Obama Backs Gay Marriage

[His Name Is John]

Probably old news to most here, but as no one else was discussing it, I thought I might bring it up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102

I think the 'gay marriage' issue is different to the 'is homosexuality moral' issue. In England most people don't really have a problem with homosexuals, and support civil-unions, however recently when our Prime Minister brought up trying to push through gay marriage, there was a huge backlash from all parties and many within the gay community.

This seems to be a risky move by Obama, and it will be interesting to see if a similar backlash happens in the USA as it did in England.

Discussion: Is this Obama pandering for votes? Is it going to do more harm to his presidential re-election campaign than good? Should gay marriage be legal? What about civil unions?

[Haven]

The rejection of homosexuality and LGBT rights is probably the biggest problem I have with many theistic versions of the Christian religion. If Christian theism is true, then God created gay people, well, gay. It seems absurd for God to tell them that being who he created them to be is sinful and that they must somehow become straight (which from all scientific studies appears impossible). This lowers the probability of Christian theism in my opinion.

Also, this is a secular nation; religion cannot be the basis for any law. Obama is in the right in this case. It seems far too many use their religion as an excuse to promote state-sanctioned discrimination.

[His Name Is John]

The rejection of homosexuality and LGBT rights is probably the biggest problem I have with many theistic versions of the Christian religion.

For most people who I have spoken to who think this, it seems to me like their problem with the Chirstian teaching is like a largely emotional problem, rather than a logical one. Now I don't know if this is the case with you, but just my past experience.

If Christian theism is true, then God created gay people, well, gay.

What gave you that idea?

It seems absurd for God to tell them that being who he created them to be is sinful and that they must somehow become straight (which from all scientific studies appears impossible).

The Catholic Church does not teach that.

Most Christian's don't teach that either, they say their homosexual actions are wrong, not that they must become straight and have heterosexual relationships.

This lowers the probability of Christian theism in my opinion.

Any reason why?

Also, this is a secular nation; religion cannot be the basis for any law. Obama is in the right in this case. It seems far too many use their religion as an excuse to promote state-sanctioned discrimination.

What do you mean by 'religion cannot be the basis for any law'?

Presumably you don't mean that you can't make a law based upon a religious foundation...

Could you please elaborate?

I look forward to your response

[Slopeshoulder]

Sounds good.

Now please tell me:
- what is the source of these absolute objective moral values?

God.

- what are they?

Too numerous to list.

- where do they exist?

In the will of God.

- how do we get access to them?

Looking at the Bible and natural law theory.

- upon what basis should others agree?
- who decides?

In answer to both these questions I will refer you back to the post you are replying to:

This is a very good point. With so many different people of different religions all claiming to 'know God's law', how can you distinguish between them? Each of them truly think they are the exception. Each truly believe they are right.

I guess the individuals must work within the confines of a democracy, and even if they continue holding their views about what is objectively right / wrong, they simply vote according to those views. It is the only workable system.

- is agreement voluntary, or is it imposed? by whom? under what authority?

Voluntary.

- what is your meta-ethical theory, and its supporting epistemology? How does this translate to granular proscriptions, partuclarly regarding gender, genitalia and marriage?

Let me get back to you on this. It is a long time since I have looked at meta-ethical theories (I find it extremely boring, even though I understand their importance).

Until I get satisfactory answers, and ones that contradicts the religious and civil tendencies toward love and inclusion, I'm going to favor freedom, libery, and individual choice.

I am simply saying what I believe, not that you have to agree with me.

I understand how this must look to atheists, and as such I don't expect you to understand or see any reason to believe what I do. But it is my view, and I am just trying to be honest.

OK, in other words, faith. Which you are free to believe. But you have no universal verification for that would prove it to other people. (And presumably you acknowledge that Christians can debate some of the details)
But are you not also advocating for imposing these beliefs and criteria on the law of the land as absolutes? I have no problem if you vote your conscience and beliefs, but we can't have laws that have as their jutification faith beliefs and then impose that on others. Not in America at least.

[His Name Is John]

OK, in other words, faith. Which you are free to believe. But you have no universal verification for that would prove it to other people. (And presumably you acknowledge that Christians can debate some of the details)

Yes, I think faith is a key point.

But are you not also advocating for imposing these beliefs and criteria on the law of the land as absolutes?

The 'absolute' description of the moral laws would only exist within my own mind, the mind of other Christians and in the mind of God (or so I believe).

I have no problem if you vote your conscience and beliefs, but we can't have laws that have as their jutification faith beliefs and then impose that on others.

Not in America at least.

What do you mean when you say impose?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Being homosexual means that you will be much less likely to have a long term relationship, and you are much more likely to have STD's. Now gay marriage isn't really changing this, but the fact is if homosexuality is wrong (and harmful) why legally recognisee it as being ok?

Homosexuality is already legally recognized as being ok. The legal issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with STDs or relationship length. Legally recognizing it would likely have the eventual effect (cumulative with other LGBT rights advances) of reducing bigotry over time. Less gay teenagers committing suicide, that sort of thing. Seems like a good thing to me.

The homophobic Christians will get over it eventually (or just gradually die off), just like the racist Christians did with interracial marriage and the pro-slavery Christians did with the abolition of slavery. Christianity is fairly good at evolving on issues like this, it just tends to take a really long time.

Of course gay marriage should be legal, at least in a supposedly secular society, as there is no secular reason to oppose its legality. I don't see this hurting Obama, it's not like people who support LGBT rights will vote against him for "pandering" - what are they going to do, vote Republican and risk setting their cause back a presidential term? And it seems to me if you're so opposed to LGBT rights that it influences your presidential vote you're probably not a big Obama fan already.

[His Name Is John]

Homosexuality is already legally recognized as being ok. The legal issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with STDs or relationship length. Legally recognizing it would likely have the eventual effect (cumulative with other LGBT rights advances) of reducing bigotry over time. Less gay teenagers committing suicide, that sort of thing. Seems like a good thing to me.

Of course, I think it is tragic when looking at the number of gay teenagers who kill themselves. But I think the issue is to then help those feeling suicidal, and better educate Christians to love other people, rather than hate them.

The homophobic Christians will get over it eventually (or just gradually die off), just like the racist Christians did with interracial marriage and the pro-slavery Christians did with the abolition of slavery. Christianity is fairly good at evolving on issues like this, it just tends to take a really long time.

I think the USA always had a rather odd thing with slavery, it went on far longer than it did in the majority of the western world. In England it is different. The person who is largely considered responsible for ending the slave trade was a Christian, doing what he did because he thought it was what God wanted.

Slavery and racism are different issues anyway. Racism is the thing homophobia (which is a poor use of the word in anycase) is often compared with, so I will show why they are different.

Racism is hate of another person because of their race (something they have no control over). I believe this is wrong.

If someone hated another person because of their sexual orientation (something they have little-to-no control over) I would also thing it is wrong.

The difference between the two is one we hate the act, which they have a free choice if they are going to commit or not, the other is hate no matter what they do, and how they live.

Racism is never encouraged in the New Testament, while St. Paul openly condemns homosexuality, claiming:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality" (Corinthians 1 6:9-10)

There are several other passages within both Old and New Testament, mentioning homosexuality, and on every occasion it is also condemned.

Of course gay marriage should be legal, at least in a supposedly secular society, as there is no secular reason to oppose its legality.

Perhaps. I think there are several reasons against gay marriage that hold up. Think of one of the most famous gay-rights campaigners in the UK, Peter Tatchell. I read an article a couple of weeks ago saying that he was against same-sex-marriage. His reason? It would make homosexuals have more rights than heterosexuals, as he they could choose to have a civil-partnership or get married, while heterosexuals cannot.

I don't see this hurting Obama, it's not like people who support LGBT rights will vote against him for "pandering" - what are they going to do, vote Republican and risk setting their cause back a presidential term? And it seems to me if you're so opposed to LGBT rights that it influences your presidential vote you're probably not a big Obama fan already.

I think it will hurt Obama, not because the LGBT community will vote against him, but those who are against homosexuality, but voted for Obama last election my switch sides.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The homophobic Christians will get over it eventually (or just gradually die off), just like the racist Christians did with interracial marriage and the pro-slavery Christians did with the abolition of slavery. Christianity is fairly good at evolving on issues like this, it just tends to take a really long time.

I think the USA always had a rather odd thing with slavery, it went on far longer than it did in the majority of the western world. In England it is different. The person who is largely considered responsible for ending the slave trade was a Christian, doing what he did because he thought it was what God wanted.

Yes, it took Christians a mere 1800 years to do away with slavery. That's what I mean by a really long time.

Slavery and racism are different issues anyway. Racism is the thing homophobia (which is a poor use of the word in anycase) is often compared with, so I will show why they are different.

Racism is hate of another person because of their race (something they have no control over). I believe this is wrong.

If someone hated another person because of their sexual orientation (something they have little-to-no control over) I would also thing it is wrong.

The difference between the two is one we hate the act, which they have a free choice if they are going to commit or not, the other is hate no matter what they do, and how they live.

So you don't hate the person, you just hate it when they don't suppress who they are. Kind of like if you don't have people of other races, you just hate it when they try to breed with your race.

Racism is never encouraged in the New Testament, while St. Paul openly condemns homosexuality, claiming:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality" (Corinthians 1 6:9-10)

There are several other passages within both Old and New Testament, mentioning homosexuality, and on every occasion it is also condemned.

It is unfortunate that such bigotry is present in your holy book, but I suppose it is somewhat fortunate that other types of bigotry are confined to the earlier chapters. I don't see this as much of an obstacle, though, just another set of biblical passages that Christians by large won't take seriously anymore as more weight is given to other passages and teachings more acceptable to modern society.

Of course gay marriage should be legal, at least in a supposedly secular society, as there is no secular reason to oppose its legality.

Perhaps. I think there are several reasons against gay marriage that hold up. Think of one of the most famous gay-rights campaigners in the UK, Peter Tatchell. I read an article a couple of weeks ago saying that he was against same-sex-marriage. His reason? It would make homosexuals have more rights than heterosexuals, as he they could choose to have a civil-partnership or get married, while heterosexuals cannot.

What's the difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage in the UK? Wouldn't having same-sex civil marriages eliminate the need for civil partnerships making this a rather silly argument?

I don't see this hurting Obama, it's not like people who support LGBT rights will vote against him for "pandering" - what are they going to do, vote Republican and risk setting their cause back a presidential term? And it seems to me if you're so opposed to LGBT rights that it influences your presidential vote you're probably not a big Obama fan already.

I think it will hurt Obama, not because the LGBT community will vote against him, but those who are against homosexuality, but voted for Obama last election my switch sides.

Again, I just find it hard to believe anyone that strongly against LGBT rights would have voted for Obama in the first place. It's not like there's some huge block of Democrat supporters who were suddenly shocked to hear that Obama was in favour of gay marriage the other day. But who knows, America is a strange place.

[Haven]

John, what leads you to believe that one can change her sexuality? I've known enough gay people to know that is not the case. The fact that it is an inborn, immutable trait leads logically to the conclusion that, if theism is true, God designed it.

Additionally, the fact that God would punish someone for having the sexuality with which God created him seems logically absurd.

[His Name Is John]

John, what leads you to believe that one can change her sexuality?

I never said someone can change their sexuality. I actually said almost the opposite:

The Catholic Church does not teach that.

Most Christian's don't teach that either, they say their homosexual actions are wrong, not that they must become straight and have heterosexual relationships.

However, I do know two different people who were homosexual and have since abandoned their homosexuality (after a lot of psychological work and prayer) and are both now happily married with several kids.

I've known enough gay people to know that is not the case.

Even so, I didn't say that it was the case.

The fact that it is an inborn, immutable trait leads logically to the conclusion that, if theism is true, God designed it.

Lets slow down here. There are two points I disagree with:

1. Homosexuals are born that way

This may be the case, but the evidence is hardly conclusive. There is no evidence for a 'gay gene' within humans. In fact, we know it isn't purely genetic. There is however evidence that it is a psychological issue.

The whole 'born that way' is a myth. Yet most people think that it is a proven fact.

2. God must have designed homosexuality if homosexuals were born that way

This is a view many non-believers have, but it isn't really shared by any religions.

I don't see why if someone was born in a certain way, that meant God designed them to be like that. We don't believe God picks all our physical and mental attributes. Things are passed down, genetic mutations take place.

We don't think that with disability, or those with mental problems, that God designed them like that, so why do we think it is the case with homosexuality?

Now all problems of this sort Christians would say are a result of sin. As without the fall, there would be no genetic mutations etc. there would be no sickness and no death.

Additionally, the fact that God would punish someone for having the sexuality with which God created him seems logically absurd.

Haven, I didn't say that either.

I don't think I could have made myself more clear in this thread that I do not believe it is morally wrong to be attracted to your own gender, however it is wrong if you act upon it.

Love the person, hate the sin.

[Quath]

I don't like the "born this way" argument or the "natural" argument because I see them as having logical fallacies if you dig deep enough into them.

For example, some people are born with no or little empathy for others which could lead them into becoming serial killers. We shouldn't conclude that God doesn't want for them to feel empathy or that serial killers are acceptable.

The "natural" argument takes two forms: "if it is natural, it is inherently good" or "if animals do it naturally, then it is not a bad thing." In the first case, e coli is natural , but we don't consider it good. In the second case, animals will eat their offspring and we don;t think it is good.

I think a better reason to support homosexuality is that it doesn't hurt anyone and it makes these people happy. I don't need a nature vs nurture when this is good enough.

This is just one of the weird things that faith has taken a dogmatic stance on. And it is really hurting the religion. My daughter tells me about a lot of her friends in high school are hostile to Christianity because of the strong anti-homosexual stance many Christians have taken. They usually know 2 or 3 gay or bi people and they see them as friends. So to them, Christianity is coming across as a bully trying to hurt their friends.

If Christianity stands its ground on this, it will shrink to small cults long term. But that will not happen. Christians will "see the light" and accept homosexuality and move on to the next dogmatic thing.. maybe polygamy or robo-human marriages or whatever.