Sci Phi Journal

First up i'd like to thank Maria for participating in this discussion and I hope it is fruitful, it should be interesting if nothing else.

Now as anybody that has listened to The Sci Phi Show knows, i'm a Protestant Christian and a conservative one. So the fact that I oppose same-sex marriage laws should not really be surprising, I also disagree with lax divorce laws as well, so i'm not just “picking on the gays”. Just to get that out of the way. Also I suspect someone reading this might accuse me of having “religious motivations” for my opposition and that is true to some extend, but I would contend that even the most avowedly “secular” point of view on the topic is just as “religious” as mine because the person is unavoidably making a moral case one way or the other. But onto the case itself.

I think the first thing to be done is to make a distinction between a number of different things that are lumped together under the heading of “same-sex marriage”. These things are distinct so it is probably good to make the distinctions clear. Typically the call is made for “the right” and “freedom” to “marry” for homosexuals, but what does that actually mean ? It seems it could mean a number of different things and so I think it is useful to list them.

(1) It could me the liberty for two people to pledge their lives to one another, set up house, have a ceremony, go on a honeymoon etc. Clearly anybody arguing for “same-sex marriage” cannot be talking about this as homosexuals can already do any of those things without hindrance. They are at liberty to do as they please, at least in the Western World.

(2) It could mean access to the goodies the state hands out to married couples when it offically licenses and regulates those relationships. Now many of these can be obtained through other channels and in many places laws already exist for much of this to happen through wills and power of atorney, if not a more comprehensive “domestic partner” legislation.

(3) It could mean (as it does in the recent California Prop 8 decision) the use of the word “marriage” to describe a relationship as an attempt to obtain some sort of government recognition for the relationship in some misguided attempt to force society into “accepting” same-sex relationships when it is otherwise not inclined to grant that a same-sex relationship is identical to a hetrosexual monogomous pairing that normally consitutues a marriage. Essentially to redefine marriage to include something new that it never had before.

So I think it is important to be clear on the motives and the goals of those seeking such things. (1) is obviously irrelevant as it is not actually something that is outlawed in the West generally. Homosexuals have the liberty to behave as they wish and their behavior is tolerated by the community even among those who disagree with it generally and laws are in place to protect homosexuals from harrassment from those in the community that are unwilling to extend a civic tolerance to homosexuals.

As for the other two. I'm confused. In the case of (2), why should the government have any business regulating same-sex relationships ? Didn't homosexuals aggitate to have “the state out of the bedroom” ? Now they want the state back in the bedroom ? Are the private sexual practices of consenting adults the business of the state or not ? I can't see what compelling interest the state has in caring one way or the other about same-sex relationships. With hetrosexual marriages you have the production of children and the data clearly points to stable mother/father households being the best enviroment for raising children. The state has a definite interest in the upbringing of its future citizens and so I think it has a good reason for doing what it can to encourage the production and maintenance of such households. Being raised by a single parent is a strong indicator for all sorts of future problems for kids, so that should be compelling enough interest right there. No such compelling interest exists for same-sex couples as they are not the sorts of relationships that produce offspring. Just as the state has no business regulating other sorts of relationships. Frankly I think the state is derilict of its duty when it allows for no-fault divorce (Especially with children involved) or does anything at all to encourage single parent child rearing out of some misguided concept of “compassion”. As you might guess, I am not really a fan of what is known derisivly as the “nanny-state”.

In the case of (3). Is it really the business of the state to define what a marraige is ? Clearly hetrosexual monogomous pairings for the raising of children predate government regulation of such things. The state recognises the institution it does not invent it. Given that the state doesn't invent marraige why should it think it can redefine it at the whim of some of its citizens ? Now it would be on this point that I would make what looks like a most explictly “religious” argument and I do so unapologetically. The way I look at it there is only one of two things that marriage can be. Either it is an institution that the state invents (and so can define as it wants) or it is an institution that the state recognises as something that predates it and the state just formalises for its own reasons. Clearly I see it as the second, but it seems that activists do as well, but this presents a problem.

Consider if you will the following thoughts along those lines. If marriage is nothing in particular, it is something the state invents and can define as it sees fit, then that means that anybody who wants their relationship recognised as a “marriage” is within their rights to petition the state to have this done and there seem to be no grounds on which the state can refuse such things. Who is the state to define what someone wants to call a marriage ? Homosexual activists and other supporters of same-sex marriage get upset at this point because clearly the argument they put forward, when seen in the light of marriage as something invented (as it must be for them to make their case), gives permission for polygamy, incest based relationships, marriage to animals, or anything else really. Before anybody howls that this is not the case please keep in mind that if marriage is something that is invented by the state and not recognised by it, then this is quite explictly the case. The state is free to define it however they want if they are the ones who invented it to start with.

If marriage however is something in particular that the state regulates but does not invent then of course they are not at liberty to just redefine it on a whim. But if that is the case then the state is not in a position to redefine marriage because it did not invent the insitituion. It seems that a person can go one way or the other on this point, but if they are to be logically consistent they must go fully one way or the other. If the state invents marriage it can redefine it, but if it doens't then it cannot. Simple as that.

Thanks for your reply Maria. I will obviously offer a rejoinder.

First up you said “HOWEVER, those laws that are in place have not stemmed the tide of the 25% increase in violent crimes against LGBT individuals since October of 2008″. Now as far as I can see this is actually irrelevant to the issue at hand and “same-sex marriage laws” will do nothing to change instances of crimes against homosexuals and if anything could quite possibly exacerbate the problem. Now I don't condone violence against law abiding citizens, i'm just observing that, anything that draws attention to the homosexual community is likely to increase crimes against them from various unbalanced members of the community. So if this is relevant to the discussion then it would seem to work as a point in favour of making homosexuals as invisible as possible. But as I said, this is really not relevant to the issue at hand.

Next you note that “The bedroom is not the same as a marriage”, I agree, they are not identical. You can be married without having sex and you can have sex without being married. The point of asking about it was to do specifically with a claim made by activists about “leaving consenting adults alone” and now demands are being made for doing just the opposite. A bit of consistency would be nice. The current approach looks suspiciously like the real argument is “Give us our own way because we demand it” with the rest just being window dressing.

Now you ask some interesting questions about marriage and kids although I think you are engaging in a non-sequitur when you say “what about couples who are unable to have children? By your logic they should not be able to marry either”. I have not advocated anything of the sort. There is a distinction that I should have made clear and will have to ask for your forgiveness in failing to do so earlier.

I claimed that government has specific reasons for seeking to encourage and regulate marriage, that interest being a pro-creative one. That is not the same as saying marriage is only for pro-creation, just that that is the government interest in its regulation, if you see the difference. The government sets the requirements for what it will recognise as a marriage and anybody meeting those requirements can enter into the institution. Although the government maybe interested in the pro-creative aspect it hasn't seen fit to make that a requirement for entry. It could, but this is likely an overly invasive procedure (especially in the past) and opposite sex partners is a more than adequate approximation in pracitce.

A common objection at this point is to claim, what about couples that don't have children. However this isn't really relevant. Consider an analogy. A book is something that is made to be read. You can use a book as a doorstop (something it is not intended to be used for) but doens't mean the purpose of the book is not to be read. Likewise with marriage. The couple may not have children (by design or accident) but that doesn't change the governments interest.

You also noted that Christians view sex as intended for pro-creation. This is true enough, but it is incomplete. Sex is obviously enjoyable for the partners (this would actually go to the pro-creative aspect btw) but it also serves to bond the couple together intimately (which is why profligate sexual behavior is discouraged by Christians. It is intended to form bonds that are not supposed to come apart).

In your next comment you point to some recent studies from the ASP and the AJP that show same-sex couples can provide the same level of stability. Any chance you could provide the paper titles (or better yet links to them). I'm sure they make for interesting reading. Although I would note that a couple of studies showing that some same-sex couples can provide similar levels of stability is not really a good reason for radically redefining a social insistution to accomodate the demands of a vocal minority. We simply lack the data at this point to claim parity between the two. I am of course givining the studies the benifit of the doubt at this point, although honestly I am inclined to be skeptical.

As for a law prohibiting same-sex couples (or singles for that matter) from adopting. I don't think it needs to be banned, although I don't think same-sex or single couples should be on par with opposite sex married couples. I'm sure a same-sex household or single parent household is preferable to a state orphange and better for kids, but if the interests of the children are what are paramount, then priority should be given to the relationships known to be the most stable. I'm sure we can agree on this point if the reason is “for the children”.

Next you say “I agree completely that the state has no place in defining marriage. Unfortunately the Fed has decided that it wants no part of this issue so it has relegated the decision to each individual state.” I'm not sure why this is unfortunate. It seems like exactly the sort of issue that should be left up to the states with regard to the U.S Constitution. It is good of the federal government to actually stay within its proper bounds for a change. Now if unelected judicial tyrants would just learn their place as well, everybody would be better off. As for making a mess of custody issues. Does this mean you would be fine with the federal government deciding to outlaw same-sex marriages everywhere ? That would be a consistent ruling that would deal just as effectivly with your objection.

You make the interesting observation that “marriage itself was not even a sacrement until the 1600’s.” I assume you are refering to the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1601 – 1666. That is actually a numbering system not a year. The relevant part of the Catechism can be found here. It reads

“The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

This would seem to indicate that marriage was prior to the coming of Christ a covenant between a husband and wife, and that this was upgraded to a full blown sacrament after Christs time on earth. The Catholic Church would seem to regard it as of vital important earlier than 1600. The Old Testament holds a high view of marriage that is made higher by Christ in the New Testament, so i'm not sure what is to be made of the significance of your reference to it as a sacrament.

To call marriage “Until the 1800s … a property exchange where in Man A exchanges goods for Woman B.” is a gross misrepresentation of reality in the Western World. I wont presume to speak for other cultures. The Christian Church and the nation of Israel always at least attempted to embody a high view of marriage and invested it with significance. To suggest it was merely a property exchange is mistaken.

You also note “Even the Old Testament advocates the practice of selling daughters into slavery”. Could you please provide a quote for what you have in mind there ? It is important to remember that the ancient practice of slavery was very different to the modern practice of chattel slavery. So you may well be mistaken in your understanding there.

Could you please point to some reference for “In India it is the practice for a young girl to be married to a village dog”, i'd be interested to look at the practice more closely to see what is going on.

Also you note that “In the Old Testament era it was not monogamy but polygamy that was the standard practice.”, but this is actually false. The Kings of Israel that engaged in such things were warned against it (so that is not an endorsement of the practice at all, but at best a begrudging toleration of it) and the ideal was always monogamy from the beginning. The Old Testament laws regarding divorce were a compromise because of the peoples “hard heartedness” not the intended ideal.

You finish this section by saying ” So to say that marriage can only be one of two things is very limited since it has been so many different things before this current era.” This is a rather misleading statement. Marriage has not been “whatever the society wants to define it as” as you seem to imply but has always been intended as an institution for having children and raising them. There were some local variations in custom (yes I would contend that polygamy is a local variation, although typically it is also a regulated one, and always one man with a number of wives and never other arrangments) and i'm not sure the India example will turn out to be what you need it to be to make your case. There is a long history sadly of people misrepresenting things by applying foreign labels to them, resulting in untold confusion.We shall have to see how that one play out. It is certianly an interesting example, although it seems it is intended to be a temporary measure, probably aimed at protecting the young woman from unwanted advances, although that is speculation.

In section II you reference the 1948 UN Declartion on Human Rights. You say “ALL human beings should be afforded the same basic rights. One of these rights is the right to marry.”

Now I must take exception to this claim in the strongest possible terms. First up Article 16 of the Declaration says

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

So it quite explictly excludes any randomly demanded grouping being accorded the status of marriage. It also says that the family is “the natural and fundamental group unit of society”. That is clearly talking about procreation.

Also the same charter contains wonderfully idiotic claims like Article 24

• Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

A _right_ to this ? Rights are not simply something plucked out of the air. Rights require a proper grounding.

So I think if you want to claim marriage as some sort of fundamental right you will need to do more than simply assert this. I will leave you the space to do that.

Now you go on to ask “My question is why should [same-sex couples] have to jump through hoops when marriage would afford them those same 2000+ legal rights that are afforded to hetero couples?”

That is an interesting question. The problem is that it begs the question. It already presumes same-sex relationships are equivalent in all relevant ways to hetrosexual relationships. Certianly male homosexual relationships are not at all like hetrosexual relationships in terms of stability, length or “ground rules”.

But leaving that aside, lets assume for the sake of argument that the question does not suffer from this begged question.

The question works equally well for any other sort of grouping someone wants to participate in and claim as “marriage”. Can two completely hetrosexual male friends sharing an apartment get “married” and claim access to all of the benifits ? Why should they have to jump through legal hoops to when marriage would afford them the same 2000+ legal rights ?

Never mind stranger groupings invovling animals or appliances. Who are you to say such “relationships” don't count as a marriage.

The problem with “rights claims” like the one you are making is that I suspect you clearly consider the sexual nature of the homosexual relationships significant and distinctive, but that would require you concede that marriage is something in particular as a relationship and therefore not something open to redefinition at the whim of society.

You made reference to the ancient greeks and their practice of pederasty. A few points there. It was not really “the norm” but more something that was tolerated, and it was never elevated to the level of a marriage. So it would seem to actually be an example that cuts against your claim to marriage being a maleable definition. The ancient Greeks clearly knew that pederasty was different from marriage, even though both relationships had a sexual component.

Finally you make reference to the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Indepencence, though I note you selectivly quote it, conspiciously absent being what they considered the grounding of these rights they considered self evident.But you say “All we as the LGBT community are asking for is the same rights and protections that everyone else is afforded.”. But homosexuals already have the same rights and protections everyone else is afforded. Actually with “hate crime” legislation they are afforded more rights than other members of the community. What is being asked for is something new. Homosexuals are at liberty to behave as they want and in many places cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual proclivities. They already have the same protections as everyone else.

As for a lack of a right to “marry”. That isn't quite true. They have the liberty to, you concede as much. They even in many places have access to various benifits of marriage. But to argue that homosexuals need to be granted a “right to marry” like everyone else presumes same-sex relationships are identical to hetrosexual relationships, which is at the very least far from obviously so, or else it is a claim that marriage is something that means nothing in particular, but I don't think you mean that either.

Just in conclusion i'd note something interesting you say. “There is no intent to railroad churches into doing what they feel is not right for them”. Actually this isn't really true. Should a Christian bookstore owner, for example, be allowed to refuse to hire an active homosexual person because of their sexual proclivities ? That would seem to be forcing a clearly para-church organisisation to do something they explictly disagree with.

Thanks again for the reply, the disucssion is most interesting and I am finding your perspective enlightening.

It seems to be my turn

The reason that there is increased violence against the LGBT population is because we are intentionally increasing our visibility. It makes it more difficult for our neighbors and relatives to believe that their vote doesn’t affect anyone they know when more of us are out and open.  We have had to increase visibility because of the votes in Arizona, California and Florida denying equal rights to the LGBT community. So the rise in violence is relevant to this discussion because it is linked to our activism efforts.

Next you state: The point of asking about it was to do specifically with a claim made by activists about “leaving consenting adults alone” and now demands are being made for doing just the opposite. A bit of consistency would be nice. The current approach looks suspiciously like the real argument is “Give us our own way because we demand it” with the rest just being window dressing.

My reply is as follows: LGBT people are not the only ones affected by the government interference in people’s sex lives. Gay men are not the only ones to have anal sex. Many straight couples enjoy this activity as well. It is not the place of the government to institute laws regulating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

As for “Give us our own way because we demand it”, I still fail to see the error in demanding to be given the same benefits as straight people have.

The next point you make is: A common objection at this point is to claim, what about couples that don't have children. However this isn't really relevant.

HOW is this not relevant? Simply because two people have the ability to procreate, this does not make them superior and deserving of extra benefits that are not afforded to others in the population.

The next point I would address is: Although I would note that a couple of studies showing that some same-sex couples can provide similar levels of stability is not really a good reason for radically redefining a social institution to accommodate the demands of a vocal minority.

My Reply: Let me see if I understand this correctly. Simply because the LGBT community does not constitute a majority then we don’t deserve the same benefits and treatment as straight couples? What DOES constitute a good reason to change a social institution? Certainly the simple fact of our humanity doesn’t quality us, so what DOES?

Next you state: I'm sure a same-sex household or single parent household is preferable to a state orphanage and better for kids, but if the interests of the children are what are paramount, then priority should be given to the relationships known to be the most stable. I'm sure we can agree on this point if the reason is “for the children”.

My reply: This is the one point where we agree. We DON’T know that a hetero couple is more stable. There are just as many screwed up straight people as there are LGBT folks. There just simply has not been enough research on what family dynamic honestly is the most stable for children. What matters is that kids get good, loving homes regardless of whether those homes are straight, or LGBT.

Your next statement: Does this mean you would be fine with the federal government deciding to outlaw same-sex marriages everywhere? That would be a consistent ruling that would deal just as effectively with your objection.

My reply: Spare me your sarcasm.  If it were actually government officials making these rulings, they could be voted out of office. The citizens of those states voted the pertinent marriage laws in Arizona, California and Florida on. Since when has equal treatment under the law become a popularity contest? Why should equal treatment for law abiding, tax paying citizens be left up to the majority? It didn’t work in the South when it came to equal rights for the African American population.

What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.

Thank you for educating me about the Catechism. The information I received was evidently in error.

You go on to say: This would seem to indicate that marriage was prior to the coming of Christ a covenant between a husband and wife, and that this was upgraded to a full blown sacrament after Christs time on earth. The Catholic Church would seem to regard it as of vital important earlier than 1600
My reply: How did you reach the conclusion that the passage indicates an older covenant?

You also state: To call marriage “Until the 1800s … a property exchange where in Man A exchanges goods for Woman B.” is a gross misrepresentation of reality in the Western World. I wont presume to speak for other cultures. The Christian Church and the nation of Israel always at least attempted to embody a high view of marriage and invested it with significance. To suggest it was merely a property exchange is mistaken.

But you don’t say HOW this is mistaken. I’d like to see your evidence.

Your next point: You also note “Even the Old Testament advocates the practice of selling daughters into slavery”. Could you please provide a quote for what you have in mind there ?

My Reply: Exodus 21:7: “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.” A father could sell his daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave remained a slave forever.

The above quote is from http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

Next you ask: Could you please point to some reference for “In India it is the practice for a young girl to be married to a village dog”, i'd be interested to look at the practice more closely to see what is going on.

My Reply: Here’s the link to the story. If you google it, there are several other versions of the news story from many different media sources. http://mpelembe.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2009/1/26/4070266.html

Your reply to my comment on polygamy being standard practice is as follows: but this is actually false. The Kings of Israel that engaged in such things were warned against it (so that is not an endorsement of the practice at all, but at best a begrudging toleration of it)

My reply: Whether it was warned against or not, it was still a standard practice and considered the norm for that time period. Examples and quotes follow: A man could marry (literally “become the master of the woman”) as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
bullet    Genesis 16:2 : Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar: “Sarai said unto Abram…I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her.” Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command.
Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These were sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as saying: “…Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.” Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.

If you’d like, I can find more examples.

You continue by stating: There were some local variations in custom (yes I would contend that polygamy is a local variation, although typically it is also a regulated one, and always one man with a number of wives and never other arrangments)

My reply: I think my above examples address that point.

You continue on saying: i'm not sure the India example will turn out to be what you need it to be to make your case. There is a long history sadly of people misrepresenting things by applying foreign labels to them, resulting in untold confusion.We shall have to see how that one play out. It is certianly an interesting example, although it seems it is intended to be a temporary measure, probably aimed at protecting the young woman from unwanted advances, although that is speculation.

My reply: Regardless of the situation involved, they still call it a marriage. My point in this is that people of different cultures have redefined what marriage means even today.

Continuing on to the UN Declaration, you state: So it quite explictly excludes any randomly demanded grouping being accorded the status of marriage. It also says that the family is “the natural and fundamental group unit of society”. That is clearly talking about procreation.

My reply: That is your interpretation of that text. “Family” is not defined anywhere as being a man, a woman and their children. According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/family  A family is defined as follows: a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head

You continue: So I think if you want to claim marriage as some sort of fundamental right you will need to do more than simply assert this. I will leave you the space to do that.

My reply: Well, this IS the United Nations. They are the body that seeks human rights for the planet we live on. I think they may know a few things more than I do so if they feel that “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.”, then I will agree with what you claim is a “wonderfully idiotic claims like Article 24”

That part of the charter is to enforce the idea that we shouldn’t be forced to work without leisure time. Hardly ‘idiotic’ in my opinion.

Moving on to the next section, you state: That is an interesting question. The problem is that it begs the question. It already presumes same-sex relationships are equivalent in all relevant ways to hetrosexual relationships. Certianly male homosexual relationships are not at all like hetrosexual relationships in terms of stability, length or “ground rules”.

My reply: That is an extraordinarily gross generalization. I know so many gay men that have been together 20, 30 or more years in exclusive relationships. Simply because they are not hetero is not ANY indication whatsoever of stability, length or “ground rules”. I think you have a mistaken notion here.

I’d also like to add that the heterosexual divorce rate is currently at 60%. So heterosexual marriage is HARDLY any sort of reliable measurement of stability. Instead you ought to consider the individual couple.

Next you ask: Can two completely hetrosexual male friends sharing an apartment get “married” and claim access to all of the benifits ? Why should they have to jump through legal hoops to when marriage would afford them the same 2000+ legal rights ?

My reply is: How is this relevant? I’m talking about LGBT couples who love each other and are exclusive to one another. The marriage equality we are seeking is for committed couples that love each other.

For the sake of time and space, I will simply say this about Greek society. They were far more tolerant of same sex relations.

Next you state: But homosexuals already have the same rights and protections everyone else is afforded.

My reply: If the LGBT community had the same rights as heterosexuals then we wouldn’t be having this debate. Same sex couples cannot acquire the same benefits afforded to hetero couples in marriage and tax benefits. People can still be fired from their jobs simply for being LGB or T.

You go on to say: But to argue that homosexuals need to be granted a “right to marry” like everyone else presumes same-sex relationships are identical to hetrosexual relationships, which is at the very least far from obviously so, or else it is a claim that marriage is something that means nothing in particular, but I don't think you mean that either.

My reply: No relationship, whether it is straight or same sex is identical to any other. Each relationship has its own problems and issues.

I’d like to ask you to clarify what you mean by “it is a claim that marriage is something that means nothing in particular, but I don't think you mean that either.” I’m afraid I found that a bit confusing.

Finally, you asked: Should a Christian bookstore owner, for example, be allowed to refuse to hire an active homosexual person because of their sexual proclivities ?

This is ONLY my opinion of the matter and does not reflect the opinions of others in my community, but yes. The book store owner should be able to refuse to hire a gay person because I believe that business owners should be free to hire the person they feel most appropriate for the job. If the book store owner is a fundamentalist Christian whose clientele is exclusively fundamentalist then to put a gay person in that situation would simply be cruel.

A book store, however, is a completely different animal from a church as we both know. There are a good number of churches in the Christian community that are welcoming and accepting of the LGBT community. I am friends with a Catholic priest who has already said that he is simply waiting for the laws to change so that he can marry same sex couples. His is one of many churches in that position.

We are aware that there are many that are not. And as I have said, we’re not going to force those churches to marry same sex couples.

I’m looking forward to your reply.

Hi Maria,

You don't have to answer the following, it is mainly for your interest and to offer a few thoughts on why you need to be careful when citing the bible.

You made reference to fathers selling their daughters into slavery in the OT and that the slave girls can never be set free and that this was a bad thing.

Now I agree it is less than ideal,, but a few things you seem to unaware of that put it in a very different light. Ask yourself the following questions.

1. What alternative did a poor father have for his daughter ?

2. Is it possible the service being unending is actually for the protection of the woman ?

For what it is worth a few things to consider. You didn't cite it but it is relevant as well. In OT Israel an unmarried woman who was raped, went on to marry her rapist and he could never divorce her. Does this seem like a good thing ? It actually was. Again, not ideal, but this is the Ancient Near East not the 21st Century Western world.

It is worth remembering that in the ANE, there was no government social security system and that the societies of the time were often quite close to the edge in terms of collapse. Very different from the world we live in today.

If a father sold his daughter as a bonded concubine to a man he was insuring a number of things.

1. The man who bought her had an obligation to care for her. Not being able to free her meant that he was obliged to care for his concubine for life and not discard her when she got a bit “wrinkly”.

2. His daughter would be cared for and have a chance to have kids. Something the culture considered extremely important.

So ironically being able to sell your daughter (Especially at a time when most marriages are arranged anyway, so not really that different in a sense) as a concubine was a way of making sure she was provided for and looked after. Again, not ideal, but certianly not some sort of “oppression” of women. Quite the opposite. A lot of the OT laws in regards to women are like that, but they require background knowledge to understand.

Consider the case of the rape victim. Note BTW, this is a culture that took chastity seriously and would stone a rapist to death (a good move IMO).

The woman after being raped would be considered “damaged goods” and probably havbe difficulty finding a husband, so the attacker was forced to marry her and provide for her for life. Note there is no requirement in the law in question that she live with him, just that he provide for her needs.

As  I said, you don't need to answer the stuff in this post, I just wanted to offer it to you to provide some insight into why the laws exist and the purpose behind them. To suggest that they are not nearly as clear cut and “reprehensible” as some might claim and that ignorance of the background leads to misunderstanding about such things.

Jason