The Pope resigns ...

Well, Bruce, the very fact that you and I can treat each others opinions with respect--whether we agree or agree not to agree, would be something I would recommend to the practitioners and/or followers of any religion which practices intolerance.  You are correct of course, that once, Islam was more tolerant than Christianity.  It also was the repository of very much of the knowledge of the classical world, and preserved it until the Renaissance.  That was what, a thousand years ago?  True, we are discussing historical perspective, but I suppose we should not ignore the here and now.  That is essentially your position in discussing the wrongs of modern Zionism.  Fair enough, but I will leave it with you to determine the ethical balance between building an arguably illegal settlement and blowing up school buses full of children.  Yes, Israelis kill children too, but again, I will leave it to your judgment to decide whether, if not attacked, both verbally and with rockets and bombs, they would do so.

Best regards,

Russ

Russ

If I may say so your posts here, with your usual light-hearted and humorous touch, I found most thoughtful.  You make some powerful points but in a balanced way.  It's a pity that many people of faith find it so difficult to see and debate these issues and differences in a similar rounded way.

MDS   

Hi Russ

Not quite the reply I was expecting (and almost as long as the Bible ) but well considered nonetheless.

For what it's worth I have no problem - and little interest in criticising - with other people's religious beliefs. If that's what anyone wants to believe, then fine by me, as long as they don't break the law.

That's because I regard religion, like sexuality, as a purely private matter, and what anyone chooses to believe, or how they worship is none of my business.

However my observation is that many pious or religious people (Muslims and Christians particularly) do not regard faith as a private matter but a public one, and worse, a matter of/for public policy.So it's not enough for them that they have freedom of belief and worship, but they have to go around trying to convert everyone else, and in extreme cases, to kill or persecute atheists, agnostics and other believers.

This is highly regrettable because then there's little chance of us all being able to rub along together peacefully , which is what I suspect most of us want.

I have no problem with religious people - providing they don't bore me - but I do detest those among the pious who believe themselves above the law, or deserving of special treatment. Those Christians who tried to stop a Bill legalising gay marriage- many of them MPs - behaved disgracefully in my view, because they tried to prevent a section of society from being equal before the law. If we are not - all of us - completely equal before the law, we cannot be called civilised. Those who do not like our laws should go elsewhere - perhaps they'd be happier in a theocracy. The UK is these days only notionally a "Christian" country - in reality it is a secular one, with secular, man-made laws, and all the better for it I think.

Here in the UK newspapers often run stories about Christians being "persecuted" for wearing crosses and the like while Muslims get off scot-free, or about councils "banning" Christmas for fear of "offending" Muslims, Hindus and the like. Generally these stories turn out to be untrue or wildly exaggerated but those Christians who do complain about unfair treatment do (very) occasionally have a (very slender) point.

That said, it is of course easier - and far safer - to critique Christianity in the West these days than it is Islam - as Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali can attest; and as Theo Van Gogh and Shahbaz Bhatti would be able to attest, were they not murdered.

(PS - I don't count Pope Benedict's oafish "critique" of Islam in 2006 as a legitimate critique, merely a rather ill-conceived and crass outburst).

MDS: I really appreciate your assessment.  Balance is what we all should aim for and I admit I fall far short of it sometimes.

Kevin: I have definitely (and rightly, I must say) been accused of having diarrhea of the mouth.  I will not comment on most of what you say because I agree with it.  As for gay marriage,(OK, before we get into the gist of it, bear with me for a moment):

A gay young lad named LeBlume

Took a Lesbian up to his room.

They argued all night

Over who had the right,

To do what, and with what, and to whom.

With that out of the way, I do have a couple of things to add: I have no problem with what anyone puts into or removes from anyone else's body, so long as it is with consent and among adults.  Nor do I have any argument with my own government's sanctioning "civil unions" in the sense of allowing gay people to leave property to a partner, make decisions on their behalf for health care--or any of that long laundry list of things that people in a committed relationship are permitted by law when married.  What I do object to most strenuously is gay people trying to force society to call it "marriage".  If the majority wishes that, then I suppose it is time to change 6,000 years of almost universal history.  But I do resent the attempt to force the word down the throat of a primarily Judeo-Christian society.  Next, I strongly object to teachers in elementary schools counseling young children, helping them "discover" whether they are gay or not.  (Yes, that happens.)  And finally, I do not want my tax dollars spent on a health care system that equates the urgency of sex-change operations with heart transplants.  (No, not yet, but it is coming--at least in the United States.  You can believe and even tell me that cutting off someone's penis and installing a vagina surgically (or vice versa) is normal and natural--and we can remain friends.  Just don't ask me to inhale any of that corral dust!

And when I hear the argument that being gay is exactly the same as having been born with black skin, therefore entitling gay people to precisely the same civil rights as black people, I can't help wondering what the majority of black Americans think of that proposition.  True, there are some parallels, but..................................

Best regards,

Russ

Russ

Not quite sure how we ended up on gay marriage but I will respond to some of your points (because you seem open to debate these things)

The UK is a secular society. 59% at the last census described themselves as Christian, but that number is falling dramatically and the number of churchgoers falls further too.

The institution of marriage has already changed a lot in 6000 years, maybe it should keep changing to adapt to modern society? Marriage is now a social, legal and (I believe) a psychological status rather than a purely religious one. I think that the Church should not attempt to retain an ancient protected definition.

I note your comment re civil union. I am an atheist. I married the daughter of an Orthodox jew in a registry office without any religious elements in that ceremony. Am I married, or is mine just a 'civil union'? How can that be different to accepting gay marriage in a place of the couple's choosing? If a specific congregation does not wish to take part in those ceremonies then fine, but why bar the institution of marriage?

Thinking about it I guess I'm asking; what is the essence that makes marraige different for you to a 'civil union', and why should that barred to gay couples?

Bruce

Bruce,

I think the figures you cite for how people characterize themselves in the UK track fairly closely to those in the US.  Although I am an atheist myself (and my first wife was a Reform Jew--so my children are Jewish and describe themselves that way), I have to admit that I view the secularization of Europe and the United States with some degree of ambivalence.  True, we have gained much in casting off the yoke of religion--but we have lost much as well.  As just one example, we have gained enough regard for gay people as human beings that society no longer sanctions violence against them because of their sexual choices--it still happens, but more and more the perpetrators of violence against gays is punished.  But we have also lost some things--among them, the norm that sexual relations between a man and a woman are "normal" and those between the same sex--are not.  With respect to gays, in my opinion, that was a valid norm for society to hold.  My gay friends (and yes, I have some) tell me that their preference is almost purely genetic.  With all due respect, they cannot show me any substantial proof of that and I do not believe it.  Now, that doesn't mean, as I said before, that I care what they do to one another, and with what, but I do not want them teaching my grandchildren that it is normal and I do not want the curriculum in schools to teach that it is--any more than I want that curriculum to include creationism alongside evolution.  Nor do I want my country to promulgate "hate crime" legislation for special groups.  I want it to pass legislation criminalizing all violence against all people and then damned well enforce it!  Again, the only way to achieve equality--is equality.

As humanists, we will agree that Mankind can formulate moral standards without fear of an all powerful, angry god or God to enforce them.  That having been said--it is somewhat difficult to formulate the metaethical justification behind those standards.  And it is harder to draw the line.  I do not mean this in any way to be demeaning to gays--or to Mormons, but when Mitt Romney ran for POTUS, there was a great hue and cry about whether he would support polygamy.  (Of course, he doesn't).  My question is this: If gays demand it, should the rapid change of moral standards support polygamy--both among heterosexual and homosexual groups?  Why not?  I have noticed that I have had over the years a tendency to find more than one woman deeply attractive.  Shouldn't society protect my right to be "married" to all the women stupid enough to have me?

And finally, again, no disrespect meant to anyone, and if anyone is sensitive to vivid language, if "progress" due to secularization means that society must now equate the insertion of a man's sexual apparatus into that of a woman with anal intercourse among men--by naming it "marriage' on the certificate, then should not society recognize "marriage" between a man and, say, a Jersey heifer--or a sow?  If, as I suspect, that would be morally shocking to most secular supporters of gay marriage, I can only conclude that it would be due to the difficulty of obtaining consent, in the English language, from the cow.

Difficult questions.

Best regards,

Russ

Russ

Homosexuality is normal. It is not the norm (ie the majority) but it is part of the spectrum of normal animal and human activity. I don't have any figures to hand but I have a feeling that about 10% of men have had a homsexual relationship. Hardly marginal.

I don't quite follow your last paragraph.

My question is this; if you feel that marriage has a significance beyond the secular and gay marriage therefore (as opposed to civil union) is a step too far  then how can I be married in a Registry Office with none of the trappings or indeed approvals of a faith? Our marriage vows are special to us, they are more than about sexual relationships, they are about committment (amongst other things). Equating marriage purely with sex is trivialising.

Bruce

Bruce

So why do you feel that a gay couple cannot make that same committment I did, and call it a marriage?

Bruce,

They certainly can make the same commitment--and I am fine with society's sanctioning it legally, in order to provide some of the same legal ramifications open to married people who have made that commitment--but why force the other 90 percent to call it "Marriage"? 

Moreover,I would argue that the mere fact that a small percentage of humanity has always engaged in a particular form of behavior does not render that behavior "normal."

As to the last sentence of my previous post, I was being somewhat ironic, but my meaning was, of course, that if society is not free to label behavior as deviant (though perhaps allowing it as acceptable), then precisely what, if any behavior is susceptible for labeling as deviant? 

Best regards,

Russ

Thanks for the clarifications Russ.

Is having ginger hair normal? I think we'd agree it is not amazingly common but it is not abnormal, wierd or some kind of disease. My point about homosexuality is the same. It is a normal behaviour by the definition of not being pathological. It is pretty common but not the 'average'.

I'm still unclear about the last bit but maybe others are getting there. I think what we recognise as deviant has of course changed, it is not an absolute. That measure of what is and is not I guess is about extreme behaviours, about abuse and safety. I don't see it fitting into any sort of argument re gay marriage-nobody is suggesting this is a 'thin end of the wedge' are they?

I think the fact you invest the word 'marriage' with such importance in a way exactly illustrates my own point; it is precisely because it is so significant (and we agree it is a secular institution not a religious one) that I feel gay couples should have the right to access it...and you don't!

I'll leave it now. I think we are probably just talkking to each other and everybody else has run away.

Bruce

Dear Bruce and Russ,

You have one reader at least, and many more I suspect. 

I am quite pleased by the way this thread has come out.

A nice discourse between two people without a breakdown into unpleasantness!

ATB from George

No, not run away Bruce, just lurking.

I amazed there is such a debate about this issue.

If you are part of an established religion then you are free to be as particular as you like - condone or condemn marriages between different races, divorcees, virgins &c.  If you follow the line that some Christians take, i.e. that marriage is all about having a family, then tough on the over 40s and those who are unlucky enough to be infertile, or choose not to have children.

And it is also easy for some Christians to quote Genesis, Leviticus.  But these books also warn against eating shell-fish &c.

But unless you take on a belief system, which in my experience generally tells me more about the believer than the reality, I fail to see an argument, or for that matter even care.

My wife and I made a series of undertakings and made common understandings when we got together.  These are meaningful to only ourselves;  all marriages are unique.

So surely whether we entered into a partnership, contract or marriage does not affect really how we live together.  If two gay people want to call their relationship a marriage and have it recognised by society as such, then fine.

It is a shame that some heterosexual couples who decide to marry do not put a tenth of the thought and justification in doing so as our gay friends are having to.  And GPs like yourself would not have to treat so many black eyes caused by "accidentally falling on a door", or hand out anti-depressants, if they did.

Don,  dark downtown York.

Yep, I'm still reading too.  A very interesting debate, even if it has wandered off the OP somewhat.  

I think I'm more with Bruce here on the marriage thing but that maybe because I don't fully understand or subscribe to the additional significance attached to the term beyond the personal and legal commitments involved.  I got married in a big church ceremony over 32 years ago. Neither my bride or I were or are religious but we both went along with what the respective families wanted ie a big celebratory day out and most attending seemed to enjoy the day (I was still hung over!).  I can understand that gay couples, particularly those of faith, crave to have a similar opportunity to celebrate their legal union and I can't see a good reason to deny it to them.  I may be missing something here.  And frankly, when I hear or read of the heated disputes taking place on this issue among the clergy, I can't help thinking that they are more concerned about preserving or advancing their own positions, rather than the interests of their 'flock'. But then I must confess to having a rather sceptical view of so-called religious leaders.

MDS   

Russ

The problem is, that facts do not bear your arguments out.

Marriage is one of the oldest of all human institutions - it goes back to the dawn of recorded history and probably before. It is also near-universal, one of the few human constructs common to virtually every culture we know of.

This means that it DOES NOT belong to the Judeao-Christian tradition; it pre-dates it, and is wider. Sorry to tell you, but the desert monotheisms, and all the nasty little prejudices and baggage that go with them, do not have the final say on what constitutes marriage and what does not. It belongs to all of us: humanity entire.

Also, while same-sex marriage is by no means the norm, it is not entirely unknown. The ancient Romans and Greeks practised it. There is a well documented case of two men being married in church by a priest in 11th century Spain. Plenty of countries forged in the Judeao-Christian tradition, notably Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden, all recognise gay marriage under the law.

Marriage is as much a legal institution as it is a religious one, and, surely a most basic human right is that we are all equal before, and under, the law?

Finally nobody is forcing anything down people's throats (gays are still in a minority, despite what the more swivel-eyed elements of society claim). The idea that hetero marriages will suffer because a few gays and lesbians get hitched is absolutely absurd.

PS I've no idea what sex change operations on the US taxpayer has to do with any of this, but still...

PPS Here in Blighty, the Quakers have said publicly that they are perfectly happy to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies. As is so often the case, the Society of Friends is ahead of the curve on this one...

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Jesus Christ.

Galatians Chapter Three, verse 28.

Something to ponder in any case.

ATB from George