pedophilia or bestiality.
Really, Professor Pillock, I'm disappointed that you have such a low opinion of so many
of your fellow citizens.
As a Christian, I believe, hate the sin, love the sinner.
I'm sorry, but that's a crock. Right out of the starting gate, you're calling the other
person a sinner, and presuming to stand in judgment over them. That's not love, it's
condescension.
Well, there are obviously fundamental disagreements between us which we're not going to resolve
any time. Goodbye for now.
Goodbye. Give my regards to Mrs. Pillock.