One of the common objections that I see to gay marriage is that it "demeans marriage". I hate to tell folks who use this argument this, but if that is truly the issue that they're worried about, then they should be focusing their efforts on all these heterosexual people who get divorced and who commit adultery, not on gay people who want their unions to be recognized as legitimate marriages...
I completely agree.
throughout all of history, long before Christians came into the picture, there has never been a society that allowed homosexual marriage
Actually, IIRC, there were cultures that had a tradition of shamans dressing and acting as the opposite gender, and marrying a person of the same sex (i.e. same as their birth sex). But, like I said, that was for people who lived as a gender different from their birth sex, so those marriages were still "hetero", in a way - more a matter of sanctioned transsexuality than of sanctioned homosexuality.
"Fundamentalist" Buddhists, for one, tend to be that way. I was a fundamentalist Buddhist for six years before I became a Christian (again), so this I know for a fact.
So no one can tell me that this is just a case of Christians trying to impose their morality on other people and have me believe it because I know for a fact and from personal experience that it simply isn't true.
I know that, actually. Hare Krishnas, for instance (I have some experience with them), are also anti-homosexuality. Only with them, it's less a matter of being anti-gay in particular, and more a matter of being against any and all sex-for-pleasure (as opposed to "sex solely for procreation"), which of course includes gay sex by default. But most heterosexual couples - even most heterosexual married couples - are just as sinful by their standards.
The more cynical part of me also suspects that people tend to gravitate towards the religious teachings that are in line with the bigotry they already have. If people are homophobic for whatever reason, they'll lap up the whole "God hates fags" ideology. If they are sexist, they'll lap up the whole "wife should be in submission" stuff. But they probably would've been homophobic/sexist/kumquat even without the religion; the religion just gave them an extra justification. Though IME, people who believe to have a religious justification tend to be particularly uncompromising about their convictions, because then there's that whole "I have to do that and believe that to please God" and "if I don't do that, my whole family will go to hell" hovering over their heads. If God is important to someone, that's a tough thing to go against, I can understand as much.
I completely agree.
throughout all of history, long before Christians came into the picture, there has never been a society that allowed homosexual marriage
Actually, IIRC, there were cultures that had a tradition of shamans dressing and acting as the opposite gender, and marrying a person of the same sex (i.e. same as their birth sex). But, like I said, that was for people who lived as a gender different from their birth sex, so those marriages were still "hetero", in a way - more a matter of sanctioned transsexuality than of sanctioned homosexuality.
"Fundamentalist" Buddhists, for one, tend to be that way. I was a fundamentalist Buddhist for six years before I became a Christian (again), so this I know for a fact.
So no one can tell me that this is just a case of Christians trying to impose their morality on other people and have me believe it because I know for a fact and from personal experience that it simply isn't true.
I know that, actually. Hare Krishnas, for instance (I have some experience with them), are also anti-homosexuality. Only with them, it's less a matter of being anti-gay in particular, and more a matter of being against any and all sex-for-pleasure (as opposed to "sex solely for procreation"), which of course includes gay sex by default. But most heterosexual couples - even most heterosexual married couples - are just as sinful by their standards.
The more cynical part of me also suspects that people tend to gravitate towards the religious teachings that are in line with the bigotry they already have. If people are homophobic for whatever reason, they'll lap up the whole "God hates fags" ideology. If they are sexist, they'll lap up the whole "wife should be in submission" stuff. But they probably would've been homophobic/sexist/kumquat even without the religion; the religion just gave them an extra justification. Though IME, people who believe to have a religious justification tend to be particularly uncompromising about their convictions, because then there's that whole "I have to do that and believe that to please God" and "if I don't do that, my whole family will go to hell" hovering over their heads. If God is important to someone, that's a tough thing to go against, I can understand as much.
Reply
Leave a comment