Mariano,It seems that you have risen to a new level of incoherence.He should consider that his freedom of speech is premised upon “religion” defining policy.This just makes no sense, especially with the quotes around the word religion. The concept of ‘free speech’ is a concept that has a very long history going back, at least, to the ancient Athenian democracy (although we see the religious impact on free speech in the trial of Socrates, where one of the charges was atheism). The premise of free speech has almost always been political and it was the need for political free speech that was the premise of our First Amendment rights in the US Constitution. Any ‘religious premise’ you want to concoct is just a rationalization after the fact.Next comes a self-defeating argument, “you have a group of people telling other people how to live their lives, and you can't do that”—but what if I want to live a life wherein I tell other people how to live their lives? Now, Brad Pitt is telling me that I cannot do that. Yet, this is the very thing which he said we cannot do.Didn’t you ever go to grade school and have a teacher explain to you that your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of the other person’s nose? (In actuality, we grant a considerably greater volume of personal space but that is immaterial to the point.) What Pitt is simply saying is that we have a group of people that are swinging their political fist and hitting another group of people in their ‘nose’. Calling that a ‘self-defeating argument’ is asinine. Banning gay marriage is just simply a violation of this group of people their rights. It is harmful and is distinctly unfair. The counter argument that gay marriage would in someway hurt the so-called traditional marriage is pure balderdash. I’m reminded of my father, who was your quintessential Deep South racist; he found all social, political and economic advancement by blacks to be deeply offensive. So, if there are some people that find gay marriage ‘deeply offensive’, so be it. Moreover, there are certain concepts of marriage which any reasonable person would oppose surely, including Brad Pitt.True but nobody was talking about any of those ‘straw man’ type marriages (or were you referring about some ‘slippery slope’ type marriages)?
jdhuey wrote:"Banning gay marriage is just simply a violation of this group of people their rights. It is harmful and is distinctly unfair. The counter argument that gay marriage would in someway hurt the so-called traditional marriage is pure balderdash."I pretty much agree with your assessment jdhuey. With hetero marriages having about a 50% of divorce rate in this nation, I think it's safe to say that most people aren't seeing marriage in a traditional or "til death do us part" sense anymore anyway. Personally, I think gay people should be allowed to marry, just not performed or ordained in a Christian church. They can go in front of a judge or something and get the job done instead. Even though seeing a couple of men kissing or fondling makes my skin crawl, (and watching girls kiss lost it's novelty sometime when I was a teenager) I'm in no position to judge them or tell them what to do pertaining to that particular sin...especially when I'm a sinner in a lot of other ways myself.
I think Christians themselves could have diluted God's beautiful and meaningful marriage covenant between a man and a woman. We somehow compromise to say, "It's okay. That gay thing is not central to our faith". We then include them in everything, even our sacred pulpit ministry. Anyways thanks for the article. I am still learning and grappling with this issue.
Im fine with gay unions but Im not fine with defining what marriage actually is. I dont think we should oppose giving rights to gay couples as I think it really just serves no purpose other than to make life harder for those involved which is never a good thing. Being a christian though, I do have issues with redefining what marriage itself actually is since I think that definition comes from God himself and I cannot tell could what "is" and what "isnt" regarding his creation. So, im against "redefining" but Im certainly not against "equal rights" with regards to same sex couples. Having some personal experience with seeing the horrible effects of the death of somebody within a same sex household and the complete lack of recognition of this person's surviving partner has really helped solidify my position on this matter with regards to equal rights among couples.....regardless of sex.
Sorry for the grammar issues above. Should have proofread that one
I've never have understood the argument wrt the mere definition of the word marriage. The institution and forms of marriage have certainly change over the centuries. And if you need a Biblical reference you only have to see the change from polygamy to monogamy. Some of the objections seem to come from the fear that some minister is going to be forced to perform a wedding ceremony that goes against his beliefs but this strikes me as unfounded because, afaik, no minister has ever been forced to perform a heterosexual marriage. And, again afaik, no one has ever been forced to attend a wedding (shotgun weddings and family pressure aside.)(BTW, not that it really matters to the discussion, but I also have a negative visceral reaction to the sight of two guy kissing but, as I see it, that is my personal problem, not theirs.)
@jdhuey: Please remember that the Bible records history as well as establishing doctrine. The polygamy that you refer to in scripture is nothing more than history. It is recorded as having happened, but never approved by God. On the contrary, scripture is very clear that "one man, one woman, 'till death do they part" was the only form of marriage that God ordained.And speaking as a life-long resident of Louisiana, I think that Mr. Pitt would have a very good chance of winning the election with his stated platform: “I'm running on the gay marriage, no religion, legalization and taxation of marijuana platform.” I wouldn't vote for him, but he would probably win.