Gay Marriage: What’s the Big Deal?
North Carolina voters, by the wide margin of 61-39, made their state the latest to “outlaw” gay marriage. Of NC’s 100 counties, the amendment passed in 93. Where the issue has been given to voters, every state has affirmed the traditional definition of marriage. 31 of them now.
Right on the heels of the NC vote, President Obama became the first president in American history to openly support the rights of homosexuals to marry. He signed no bill, but his verbal affirmation was a huge symbolic (and PR) win for advocates.
So what’s the big deal about gay marriage?
Barney Frank once asked, “How will my same-sex marriage harm YOUR marriage?” A fair question, and one that deserves some answers.
But first, may I request some ground rules in this “fight over same-sex marriage?”
- Can we dial down the venom and volume a notch or two? Can we passionately disagree without assuming the worst about each other? I will choose to assume that LGBT-rights advocates do NOT want to morally vaporize America, or throw Neanderthals like me into re-edugaytion camps. In return, could you not assume that those of us who oppose gay marriage are haters and bigots who would bludgeon gays if nobody was watching?
- I won’t demand that you blindly follow my God, my Bible, or my views on sexuality. You won’t demand that I abandon those beliefs or silence myself about them.
- Neither of us will lie or fudge the science/psychology numbers.
- The Bible encourages “speaking the truth in love.” Surely, we can all embrace at least THAT. Surely we can defend our opinion ABOUT truth, and still do so in a spirit of love.
Fair enough?
So, what’s the big deal about gay marriage, and why do I oppose it?
Morality: The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. Those who say otherwise are either distorting the words of scripture, or believing someone else who has done so. I understand that we don’t live in a theocracy, and that ours is an increasingly secularized America. What I’m not sure others acknowledge is that EVERY law is tied to morality. Unavoidably so. To fight for the rights and dignity and equality of every individual is ITSELF a moral proposition. We cannot get away from legislating SOMEBODY’s morality.
Precedent: Is the root of the argument, “Why can’t any American adult be afforded the same right to marry as any other?” If so, we shouldn’t discriminate against the polygamist who wants 6 wives/husbands. Or the lady who wants to marry her own brother. In fact why can’t an entire family reunion all inter-marry each other in a tangled nuptial web? Or are we just carving out room for ONE politically powerful group to redefine marriage?
Societal good: Once marriage no longer means marriage, what then? To deconstruct and redefine marriage (and, inescapably, gender too) is to strip some things of their inherent dignity. Those things include masculinity, femininity, fatherhood, motherhood. No matter a person’s religious or moral views, we must agree that history and biology enshrine the family unit as the key for cultural survival.
Unintended (or intended) Consequences: I personally do not believe same-sex marriage is about “marriage equality.” I think it is about forced normalization. I could be wrong. But I believe the big push is toward requiring – by force of law and lawsuits – all of us to call homosexuality normal. In NJ, a lesbian couple filed a discrimination complaint against a Methodist facility because they were denied permission to hold their commitment ceremony there. And won. The Salvation Army in San Francisco lost a $3.5 million contract for providing services to the poor because it refused to provide domestic-partner benefits. Chai Feldblum, EEOC Commissioner, said this about any conflict between religious liberty and gay rights: “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”
The Bible, biology, common sense, and thousands of years of civilization unanimously oppose the notion of homosexual “marriage.” I believe that in a free America homosexuals have the right to be homosexual. And the right to own a home in my neighborhood. And a right not be be harassed or victimized. And a right to designate whomever they choose as heirs, hospital visitors, co-signers, etc.
But nobody has the right to tell me what I must believe or accept.
Let me start by saying that I greatly appreciate you setting ground rules. Still, it’s not going to keep me from thinking that those who oppose same sex marriage are bigots. That’s just my opinion on the matter.
I will take you to task on your point about precedent. It wasn’t so long ago that marriage laws were changed to allow interracial couples to marry. So this idea that marriage laws are inflexible baffles me. As does the idea that allowing same sex couples to marry would open up some proverbial ‘flood gate.’
I hear Conservatives pose the question “If we allow gays to marry, where do we draw the line?” And I’ll tell you where. We draw the line at two human adults. See? It’s not that hard to draw that line.
I take the smallest comfort in the fact that 10 or 20 years from now, those who oppose same sex marriage now will be viewed similarly as those who opposed interracial marriage 10 or 20 years ago.
Finally, no one is making you believe or accept anything.
Believe whatever you want. But this idea that our laws should be changed based on the religious views of one group? That’s pretty darn un-American.
What’s the big deal? Here are 1.138 reasons it’s a big deal.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/GAOBenefits.pdf
When gay Americans have these same rights that straight Americans enjoy, then we’ll talk about your other reservations.
Until then, gay marriage isn’t an “issue” — it’s real people’s lives. Laws made against us actually, tangibly harm our lives and our well-being. Sorry if we’re not asking nicely enough.
Kevin,
All arguments about scripture interpretation aside, I have a question for you:
If you believed that homosexuality is not a choice, would the way you treat LBGTs be any different? Would you encourage your congregation to view them any differently?
The reason it’s a big deal is because–if you believe it’s not a choice–it causes real harm to a group of people. A group that has historically been victimized and marginalized. And we all care about people, right? Like enough to “love your neighbor as yourself” or maybe even enough to “lay down your life for your friends.” That’s what Christians and people of character on both sides of the issues aspire to.
The fact that LBTGs have not been “normalized” means that parents shun their own children, young people live in denial and are even driven to suicide. Imagine the pain that a young person in your congregation would feel if they were gay and couldn’t admit to anyone around them. The reason that you have come under criticism is because what you teach encourages that to happen. It encourages parents in your congregation to turn on their children instead of loving and accepting them. It encourages closeted homosexuals to go ahead and try to get married to someone they aren’t attracted to in an attempt to fool themselves and others around them into thinking they’re “normal.” It encourages children to bully those who are different from them. And–if this issue isn’t really your focus–it distances LGBTs and LBGTs advocates from your real message.
I think this is what the debate comes down to. I know that you believe that it is a choice–and that’s a whole other argument. But what if you didn’t think that it was something they choose or change? If that was the case, I don’t see how you can preach what you preach in good conscience.
And why should we draw the line at two human adults? Is that not bigoted toward polygamist-Americans? And it isn’t a matter of changing law; it is a matter of protecting actual marriage so that it isn’t deconstructed.
Additionally, I don’t at all buy any moral equivalency between race and sexual choice. I suspect you know better than that as well.
Thank you, Pastor Kevin. Thank you for speaking truth into my life.
What you’re using is something called the “slippery slope fallacy.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope It’s a common mode of faulty reasoning.
See, like this: Why should we draw the line at outlawing same-sex marriage? If we really want to protect marriage why don’t we outlaw divorce as well? That would certainly be a matter of “protecting actual marriage so that it isn’t deconstructed,” and you’ll find a lot more against divorce in the bible than you will against gay marriage. But that’s not an argument you’ll hear me making, because that’s a logical fallacy.
As for your second point, I guess that’s the difference, as Observer said. If being gay is a choice, then you might have a point. If it’s not a choice, then, whoops, it is actually very much like race and you’ve made a big mistake.
As for determining whether it’s a choice or not, who would know? What group of people might have some insight into that question? Yep, gay people, and guess what, they’re pretty unanimous that it’s not a choice.
First, no evidence exists that homosexuality is other than a choice. And herculean efforts have been made to do so – to no avail. But even if some evidence surfaced, predisposition doesn’t mean predestination. My 15-year-old’s raging hormones propel him to desire sex with every pretty girl he sees. Should I teach him restraint, or tell him to copulate with every willing partner? For that matter, we are all born sinners. We ALL have to learn to reign in our impulses.
Secondly, please do not make any assumptions about the way I “treat” homosexuals. Or adulterers, or Yankee fans. I think everybody should treat everybody with love and dignity and respect. And I try hard to do just that.
But that doesn’t mean we should – on the basis of love – deconstruct a major part of society’s foundation.
I don’t buy the line that those who believe what the Bible says about sexuality are somehow personally responsible for the suicide of a homosexual. That is a propagandist talking point, and a weak one. Sunday after Sunday, I encourage an entire congregation to repent for a wide range of sins. Does that mean I should live in constant fear that my words will kill them? C’mon.
Thanks for dropping by, friend. And thanks for caring enough to leave some thoughtful and respectful comments.
Blessings.
THANK YOU Kevin. EVERYTHING so well said. I love your boldness for Christ and your willingness to speak truth. Keep it up Brother. The world needs more men like you.
Kevin,
Thanks for speaking truth. When my focus remains on how Jesus would respond, loving but not refraining from what the Father said (says), this struggle stays clear.
Continue speaking truth. God will be glorified!
If we obeyed all the laws of the bible our lives would be quite different. Aren’t there rules in the bible prohibiting eating certain foods, working on the sabbath, divorcing, the way you should dress and the way you should cut your hair etc. We do not live the same way they lived in biblical times. We do not stone “sinners” or law breakers, we do not partake in animal sacrifices or own slaves. Women have rights now that they did not have in biblical times. So many things about the world have changed since biblical times and yet on this issue we are expected to obey outdated, ridiculous laws put in place thousands of years ago? I don’t see christians pitching a fit about divorce, which is clearly labeled as a sin many times in the bible. Many more times than homosexuality is.
Rebecca, the rule of thumb is this with biblical interpretation: “Practices change, but principles don’t.” It is true that Christians are no longer held to obeying the ceremonial or ritual laws of the Old Testament. The New Testament makes that clear. But you are right that divorce (and adultery, abuse, etc.) are ALSO sins, and you are right that the church seems to have waved the white flag in some of those areas.
Thanks for your comments.
Just as “all that glitters is not gold,” all that is referenced in Wiki is not valid or relevant. There is a difference between a strained or contrived slippery slope and a legal precedent. I’d be happy for you to show me the flaw in the assertion that gay marriage has to keep the door open to polygamous or incestuous marriage. And please do so without using the SAME logic I do to oppose gay marriage.
I’d disagree strongly with your last point. NONE of the science, physiological or behavioral, has demonstrated that homosexuality is genetic and not environmental/chosen. Additionally, if there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, why do so many go to such lengths to insist “I couldn’t help it.” Why not insist that it was a choice, and an honorable one?
Maybe because there is an innate awareness that it is unnatural and opposed to God’s design for our sexuality?
Just a thought.
Kevin, thanks for your reply, but I’m a little disappointed that you didn’t entertain my hypothetical about whether you would do things differently if you believed that it might not be a choice. I think your conclusions would have to change if you thought it wasn’t a choice. Mine would change if I thought homosexuality was a choice, and a wrong one, like you do.
That leads me to another question, that you may or may not answer… Is there anything that could convince you of the possibility that being gay isn’t a choice? If a series of studies that you considered unbiased were published, maybe then? If enough other SBC ministers held the same view? If a member of your congregation “came out”? Maybe one of your own children? Your statement that “no evidence exists” on the subject is extreme. It’s mixed evidence at best(or worst.)
I know from experience that it’s difficult to change your beliefs on issues like this–even for those of us whose careers don’t depend on it. I would expect you to be the last person to change your mind. But there are plenty of Christians who feel that acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage does not cause a conflict with their faith. Yours isn’t the only interpretation of the Bible.
The main thing that convinced me was just getting to know some gay individuals and putting myself in their shoes. If it was a choice, I can’t imagine why anyone would chose it. And they do fight against it; even admitting it to themselves is a huge challenge for people who have internalized teachings like yours. It’s cruel to then say, “maybe they can’t choose who they’re attracted to, but they can choose not to act on it.” A committed relationship between two adults is not the same as a teenager acting on every impulse. In my opinion, it’s the same–or should be the same–as my own committed relationship to my spouse. A better analogy would be telling your son not just to refrain from acting on every impulse–but not to act on any of them ever, because something’s wrong with him. To get used to being alone and forget about finding a loving partner to spend his life with. Tell me that wouldn’t cause him pain or be less-than-loving treatment of him. Thanks for listening.
Just wanted to post a link to a good summary of scientific studies on both sides of the issue:
http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001335
No, they haven’t found “the gay gene,” but there has been scientific evidence in favor of the “born gay” argument.
I’m not totally closed to the possibility of homosexuality having some genetic cause. I doubt it because the science doubts it. And because a genetic trait that discourages reproduction would have died out long ago. It is “evolutionarily maladaptive.”
But here’s why I think all of that is kinda moot: We’re ALL born sinners. So we’re all born sexually broken. We’re all born with distortions and perversions of how we really should be. That just cannot be used as an excuse to indulge the distortion. We have to (my teenage son, you, me, everybody) find some authority by which to know what is normal/right/wrong. I believe that authority is the Bible. It condemns sex outside the marriage of a man to a woman.
As with all things, what the Bible normalizes ends up being the healthiest and most fulfilling thing for the individual and the culture.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ would be destroyed. (she legally married in Vegas and 55 hours later divorced)
Just the notion that a same sex marriage would have any bearing on the validity of heterosexual marriage.. it boggles my mind.
I have just two questions:
1) What if morality wasn’t based on the Bible or any religion? For an atheist like me, talking about sins and everybody being born a sinner doesn’t make any sense, because I don’t believe in sin. So why should I (if, hypothetically I were gay) have to obey a biblical law that defines what’s a normal and unsinful marriage?
2) Are you against divorce? I think someone mentioned up there that the bible condemns divorce more than homosexuality.
1) The corresponding question would be: Upon what then IS morality based? An innate awareness of right and wrong is a strong argument for theism, I think. In fact, I don’t necessarily believe the Bible “announced” morality to the world. I think something in us resonates with the (correctly understood) moral principles of the Bible because we are made in the image of God. The Bible powerfully explains why we know there is right and wrong AND why we struggle to DO the right.
2) Yes, I am opposed to divorce. I’m not sure it is accurate that the Bible condemns it more often, but divorce apart from two allowances (adultery and desertion on spiritual grounds) is sin.