Ren's Ramblings & Writings

Contemplations on things tangible and intangible

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Ren's ranting response about this article "Marriage Proceedings" in the Nov/Dec 2013 issue of Liberty magazine

Here are my thoughts that I submitted to the magazine editor and/or on the magazine's Facebook page:

"At trial, Blankenhorn testified that marriage would benefit same-sex couples and their children and would reduce discrimination against gays and lesbians, but even so, the state should not recognize same-sex marriage because it could conceivably weaken marriage as an institution."

I really can't get this mindset that "if this-then this will happen to the rest of us" when heterosexual divorces and spontaneous and whim marriages have not "weakened marriage as an institution" for anyone else; that is to say, besides the obvious affects of the divorce or marriage of parents on their kids (not an "institution" matter), what any of us does regarding marriage (heterosexuals who get married while drunk or after 3 days of dating) or divorce (get divorced after 1 day or 20 years) or just dating long term does not in any way intrinsically harm another person. We do make laws that determine when certain benefits are applied based on couple status (ie: being married allows us to be in a lower tax bracket) but once again, this does not inherently harm another person.

 I can't stand it when these people blatantly lie to achieve their goals, and are not called on the carpet for it:

" Tam has helped craft arguments in favor of Prop 8, including an argument on the Prop 8 Web site that homosexuals were 12 times more
 likely to be pedophiles. In Court, Tam could not state where he got the information."

to just say "could not state where he got the information" is sugar-coating a blatant lie

ok. Renee must rant...
Religious folks MUST do some REAL research before continuing to go on about this one man/one woman thing, which is a lie perpetrated throughout Christianity. 

Citing Bible verses out of historical context is just one aspect of biblical politics. Rather than reinvent the wheel,

I’m going to include quotes and analysis from several sources: 

“But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.” Genesis 38:9-10

The interpretation here is that sex and having children outside of marriage is ok, especially with your brother's widow, but Onan is breaking some biblical law by wasting his semen… who in American is ok with this today?

Folks cannot pick and choose which scriptures to obey.

the idea of 1 man/1 woman... versus POLYGAMY as being normal and promoted in biblical times:

3 Wives - Sarah, Hagar and Keturah

Jacob, the father of all the Twelve Tribes of Israel was married to FOUR women: Rachel and Leah; in addition, each of these two of Jacob’s wives had a maidservant, each also considered a wife of Jacob, who birthed many of those tribes. 

Abram and Sarai are childless but want children. Attempt: Hagar becomes second wife. 

Lamech has two wives~

The bottom line is that the bible does NOT DEFINE marriage as one man/one woman. To the contrary, the bible depicts marriage as: 

one man/many women
one man/many wives
one man/many wives and concubines
a rapist and his victim
a conquering soldier and a female prisoner one man/many wives, concubines and even sexual relations with slaves

fathers selling their daughters...

Don’t forget the biblical evidence of a same-sex partnership in which Jesus himself healed the younger partner (pais, in Greek) of a roman centurion (a soldier). In Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, we are told about a soldier who asks Jesus to heal his pais. Most translations define this as a servant,

but the Greek pais means "lover." Jay Michaelson tells us that
“according to leading Greek scholar Kenneth Dover, pais refers to the junior partner in a same-sex relationship. Now, this is not exactly a marriage of equals. An erastes-pais relationship generally consisted of a somewhat older man, usually a soldier between the ages of 18 and 30, and a younger adolescent, usually between the ages of 13 and 18. Sometimes that adolescent was a slave, as seems to be the case here. It would be inappropriate, in my view, to use the word "gay" to describe such a relationship; that word, and its many connotations, comes from our time, not that of Ancient Greece and Rome. This is not a relationship that any LGBT activist would want to promote today. 

However, it is a same-sex relationship nonetheless.” Michaelson continues: “…we know that the erastes-pais

intimate relationship was common practice among Roman soldiers, who were not allowed to take wives, and whose life was patterned on the Greek model of soldier-lovers.”

We know that “Pederasty in ancient Greece was a socially acknowledged erotic relationship between an adult male and a younger male usually in his teens.” 

Wikipedia tells us that “Scholars have debated the role or extent of sexual activity, which is likely to have varied according to local custom and individual inclination. The English word "pederasty" in present-day usage implies the abuse of minors, but Athenian law, for instance, did not recognize consent and age as factors in regulating sexual behavior.” In
addition, “Although the word pais can refer to a child of either sex, paiderastia is defined by Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon as
"the love of boys," and the verb paiderasteuein as "to be a
lover of boys." This is not considered homosexuality, but the relation between the centurion and the pais was still, indeed, a same sex relationship, which in this case, Jesus knew of but did not condemn.

In addition, historically, marriage was NOT a religious matter-it was a CIVIL CONTRACT. It was not until less than the last 100 years in the US that people started marrying for love, AND marriage did not become a matter of religion, even in Christian cultures, until later. In more recent history, Western European marriages started out as a business contract to establish hereditary lines. According to the book The History of Human Marriage, in the early Christian era, marriage was considered a private matter not regulated by the church or the sate. In fact, the church didn't fully take over the business of marriage until 1563 at the Council of Trent.

Now on the matter of those who run businesses but have moral beliefs that contradict the secular protection of same sex marriage:

When beginning a business, you must decide what form of business entity to establish. For many people, they choose to incorporate their business. 

"A corporation is a body--it is a legal person in the eyes of the law. It can bring lawsuits, can buy and sell property, contract, be taxed, and even commit crimes. It's most notable feature: a corporation protects its owners from personal liability for corporate debts and obligations--within limits."

"The corporation is considered an artificially created legal entity that exists separate and apart from those individuals who created it and carry on its operations."

"Now, this entity, which serves the public, typically, has the following advantages: "

"Owners are protected from personal liability fro company debts and obligations."
"Corporations have a reliable body of legal precedent to guide owners and managers."
"Corporations are the best vehicle for eventual public companies."

In other words, the OWNER is A SEPARATE ENTITY FROM THE BUSINESS. This same advantage "shields the owner" from losing personal assets if the business goes under, but also "shields the owner" from being able to decide for the business to discriminate against someone based on the owner's belief system-because the BUSINESS does not have a belief system. The business does not have a conscience that would be affected, nor does the business have a moral position on any issue. The owners get the advantage of being SEPARATE from their business, but the business ALSO HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT DISCRIMINATE OR VIOLATE LAW. 
quoted information from :

the article can be found at