Don"t Denigrate Holy Scripture
The argument whether to allow gay marriage is not a moral one.
It is simply a matter of whether one is open to adjusting one's mind to a new reality or not.
If not then that's fine, just so long as you don't interfere with someone else's right to do so.
Then it does become a moral issue.
In fact I would argue that those who seek to prevent gay marriage on the only grounds I ever hear put for doing so - that it doesn't quite fit their belief system, (for this read, fixed habit of mind) are taking the moral low ground; one small step up from bigotry.
You cannot argue on moral grounds in support of obliging people to behave the way we want them to for no reason other than we experience some discomfort at having to adjust our thinking about the meaning of a particular word.
It's only Police States that demand such gratuitous observances.
And, I know this will upset some people, but this remains true even if there is something in the Bible that gives a particular meaning to the word marriage that seems to support that kind of demand, notwithstanding the fact that the definition of the word has changed continuously down the centuries.
At the time the Bible was written marriage was between a man and a piece of property (i.
e.
a woman), and in many cases coerced.
At that point marriage was a question of ownership and domination.
In my opinion, using Holy Scripture to justify questionable morality, as has been done continually through the ages, is to denigrate Scripture.
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court jumps regarding same sex marriage.
The Justices don't like hot potatoes and they weren't too enthusiastic about chewing on this one.
I think they would have preferred to not take the case.
Interestingly, in their questioning of counsel putting the case against same sex marriage one or two of the Justices asked whether the state legislators had, in banning same sex marriage, done so purely out of their conscious or unconscious disapproval of homosexuality.
They were clearly onto the pseudo morality issue already and realizing the Emperor had no clothes.
Most of the beliefs we hold and defend are little more than habitual ways of thinking and just as in this case, most of them no longer serve us.
Either we have moved on or the context in which they were first formed has changed.
It is simply a matter of whether one is open to adjusting one's mind to a new reality or not.
If not then that's fine, just so long as you don't interfere with someone else's right to do so.
Then it does become a moral issue.
In fact I would argue that those who seek to prevent gay marriage on the only grounds I ever hear put for doing so - that it doesn't quite fit their belief system, (for this read, fixed habit of mind) are taking the moral low ground; one small step up from bigotry.
You cannot argue on moral grounds in support of obliging people to behave the way we want them to for no reason other than we experience some discomfort at having to adjust our thinking about the meaning of a particular word.
It's only Police States that demand such gratuitous observances.
And, I know this will upset some people, but this remains true even if there is something in the Bible that gives a particular meaning to the word marriage that seems to support that kind of demand, notwithstanding the fact that the definition of the word has changed continuously down the centuries.
At the time the Bible was written marriage was between a man and a piece of property (i.
e.
a woman), and in many cases coerced.
At that point marriage was a question of ownership and domination.
In my opinion, using Holy Scripture to justify questionable morality, as has been done continually through the ages, is to denigrate Scripture.
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court jumps regarding same sex marriage.
The Justices don't like hot potatoes and they weren't too enthusiastic about chewing on this one.
I think they would have preferred to not take the case.
Interestingly, in their questioning of counsel putting the case against same sex marriage one or two of the Justices asked whether the state legislators had, in banning same sex marriage, done so purely out of their conscious or unconscious disapproval of homosexuality.
They were clearly onto the pseudo morality issue already and realizing the Emperor had no clothes.
Most of the beliefs we hold and defend are little more than habitual ways of thinking and just as in this case, most of them no longer serve us.
Either we have moved on or the context in which they were first formed has changed.
Source...