We’re not the bullies. The “Gay” activists are the bullies.
My beautiful friend Pink introduced me to How to cure a fanatic, by Amos Oz. As there is only one fanatic I can cure, I offer this:
God created Heaven and Earth, and made humanity in God’s image: male and female created he us. In God’s image: we are loving, creative and powerful. We are beautiful. Since Creation, God has been tirelessly seeking to communicate with us, to bring us to our highest way of being. There are two principal ways in which God communicates with human beings in the 21st century: the person of his son our Lord Jesus Christ, in personal relationship; and through the words of the Bible.
I seek what is Right, the best way a human being can be, through relationship with God. In this, I continually fail: and God’s love lifts me up and enfolds me. God’s forgiveness cleanses me. I am perfect in my imperfection.
The atheist is also created in God’s image, but is unable to see the way in which God seeks to communicate with him. When they attempt moral argument, it is fatally flawed, because though they seek what is Good they reject the ways our Creator has given to find what is Good: His holy Word, in the Bible and the person of Christ. They are incapable of moral argument, knowledge or clarity. O God! Heal them!
Male and female God created us, and that creation is beautiful in its complementarity. The man fits the woman as perfectly as two halves of a whole, physically and spiritually. Two people become one flesh. A penis is perfectly fitted for a vagina, and the male character for the female character: Colossians 3:18-19, Ephesians 5:21-33– what makes that submission and tender care beautiful is human Love, a reflection of the Love which is God.
“Gay” people distort and destroy that. In place of the fitting love and complementarity of male and female, they put lust for a disgusting physical action, the misuse of their own bodies. This blasphemes the body made in the image of God.
“Gay” activists seek to pervert marriage, the symbol of the Godly union of a man with a woman, to their demeaning lusts. They demand that everyone bows to their idol: they are not satisfied with living together and pursuing their abomination together, they demand that we call their sin “marriage” and we participate in their “weddings”. They sue Christians who refuse to serve their blasphemy.
We’re not the bullies. They are.
Friends, this is not what I believe. I have taken something which is ridiculous- surely, no-one can believe That??- and made of it something I could almost assent to. I see that someone could assert it, without being a wicked persecutor. Instead she is someone who acts from Love to benefit us all.
Clare Flourish 
I showed that video of you to Mike and a friend two days ago. They said “Surely, nothing shall hold her back”. I tend to agree
LikeLike
P.S. I’m not ‘that’ bad looking!!!! No?
LikeLike
Mi duck, your previous gravatar was described as “James Bond-like” and “hot” (I can’t remember the number of capitals and !s used) and I prefer this. I think you are beautiful, and Night-club-God young.
LikeLike
Note the amendment to the post.
LikeLike
I’m not denying he’s attractive, but don’t you think the original gravatar had a ‘too cool’ vibe that just isn’t being replicated? I, for one, feel disappointed. 😀 (Sorry for going off-topic)
LikeLike
The previous one was quite cool. I notice it is not available if you click the gravatar. I can imagine why someone might prefer this one.
LikeLike
I think it scared people. It’s enough that I drink and smoke, and did porn, and call people undereducated imbeciles- if I look sweet and proper, I might get away with it more easily 😛
LikeLike
You know what? I think you’re right.
LikeLike
That sounds like really pleasant ways to judge people. It’s my understanding that marriage in the Christian bible doesn’t have much to do with one man and one woman. If… IF… the Christian god created humans and the other animals he made a mistake. Homosexual or same sex relationships do not happen in only one species but over 400 and counting. Homosexuals are created by the act of a man and woman. If life begins at conception is it not the parents who are at fault for homosexuality? Or is it god himself?
To think that the best a human can be is through a relationship with god is neurotic thinking at best. It presumes that god is all good and that is demonstrably not true, just by his ‘holy word’ alone. When we look at all the evil done in his name by those with a relationship to him the story gets worse.
Thinking like this is what helped me with motivation to think about what I believed… It worked, I’m an atheist now.
LikeLike
Sounds like an improvement to me.
I did not find this easy to write. Thinking of it beforehand, it seemed I could only write a straw man. I still disagree; but I have come to the position that someone like that could say “We’re not the bullies, they are” (think of Lord Farquaad) sincerely, and without homophobia.
LikeLike
But isn’t it a bit shallow to define male and female in purely physical terms. Shouldn’t the SPIRITUAL feminine and SPIRITUAL masculine also come into play?
LikeLike
The radical feminist line is that what differentiates male from female is reproductive organs, and any “spiritual” differences are merely cultural, patriarchal and oppressive. The Complementarian says that there are spiritual differences, and that they always go one way unless they are deformed by sin. I say that there are spiritual differences and a wider range of male and female responses than culture encourages.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the clarification!
LikeLike
Welcome, anyway. I love your Shambhala image.
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
Oh dear, oh dear…many take a personal take 😦 on interpreting God, Jesus Christ…on what love is, what marriage is…can’t find a reference to a penis or vagina in Their vision of love, marriage, communicating love and respect via gender … etc etc … taking the physical communication out of it presents to me the peace with love that defines humanity … otherwise it’s not just the gays that are ostracised from “love” but also the disabled, the old, the celibate….
LikeLiked by 1 person
My Quaker meeting yesterday was filled with Love.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good to hear, Clare 😀
LikeLike
Hi Clare,
in the comments section of pinkagendists post you wrote “They propose the tenets of their religion be made into law- that is not quite it, and I observe they don’t see the parallel when you ask them about burqas, etc.”
I think that one important distinction between statement like “Jesus becomes bodily present in the Eucharist” and “homosexual activity is immoral” is that arguments can be advanced for the latter proposition which don’t appeal to special revelation or the infallibility of a particular religious institution.
Consider the concept of a “vomitorium”, the place at which ancient Romans would regurgitate so that they could then eat again. (Apparently it’s a myth that vomitoriums as such existed in the ancient world, but bear with me)
Some would argue that going to the vomitorium is perverse, because the pleasure involved in eating is coupled to a certain end: that of nutrition. The perversity of the act arises, not from the fact that people are enjoying themselves, but because the pleasure has become completely decoupled from the true purpose of the digestive system.
Now it seems to me that somebody could say “I don’t believe in God, but I agree that the use of the sexual faculties is directed toward is procreation, and deliberately decoupling the activity from that end is immoral, in an analogous sense to the example above.”
Of course, you can argue such arguments are wrong, but I don’t think that you can characterise this is a “religious” mode of reasoning.
Do you agree?
LikeLike
Welcome, Caleb, and thank you for commenting. “The two shall become one flesh”, “It is not good for the man to be alone”, “It is better to marry than burn”. Christians observe that people are happier in couples, and so do atheists. The purpose of sex is to bind that couple together, and we observe that works for gay couples too. That would be enough for the atheist, generally: there needs to be some other objection to the gay couple before someone finds your distinctions compelling, certainly after meeting gay couples.
Your vomitorium analogy involves a thing which disgusts people. A better analogy is two people eating ice cream together. There is little nutritional value, but the social function is enhanced by the act being merely for pleasure.
LikeLike
You presented an objection to the argument, but you didn’t answer the question I posed:
Do you agree that a person can advance arguments for the immorality of homosexual behaviour which which don’t appeal to special revelation or the infallibility of a particular religious institution?
This is the distinction I was referring to.
I’m happy to discuss the soundness of this particular argument elsewhere, but this is the specific question I’d like to focus on in this exchange.
BTW, it’s only a pseudonym but it’s meant to be “Cale” rather than Caleb.
LikeLike
Sorry, Cale. I think they can, but I don’t think they would. There is no point in making such arguments. Possibly a few do, but they are rationalising disgust, rather than making a moral argument per se.
LikeLike
Having recognised this distinction,
[Clare: if you mean your proposed distinction between statements like “Jesus becomes bodily present in the Eucharist” and “homosexual activity is immoral” I find it a distinction without a difference. There is no moral basis for the argument, apart from your interpretation of Christianity.]
do you now do you see why many people don’t see their public opposition to homosexual behaviour as being analogous to, say, a Jew arguing that the sale of pigmeat shouldn’t be legal by appealing to the Levitical laws?
[Clare: It’s more like Pink’s analogy, your public opposition is like a Muslim being disgusted by women exposing their head hair. As for pigs, there are unfamiliar moral arguments- pigs are disgusting creatures, wallowing in muck, and eating them is far more likely to cause disease than eating clean animals like cows- analogous to your disgust for gay people.]
I disagree with your portrayal of these kinds of arguments as being purely a rationalisation of disgust. Rather, I think they are attempts to show that are certain uses of the body which are immoral.
[Clare: I think you are playing word games here. How can you portray an act to make it sympathetic, or disgusting? Making it sympathetic, it is the physical expression of Love within a couple who are one flesh: this is point-scoring rather than argument. You are talking to your own side: you will not convince anyone else.]
Furthermore, the idea that these arguments are purely a rationalisation is belied by the existence of people who have an erotic response, rather than feelings of disgust, to homosexual acts, but who accept the soundness of these arguments.
[Clare: Hmmm. Are there any “ex-gays” who are not Christian? Imagining that God condemns what they find erotic, they seek out arguments why they should not do it- but it is the alleged condemnation which comes first, and then they attempt to rationalise that.]
LikeLike
I really should Google before asking. Here is an atheist ex-gay-wannabe. It could be trolling or fiction, but how crap it is to be him if it is true!
LikeLike
“As for pigs, there are unfamiliar moral arguments”
Sure. And if a person who happens to be a Muslim or Jew wants to argue that pigs carry certain diseases with such a frequency that it makes them unsafe for consumption, then by all means, if they have the evidence, let’s hear them out. I see nothing wrong with that.
“[these kinds of arguments are] analogous to your disgust for gay people.”
As far as I am aware, you know nothing about me, my daily life, my sexual orientation and experiences.
“I think you are playing word games here. How can you portray an act to make it sympathetic, or disgusting?“
I’m not “playing word games”: you claimed that this is purely an expression of disgust rather than a moral argument, and I attempted to respond to this by pointing out that it’s obviously possible to hold to the soundness of these arguments even if you feel excitement, rather than disgust toward the act in question.
To this, you responded that the people who do so are just seeking out rationalisations for a belief arrived at by an appeal to special revelation.This is a non-sequitur, though. One could believe that people only seek out these kinds of arguments as a rationalisation, and it would still remain true that the argument itself is not reducible to an expression of disgust.
LikeLike
Do you imagine that excitement is incompatible with disgust? I thought that was a common human experience, to have both together, or alternating, or one shortly after the other. What do you know of “internalised homophobia”?
LikeLike
Yes, a person can indeed feel disgust accompanied or followed by excitement, But this fact does not establish that this particular argument can be reduced to an expression of disgust, as you claimed.
LikeLike
Cale, in your eagerness for a rhetorical slap-down, you have missed several steps in this argument. And, you complained about me not answering your questions, but ignore mine.
You postulated an atheist who made moral arguments against gay lovemaking, saying that the use of the sexual faculties is directed toward is procreation, and deliberately decoupling the activity from that end is immoral. Analogies you used included deliberate vomiting, yet you deny disgust is part of this argument.
Find me a living atheist who makes that argument, and I will consider the matter further.
LikeLike
“You postulated an atheist who made moral arguments against gay lovemaking”
No, my original contention was that there are arguments against homosexual behaviour which do not refer to special revelation or the infallibility of a religious institution and thus they *could* be held by an atheist (Or, for that matter, an agnostic, a Taoist, a Quaker, a Wiccan etc.) Whether, in reality, there are 0, 10, or a million atheists who currently agree with this argument isn’t what I was trying to establish.
“Analogies you used included deliberate vomiting, yet you deny disgust is part of this argument.”
A person could hold that “the use of the sexual faculties is directed toward is procreation, and deliberately decoupling the activity from that end is immoral” even if they weren’t disgusted by deliberate vomiting or homosexual behavior.
If you’d like me to answer questions, please reiterate them and I will be happy to oblige.
LikeLike
It hardly matters that an atheist might believe gay lovemaking was immoral, if none actually did.
What does “internalised homophobia” mean to you? Is it a useful concept? What do you say to those of us who claim it as our experience?
LikeLike
“It hardly matters that an atheist might believe gay lovemaking was immoral, if none actually did.”
Well, I think it does matter that these arguments exist, when you have people constantly claiming that this position can only be held on the basis of “religious dogma” and is thus unfit for the public square.
“What does “internalised homophobia” mean to you? Is it a useful concept? What do you say to those of us who claim it as our experience?”
Concerning this issue, let me say on a personal note, I would describe myself as “predominantly heterosexual”, and I also experienced same-sex attraction intensely from the ages of 13-15. I’ve found this side of me has become progressively less intense as I’ve grown older (I’m now in my mid 20s). I’ve never attended “reparative therapy” or anything like that, that’s just the way things have turned out so far.
I don’t think that people should hate themselves for something they didn’t choose, but calling somebody to not participate in behaviours that they are constitutionally predisposed toward isn’t a “condemnation of their identity” and doesn’t necessarily lead the person toward that kind of self-hatred. The distinction between sin and concupiscence is absolutely crucial.
More broadly, I think that this concept of “internalised homophobia” often functions as a condescending way of quashing dissent.
“So, you’re a lesbian couple who doesn’t support same-sex marriage? You couldn’t possibly have any valid reasons to do that, so therefore you must be repressed self-hating Uncle Toms!”
No matter how good you might think your reasons are, if it’s approved by the Gay Inc., you are required to dumbly acquiesce and intone “so courageous”.
LikeLike
Cale, mi duck, you are completely batty. You produce an invalid argument, and say it does not matter that no-one believes it. And if people feel bad, you say it is because what they freely choose is disgusting.
All this argument about harmless people having fun. Have you nothing better to think about?
Congratulations on the SSA, by the way.
LikeLike
“You produce an invalid argument, and say it does not matter that no-one believes it.”
My point in bringing up the hypothetical atheist accepting the argument is to establish that you cannot maintain that that it is “religious dogma”. Does this make sense to you? If not, then why so?
”All this argument about harmless people having fun. Have you nothing better to think about?”
The article on curing fanatics you linked to rightly noted that some people can, unfortunately, become completely po-faced when defending a cause. I agree with this, but I think the other side of this coin is that (especially when discussing sexual ethics in the West) the phrases “don’t take things so seriously” and “you just hate people having fun” serve as a facile and anti-intellectual rejection of criticism, often when things are just getting interesting. Try to keep thinking, rather than resorting to this cliché dismissal.
“And if people feel bad, you say it is because what they freely choose is disgusting.”
No: I don’t think that the argument is reducible to an expression of disgust.
LikeLike
How dare you? What? You tell me to “try to keep thinking”?
You show a complete lack of ability to understand. Hard luck. Show me an atheist who hates the natural diversity of humanity and the natural ways of human beings being together, and I will debate with him, but until then you prattle a false religious dogma which, thank God, Christianity is shedding.
Emotion is what motivates humans. If you did not feel disgust, you would have no motivation for arguing as you do. You would see the humanity of the people you seek to persecute.
LikeLike
“Show me an atheist who hates the natural diversity of humanity and the natural ways of human beings being together,”
I disagree with your framing of the issue; viz. that arguing against the ethical permissibility of homosexual behaviour equates to a “hatred of the natural diversity of humanity”. Anyway, here’s one example:
The Dalai Lama (who, as I understand, is some kind of agnostic or atheist) has repeatedly condemned sodomy as being a misuse of the body.
“you prattle a false religious dogma”
Could you flesh out why you believe this specific argument to be religious in nature, instead of just asserting that it is?
“If you did not feel disgust, you would have no motivation for arguing as you do.”
I think it’s false to say that negative sensual reactions of this kind are the only possible motivation for a person taking an ethical stand against a particular behaviour. Speaking for myself, I honestly don’t get a sense of revulsion from acts of lesbianism between women that I perceive to be attractive, and yet, I hold these acts to be immoral. So, your criticism fails to hit home in this regard.
Two more counterexamples to your line of argument are:
Married couples who have no reaction of disgust toward contraception, but who don’t practice it for ethical reasons.
People who find chocolate delicious, not revolting, but who nevertheless give it up for ethical reasons.
“You would see the humanity of the people you seek to persecute.”
If you have any blog posts or other things on the internet you’d like to recommend to me, so that I can get a better picture of your perspective, I’d be glad to read them.
LikeLike
The Dalai Lama is Buddhist- not theist in the Christian way, but hardly atheist. He said, “If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask ‘What is your companion’s opinion?’. If you both agree, then I think I would say, ‘If two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay.'”
I recommend Would Jesus Discriminate. Otherwise, Cale, you have been comprehensively answered here.
LikeLike
C’mon Clare. Regardless of whether he approves of homosexual relationships in some contexts (keep in mind he has spoken of a different standard for Buddhists and unbelievers in this regard), you really ought to concede why has he condemned sodomy in the past: Not by an appeal to the Quran or the infallibility of the Catholic Magisterium but by an appeal to ideas about the “right organ in the right object at the right time”.
As for the link, it’s the same tired old junk exegesis. Would you like me to critique it on my blog?
“Otherwise, Cale, you have been comprehensively answered here.”
I think not.
You’ve presented no reasons as to why this argument is religious in character.
You also tried to claim this isn’t a moral argument, but simply an expression of disgust but I think I’ve answered you pretty soundly on this point, given that you didn’t respond to my previous comment.
LikeLike
Cale, if you want tired and old, go back to Katy the Bigot’s blog. She replied to my comment with rubbish about how she respects the Bible and liberal Christians do not, as tired and old as you could possibly want. Whereas, you see something beautiful and new…
Part of the problem here is that you do not perceive what makes the weight of an argument. You claim that the Dalai Lama condemns lovemaking, I quote him, you say there are other quotes somewhere. Nothing will satisfy you.
I see that you believe you have moral arguments, but are unable to see when they are refuted, unable to produce an atheist who agrees with you, unable to say anything of value. I’m bored. I have no obligation to respond to anything you say. You have been answered.
LikeLike
It’s religious, it’s reductionist and it’s anti-scientific.
Only 3% of sex in primates is reproductive. That means the other 97% is related to feeling/attraction/social interaction.
If you want to go deeper, the female orgasm has no link to reproduction whatsoever. That in and of itself invalidates the reproductive theory. Females can have multiple orgasms, and they can have them whilst pregnant.
The reasoning you’re offering is of a pick and choose variety which depends on major facts being excluded or ignored.
LikeLike
What, even lemurs? Those tiny frog-like ones that eat insects? Bonobos, certainly.
LikeLike
Hello pinkagendist. You asserted that this argument is “religious” in nature but you didn’t say why. If you could try to substantiate this statement, that would be appreciated, as this is the main thing I’m wanting to discuss.
That being said, here are a few brief thoughts on the rest of your comment:
“Only 3% of sex in primates is reproductive.”
The argument doesn’t say that “If we survey what occurs as the statistical average in humans and similar organisms, then we come up with what is “natural” and therefore good.”
“If you want to go deeper, the female orgasm has no link to reproduction whatsoever. “
Really? No link whatsoever? You mean that women don’t experience radical differences in sexual desire at different stages of the reproductive cycle? You mean the clitoris and penis don’t both differentiate from the genital tubercule?
I’m not claiming that I’m an expert in these things, or that philosophical analysis of the human body is a simple and easy thing, but to say that there is “no link whatsoever” is pretty blatantly incorrect, I think. As for orgasm during pregancy, I don’t see how this spoils the analogy.
LikeLike
It’s religious because it’s based on the religious theory that sex is ‘only’ reproductive. From the point of view of science, that’s not the case. Biologists also don’t use the term natural in the terms you’re using them. You’re borrowing this usage from ‘Natural law’. A Catholic invention (later adopted by other sects), which actually has nothing to do with biology at all.
The problem there is you want to use natural as ‘normal’, when incidence has no bearing on whether something is correct, good or bad. Science doesn’t make that distinction based on incidence. A minute percentage of the world population has red hair, that doesn’t make them unnatural.
A woman can have 15 children without ever having a single orgasm (that kind of destroys your alleged link). Conversely the female can be infertile and have high orgasmic function. 10% of females will NEVER experience an orgasm. If you want more scientific information on that this article sums it up: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/what-point-female-orgasm
Human beings are social animals and sex has a highly social function.
This form of reductionism you’re using is equivalent to saying the tongue/palate should only be used for one very basic evolutionary function which was to identify and avoid bitter tastes (poisons). As we developed we used the tongue for many other activities, including many linked to socialization and pleasure. Speaking, singing, enjoying food, kissing, sticking it out at people as an insult. One isn’t more or less ‘natural’ than the next.
We can also use our hands for climbing trees, for helping us eat, for writing, for typing, for defending ourselves. When you find a scientist that says we can only use our hands and feet for their primary evolutionary purpose which was transportation, then you’re welcomed to apply the same argument to sex.
LikeLike
“It’s religious because it’s based on the religious theory that sex is ‘only’ reproductive”
The argument includes the theory that the use of the sexual faculties is directed toward reproduction. This is a philosophical, not a theological or scientific claim. It doesn’t necessarily exclude the affective and social aspects of sex, so it’s incorrect to say that it postulates sex as ‘only’ being about reproduction.
“The problem there is you want to use natural as ‘normal’, when incidence has no bearing on whether something is correct, good or bad. Science doesn’t make that distinction based on incidence.”
I actually think we agree here! The argument doesn’t rest on treating the rate of incidence as indicative of immorality and you’re entirely correct that, while the science of biology can inform our discussion, it remains descriptive, rather than prescriptive. See Oderberg’s “Towards a natural law critique of genetic engineering” for a brief explication of the natural/unnatural distinction.
“When you find a scientist that says we can only use our hands and feet for their primary evolutionary purpose which was transportation, then you’re welcomed to apply the same argument to sex.”
The argument doesn’t appeal to the historical origins of anatomy.
LikeLike
Philosophical? And who would that philosopher happen to be?
LikeLike
Mi duck, if the Dalai Lama can be an atheist, that philosopher could be absolutely anyone, even Caleb himself. I am afraid I have started trashing his comments, he was boring me. Do let me know if you want to go on, and I will let his stuff through on your thread, but he seems both incorrigible and beyond mockery, to me.
LikeLike
I’m curious to know which precise philosopher proposes the idea that sex is merely reproductive- because that’s his implication even if he disguises it well, and plays puerile word-games to dissimulate.
LikeLike
@Pink Take, as an example, the 1st century Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus, who wrote in his 12th discourse:
“Men who are not wantons or immoral are bound to consider sexual intercourse justified only when it occurs in marriage and is indulged in for the purpose of begetting children, since that is lawful, but unjust and unlawful when it is mere pleasure-seeking, even in marriage. But of all sexual relations those involving adultery are most unlawful, and no more tolerable are those of men with men, because it is a monstrous thing and contrary to nature.”
Disagree with him if you like, but you can’t accuse him of appealing to special revelation.
LikeLike
Challenged to produce a philosopher, you produce someone from the Iron age. Thought has moved on since then.
Stoicism had a religious basis and an eschatology, and their ideas of human action came out of that. So, again not atheist. Nice try.
LikeLike
“So, again not atheist. Nice try.”
I didn’t claim that the Stoics were atheists.
You asked for an example of an atheist, pink asked for a philosopher.
Both of the examples I gave objected to homosexual behaviour on a philosophical basis, rather than appealing to special revelation.
As for the Dalai Lama, he IS an atheist, Clare:
“Basically, religions may be divided into two groups. One group, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and some ancient Indian traditions, I call God religions. Their fundamental faith is in a Creator. The other group of religious tradition, including Jainism, Buddhism, I usually call godless religions. They do not believe in a Creator . But, of course, God is a sense of infinite love. The religions are not so different in this understanding. But God in the sense of Creator, something absolute, that is difficult to accept.”
LikeLike
Well, Cale, at least you led me to this rather beautiful article.
I’m bored, actually. Have a look at this peacock butterfly. I am pleased with the photo.
LikeLike
Since my attempt is to reduce my own fanaticism, I will put an argument against myself based on seemly or respectful uses of the body. By analogy, I could saw down the self-seeding sycamore in my back garden, but it would not be respectful to poison it. And- I rarely drop litter in the street.
But- I don’t believe that sex within a relationship is unseemly. In part this is an aesthetic judgment.
LikeLike
I’ll just admit to not really understanding this. Is it putting the opposition’s argument in simple terms, without sarcasm, to help them get a new perspective? Because it just seemed to be exactly what they would freely admit to, even a few steps less than they are normally willing to go.
LikeLike
No. It is putting the opposition’s case in order to realise that they are not necessarily, merely hate-filled homophobes. I found it difficult not to be sarcastic. I seek to make a leap of understanding. If I claim that they do not see my humanity, I have to try to see theirs. I don’t agree, but I can imagine one might believe that.
LikeLike
Ah, so it’s an exercise to understand the humanity in the points of view of others? Interesting.
LikeLike
I hear future posts include Gingerectomy and The Gingercaust 😛
LikeLike
Marriage has always been something that straddled the fence of church and state a bit too much. I think its time the state stopped being involved altogether.
Married people shouldn’t get any advantages over unmarried people anyway.
LikeLike
Welcome, and thank you for commenting. How do you ever manage to be both?
I tend to feel the public recognition of marriages strengthens them. What about immigration? If a couple can move to be together, and share citizenship, how otherwise would you demonstrate that they were sufficiently committed to each other to justify this?
LikeLike
Fair point about immigration. I think we have that problem to some extent now. We have no control over how other countries define marriage.
Even if the government is not involved the people would have something to memorialize their marriage however they choose to do it.
“I tend to feel the public recognition of marriages strengthens them.”
I agree with *public* recognition.
But I don’t really think the *government* recognition strengthens it at all. But then again I live in Illinois and a large percent of our governors end up in prison. So no I really don’t care what they think of my marriage.
My view of marriage is the Catholic view that it is a sacrament. Whatever the legislators of the State of Illinois thinks about marriage is unimportant to me.
I did a blog on this a while back:
http://trueandreasonable.co/2014/01/10/government-should-get-out-of-the-marriage-and-divorce-business/
Basically the courts would handle the financial issues as contract law. But typically there would be arbitration clauses to handle things.
LikeLike
Sorry to be the one to tell you- but- not quite Moliere. Comments and ideas might perhaps fall short.
LikeLike