Gay marriage

[Stick]

Yes, it's another one of "these threads". Although, I'm keen to explore another aspect of the discussion.

It has been widely reported that Generation Y are extremely supportive of gay marriage - some sources have even claimed that two thirds of this population are in favour of it. I'd like to see what your insight is on this issue, but also to see whether your background (encompassing your religion and ethnicity) has a significant effect on your viewpoint. If you don't mind, please answer the poll above and if you'd like, leave your thoughts below.

[Russ]

Sure, why not.

I don't care what you say in this thread, but you will say it in a manner that befits a discussion.

[slothpomba]

Maybe it cause im into philosophy or whatever but these questions aren't exact mirrors of each-other  .

(1) Support gay marriage + background has "no specific view"

(2) Support gay marriage + background is "against gay marriage"

(3) Dont support gay marriage + background has "no specific view"

(4) Don't support gay marriage + background is "against gay marriage"

Putting aside questions of whether it is actually right or wrong,  one seems to assume that you have a background thats actively "against gay marriage" and some would label that a hateful upbringing but the other is a much more milder version, a wishy washy "no-specific views" which is fine but its no mirror of the first option.  That would be having a background "in favour of gay marriage". A lot of people might be "against gay marriage" because of their upbringing and parents and they never put a personal thought into it themselves but i cant see why the same isn't logically true for some people who are "in favour of gay marriage".

[ShortBlackChick]

I dont really think that background in terms of ethnicity and religion has to do with determining ones opinion towards gay marriage. The was I see it is that its not like religions and ethnicities have specifically outlined in their teachings that marriage between and man and a man and a woman and a woman is wrong. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong if there is a detailed disapproval against gay marriage in religious scriptures and if I am just purely ignorant to the teachings of some religions, but to my knowledge such teachings only go forth and specify what a marriage is eg. a union between Adam and Eve. But it does not go as far as to prohibiting gay marriage.

The point I am trying to make is that in the end it depends on YOUR own understanding and perception of the teachings of your religion that determines your views towards gay marriage, as it does towards any topics of debate. For example, whilst the conditions of a loving union is specified, Jesus also goes to say in The Gospels

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

A Christian can make whatever decision as to what implication they believe towards the issue of gay marriage as there is not a strict prohibitation against it.

I myself am a Buddhist, and to my knowledge The Buddha did not ever say that he was against Gay Marriage. In terms of sexuality he was against monks having any sexual thoughts and partaking in sexual actions, but for non-clergy the only specification he gave was in the Five Precepts where he advised buddhists not to partake in 'sexual misconduct' but did not go as far as to define what this misconduct is. So it is up to us, as buddhists to come up with our own belief of what such misconduct is.

Just my opinion, because I'm finding it hard to answer the poll because I cant figure out my religion and backgrounds' disposition for gay marriage.

EDIT: I probably shouldnt have gone so far as generalising that its the same for all religions, but in my case, I'm confused.

[psyxwar]

I dont really think that background in terms of ethnicity and religion has to do with determining ones opinion towards gay marriage. The was I see it is that its not like religions and ethnicities have specifically outlined in their teachings that marriage between and man and a man and a woman and a woman is wrong. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong if there is a detailed disapproval against gay marriage in religious scriptures and if I am just purely ignorant to the teachings of some religions, but to my knowledge such teachings only go forth and specify what a marriage is eg. a union between Adam and Eve. But it does not go as far as to prohibiting gay marriage.

The point I am trying to make is that in the end it depends on YOUR own understanding and perception of the teachings of your religion that determines your views towards gay marriage, as it does towards any topics of debate. For example, whilst the conditions of a loving union is specified, Jesus also goes to say in The Gospels

A Christian can make whatever decision as to what implication they believe towards the issue of gay marriage as there is not a strict prohibitation against it.

I myself am a Buddhist, and to my knowledge The Buddha did not ever say that he was against Gay Marriage. In terms of sexuality he was against monks having any sexual thoughts and partaking in sexual actions, but for non-clergy the only specification he gave was in the Five Precepts where he advised buddhists not to partake in 'sexual misconduct' but did not go as far as to define what this misconduct is. So it is up to us, as buddhists to come up with our own belief of what such misconduct is.

Just my opinion, because I'm finding it hard to answer the poll because I cant figure out my religion and backgrounds' disposition for gay marriage.

EDIT: I probably shouldnt have gone so far as generalising that its the same for all religions, but in my case, I'm confused.

The Old Testament is definitely very ant-gay (it isn't a matter of interpretation either, it's pretty clear cut): Leviticus 20:13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." I'm not too sure about the New Testament though.

Some religions have definite, anti-homosexual bits in their texts, but that doesn't necessarily mean all followers adhere to it. The Bible prohibits a lot of things and ultimately it'd be pretty silly to follow everything it says in today's society.

[abeybaby]

psyxwar - The old testament is called the old testament because its.... the old way of living. Many christian traditions come from the old testament, but teaching/doctrine is from the New Testament. As ShortBlackChick said, a commandment to love one another obviously means just that - but that loving someone doesn't mean that you support their actions. Christ kept the company of prostitutes and thieves, He loved them, but He didn't support prostitution or theft. In the same way, the Bible teaches to love homosexuals, but that doesn't imply that it supports gay marriage.

My personal opinion is that I cannot support gay marriage - but i have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to impose my morals on the rest of society through law. Because of this, I think gay marriage should be legal, but Churches should not be forced to conduct gay marriages (they can if theyre okay with it, but shouldn't have to if they're not).

[psyxwar]

psyxwar - The old testament is called the old testament because its.... the old way of living. Many christian traditions come from the old testament, but teaching/doctrine is from the New Testament. As ShortBlackChick said, a commandment to love one another obviously means just that - but that loving someone doesn't mean that you support their actions. Christ kept the company of prostitutes and thieves, He loved them, but He didn't support prostitution or theft. In the same way, the Bible teaches to love homosexuals, but that doesn't imply that it supports gay marriage.

My personal opinion is that I cannot support gay marriage - but i have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to impose my morals on the rest of society through law. Because of this, I think gay marriage should be legal, but Churches should not be forced to conduct gay marriages (they can if theyre okay with it, but shouldn't have to if they're not).

I thought that Judaism still uses the Old Testament? I'm pretty sure the book of Leviticus is in the Torah anyway.

But that's beside the point. I see what you mean and agree -- you're entitled to your own beliefs, but forcing them upon others is wrong, especially if it affects their own rights. Might I ask why you hold such an opinion though? Religious reasons?

[BigAl]

One word 7 letters: Freedom

[slothpomba]

In before religious shitstorm...

I dont really think that background in terms of ethnicity and religion has to do with determining ones opinion towards gay marriage.

Probably more in terms of culture of that ethnicity, i reckon it is at least partially true. It's not as if looking brown or asian will predispose you towards anything of course but growing up in any kind of culture will predispose you to all sorts of things. I don't mean your background, maybe having asian parents or something will predispose you to a whole bunch of things, maybe not but moreso than that is the culture where you grow up. We've all been influenced by Australian culture where there are gay couples on TV and its generally accepted, i reckon that plays some role in influencing how we think about it. Likewise, there are some cultures that would be the opposite and the contrary is true.

I'd be very careful to pin it all on religion. There are plenty of countries that are barely religious, especially former communist bloc countries like China and Russia were religion is very low but homosexuality is still looked down upon heavily. Calling yourself a Christian or Buddhist hardly makes you one if you never do anything related to it. I know people who are only very nominally religious but still don't approve of these kind of things.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong if there is a detailed disapproval against gay marriage in religious scriptures and if I am just purely ignorant to the teachings of some religions, but to my knowledge such teachings only go forth and specify what a marriage is eg. a union between Adam and Eve. But it does not go as far as to prohibiting gay marriage.

Such a concept didn't exist 2000+ years ago in Palestine, its why the scriptures also say nothing about IVF, cocaine or hoverboards. Thats why its not disapproved of, so, don't take silence as a agreement, silence is just that, silence. It's neutral. Being homosexual is definitely not a sin though.

A Christian can make whatever decision as to what implication they believe towards the issue of gay marriage as there is not a strict prohibitation against it.

I think this is a great point, it really is up to you what you want to believe. There are plenty of Christian denominations that are still true believers and have no problem with it. If you want to be against it, you'll find a way, if you want to be in favour of it, you'll find a way.

[abeybaby]

A part of me tells me it's unnatural - that it doesn't make sense.. It's not the way things are intended to be (whether by nature, or deity). So it's something that I would never do.
But that doesn't apply to everyone, so YOU should be able to choose whatever YOU want, and as for me, I don't want to be gay, and I don't believe that I could ever 'discover' that I'm gay. I'd have to DECIDE to be gay. But who am I to stop someone else who decides/discovers they're gay (I know some people feel like they did discover their homosexuality, but I can't ever imagine how it could be a natural process. Other animals aren't gay. If any species all turned gay it would die out. That's why I can't agree that it's a discovery - to me, it's a decision)

EDIT: yes, judaism does go by the Torah (first 5 books of the OT) because they don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, so yes, these first 5 books are the basis of Judaism

[brenden]

My personal opinion is that I cannot support gay marriage - but i have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to impose my morals on the rest of society through law. Because of this, I think gay marriage should be legal, but Churches should not be forced to conduct gay marriages (they can if theyre okay with it, but shouldn't have to if they're not).

I respect this a lot, even though I disagree with you.

A part of me tells me it's unnatural - that it doesn't make sense.. It's not the way things are intended to be (whether by nature, or deity). So it's something that I would never do.
But that doesn't apply to everyone, so YOU should be able to choose whatever YOU want, and as for me, I don't want to be gay, and I don't believe that I could ever 'discover' that I'm gay. I'd have to DECIDE to be gay. But who am I to stop someone else who decides/discovers they're gay (I know some people feel like they did discover their homosexuality, but I can't ever imagine how it could be a natural process. Other animals aren't gay. If any species all turned gay it would die out. That's why I can't agree that it's a discovery - to me, it's a decision)

Well, you can't imagine choosing to be gay, right? But that's from your default of hetero. You never made a conscious decision to be straight, right? I certainly didn't. But would it be fair to say you discovered heterosexuality at the same time you discovered sexuality? It does not make logical sense to me that anyone would ever choose to be gay... I'd taken it as a matter of course that sexuality wasn't a choice (although I suppose you could make a concerted effort to choose, but I'd assume that would be very uncomfortable)

[slothpomba]

The Old Testament is definitely very ant-gay (it isn't a matter of interpretation either, it's pretty clear cut): Leviticus 20:13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." I'm not too sure about the New Testament though.

Some religions have definite, anti-homosexual bits in their texts, but that doesn't necessarily mean all followers adhere to it. The Bible prohibits a lot of things and ultimately it'd be pretty silly to follow everything it says in today's society.

The old testament is meant for one group of people, the ancient Jews who inhabited Israel. If you have any serious knowledge of biblical scholarship and aren't just cherry picking bad looking lines, i'm sure you'd know this. Many of those punishments, like capital punishment for reasons like this, are suspended in the absence of a proper Jewish religious court (Sanhedrin), even then, the evidence for these things was so strict that it was almost impossible to enforce properly. The old testament as little affect on Christianity in particular because it was replaced by a new covenant with God (the old testament was a covenant between the Jews and God) and most of the old laws were abrogated.

You can't just cherry pick a single line and pretend to be a historical, juristic and religious expert all of a sudden and know everything from that sole line.

According to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 1:4) the death penalty could only be inflicted, after  trial, by a Sanhedrin composed of twenty-three judges and there were four types of death penalty (Sanhedrin 7:1): stoning, burning, slaying (by the sword), and strangling. A bare reading of these and the other accounts in the tractate would seem to suggest a vast proliferation of the death penalty. Yet, throughout the Talmudic literature, this whole subject is viewed with unease, so much so that according to the rules stated in that literature the death penalty could hardly ever have been imposed.

For instance, it is ruled that two witnesses are required to testify not only that they witnessed the act for which the criminal has been charged but that they had warned him beforehand that if he carried out the act he would be executed, and he had to accept the warning, stating his willingness to commit the act despite his awareness of its consequences. The criminal's own confession is not accepted as evidence. Moreover, circumstantial evidence is not admitted.

....

That the Mishnaic material is purely on the theoretical level can be seen from the oft-quoted statement (Mishnah Makkot 1:10): "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says: they would have multiplied shedders of blood in Israel."

.....

Once the matter was discussed on a purely theoretical basis the gruesome details could be described in all their starkness while, at the same time, restrictions could be piled on in order to make the death penalty virtually impossible. In practice it became illegal for a Jewish court to impose the death penalty.

....

The remarks of Rabbi Isaac Herzog (1888-1959) in an article on Sanhedrin published in 1932 are worth noting. Herzog begins: "I have often heard it remarked that the restoration of the Jewish State in accordance with Jewish law would isolate the Jewish people from the modern civilized world; for the Hebrew penal code includes the death-penalty for purely religious offences such as the willful desecration of the Sabbath, etc." Herzog, quoting the material mentioned above and other Talmudic sources which make the re-establishment of the Sanhedrin dependent on the rebuilding of the Temple in the Messianic age, demonstrates in his reply that until the advent of the Messiah it is illegal to impose the death penalty for any offence, even for murder. There follows this statement:

"The difficulty in question is therefore a matter which could only arise in the Messianic age and need not enter into any practical calculations affecting the reconstitution of the Jewish State in Palestine. But, of course, in view of the actual position the idea of a Jewish State in Palestine (as distinct from a National Home), quite irrespective of the restoration of the Temple, is, in itself, rather a Messianic hope than a question of practical politics."

Source

I'd be careful as referring to it as this:

I thought that Judaism still uses the Old Testament? I'm pretty sure the book of Leviticus is in the Torah anyway.

It can be taken as offensive. It adopts the view that the Christian bible with its old and new testaments must be the only right thing and the Jewish scripture is just plain wrong. The old testament is their only testament, it's their only God given holy book. It's not some old, superseded document for Jews, it is the document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One word 7 letters: Freedom

That's a real bad argument. Do i have the freedom to do surgery without a license? Do i have the freedom to walk into your house and steal your stuff? Of course not. There is no truely free society, laws exist to remove freedoms from us which we otherwise would have in a natural state with no government. No one wants total freedom and no laws, the question here is more where should be draw the line on issues.

[Lolly]

I dont really think that background in terms of ethnicity and religion has to do with determining ones opinion towards gay marriage. The was I see it is that its not like religions and ethnicities have specifically outlined in their teachings that marriage between and man and a man and a woman and a woman is wrong. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong if there is a detailed disapproval against gay marriage in religious scriptures and if I am just purely ignorant to the teachings of some religions, but to my knowledge such teachings only go forth and specify what a marriage is eg. a union between Adam and Eve. But it does not go as far as to prohibiting gay marriage.

EDIT: I probably shouldnt have gone so far as generalising that its the same for all religions, but in my case, I'm confused.

There are six verses in the Bible which specifically address homosexuality.
It's also most prominent in Romans Chapter 1  - it's not even a subtle hint. The rejection of homosexuality is spelt out pretty clearly. 

 As for me, I'm still trying to make sense of it all.

If I were to say that I didn't support gay marriage, I would be labeled a bigot and a zealot. To be honest, though, this is a stereotype perpetuated by the ugly words of certain individuals in the extreme right. Most people don't think like that at all. The Christians I know who reject homosexuality have compassion and respect for gay people. They regard homosexuality as a sin akin to greed, hatred, or lust. These are flaws that every single person possesses and one should not be held above another - nor should any stigma be attached to a homosexual person.  That's the line of thought i have heard among my friends, anyway.
 

a commandment to love one another obviously means just that - but that loving someone doesn't mean that you support their actions. Christ kept the company of prostitutes and thieves, He loved them, but He didn't support prostitution or theft. In the same way, the Bible teaches to love homosexuals, but that doesn't imply that it supports gay marriage.

Basically, this.


However, if I were to say that I did support gay marriage ( And many of my Christian friends also support gay marriage) It would be on account of the fact that  I really do feel for gay people who have been ostracised or misunderstood, especially in the church. It would be an extremely difficult position to be a gay person in the church, to remain alone for the rest of their lives because homosexual relationships are not permitted and same sex unions are not blessed by the clergy. I think that homosexual people feel alienated by the church and this is an issue that must be addressed.

[brenden]

So you're unsure if you support gay marriage, Loz?

[Professor Polonsky]

Marry me, kingpomba?

Okay, some necessary background on Leviticus. The oft-cited Leviticus 20:13 is part of a Parshah (the weekly Torah reading) named Kedoshim. Kedoshim is especially interesting for including what is quite possibly the strictest text and the most, uh, 'hippy' text in what is the strictest Torah book. According to the Documentary Hypothesis, Leviticus (as we know it today) was largely written by Jewish priests, or Kohanim during the Babylonian exile. According to this Priestly source, God is very much interested in rituals and laws, as well as being "distant and unmerciful". Some contend that it was only meant to apply to the Priests themselves when written.

Back to Kedoshim. Kedoshim combines some of the strictest text in the Torah, together with some of the most caring. Leviticus 19:9-18.

9. When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not fully reap the corner of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest.
10. And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you collect the [fallen] individual grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. I am the Lord, your God.
11. You shall not steal. You shall not deny falsely. You shall not lie, one man to his fellow.
12. You shall not swear falsely by My Name, thereby profaning the Name of your God. I am the Lord.
13. You shall not oppress your fellow. You shall not rob. The hired worker's wage shall not remain with you overnight until morning.
14. You shall not curse a deaf person. You shall not place a stumbling block before a blind person, and you shall fear your God. I am the Lord.     
15. You shall commit no injustice in judgment; you shall not favor a poor person or respect a great man; you shall judge your fellow with righteousness.
16. You shall not go around as a gossipmonger amidst your people. You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow's blood. I am the Lord. :
17. You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your fellow, but you shall not bear a sin on his account.
18. You shall neither take revenge from nor bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

And from there on, most of the Parshah are the commandments which people like to recite - no shaving, no tattoos, no having it up the butt with another guy. So let's skip to the interesting bits - Leviticus 20:8-22.

8. And you shall observe My statutes and fulfill them. I am the Lord, Who sanctifies you.
9. For any man who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon himself.
10. And a man who commits adultery with [another] man's wife, committing adultery with the wife of his fellow the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11. And a man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves.
12. And a man who lies with his daughter in law both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed a depravity; their blood is upon themselves.
13. And a man who lies with a male as one would with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves.
14. And a man who takes a woman and her mother it is evil counsel. They shall burn him and them in fire, and there shall be no evil counsel in your midst.
15. And a man who lies with an animal, shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.
16. And a woman who comes close to any animal so that it will mate with her you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves.
17. And a man who takes his sister, whether his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, and he sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness it is a disgraceful act, and they shall be cut off before the eyes of the members of their people; he uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his sin.
18. And a man who lies with a woman who has a flow, and he uncovers her nakedness he has bared her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from the midst of their people.
19. And you shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or your father's sister, for he would be baring his close relative; they shall bear their sin.
20. And a man who lies with his aunt he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their transgression; they shall die childless.
21. And a man who takes his brother's wife it is a repulsive act; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
22. And you shall observe all My statutes and all My ordinances, and fulfill them, then the Land, to which I am bringing you to dwell therein, will not vomit you out.

So those are a whole lot of verses dealing with sexual misconduct, with the punishment for (almost) every case being killing the participants. Exile is also an option for some. These include having sex while on your period, adultery, bestiality, many different cases of incest, and two guys going at it.

Now, here is the interesting bit. Some say that these are simply cases of sexual misconduct, and all are equally bad. Others contend that these are not allowed because usually there is some sort of abuse going on, with the male being in an authoritative position over the female. Same-sex relationships at the time were usually a master and his servant, and therefore are also disallowed.

Now, as for how this all relates to the same-sex marriage argument. We allow people who commit adultery to later marry their lover, right? But the prohibiting verses are almost identical! Compare verses 10 and 13. And I don't see anyone suggesting we should go around punishing women who have sex on their periods... So why are we taking this one verse and glorifying it, holding it to be so important, while ignoring the other ones?

My own personal position? I don't see anything morally wrong with homosexuality or homosexual conduct, but even if I did, it's still not any of one's business. There is no rational reason for a State to disallow same-sex marriages. In order to deny equal treatment to a group of people, you need a very strong reason to do so (not Constitutionally in Australia, but things should certainly still operate this way).