There's a lot of good material posted on a regular basis by Frank Turk, Dan Phillips, and the rest of the team on the Pyromaniacs Twitter feed. I recently read an article linked there by Frank Turk. It's a piece arguing against homosexual marriage, written by a homosexual. The author is Doug Mainwaring. I would add Christian arguments to his more secular arguments, and there are a lot of non-Christian arguments against homosexual marriage that he doesn't address. But the article is a good illustration of how a person doesn't have to be religious, or even heterosexual, to be opposed to homosexual marriage.
For more examples of arguments against homosexual marriage that are of a more secular nature, see Dan McLaughlin's article here. I would add that society has good reason to give preference to the heterosexual relationship even if no children are involved. The heterosexual relationship is distinct from the homosexual relationship, and benefits society in its uniqueness, even if no children result.
Regarding the religious case against homosexual marriage, keep in mind that many modern notions of separation of church and state are just that: modern. Often, they're also illogical and unlivable. Our nation was founded on the religious idea that we're endowed by God with rights. The Declaration of Independence is an explicitly religious document, and the Constitution, though less explicitly religious, also involves some religious precepts. The founders who served in political offices after the Constitution was enacted often used their political positions to engage in explicitly religious activities (proclamations for days of fasting and prayer, etc.). Much of the religious activity of the early American government was somewhat pluralistic, but religious pluralism isn't equivalent to secularism. And even if you think that some sort of separation of church and state prevents Congress and other entities from acting with religious motivation, it can't prevent voters from acting with such motivation. Even when voters have alleged secular reasons for opposing something like murder, those secular reasons are accompanied by religious motivations. People form their ethical views based on a combination of factors, and the idea of disregarding all religious factors when deciding how to vote or what public policy to support is absurd and unlivable. Religious arguments against homosexual marriage can't be dismissed just because they're religious. There is no separation of church and state that prevents our government from acting on religious grounds, and it's untenable to expect voters to remove all religious motivation from their actions.
That article by the homosexual against "gay marriage" should be read by everyone. There are so many powerfully true statements in it that that article should be recommended by every one.
ReplyDeleteFolks, if you haven't read it, READ IT!!!!
Thanks Jason for the link.
I found the argument of the homosexual who argued against gay marriage unconvincing. One does not prove one's point against all or for none by citing individual cases.
ReplyDeleteBelow is a link to a blogpost I wrote on the subject almost a year ago. It provides the perfect complement for the argument made above
http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/2012/05/should-christians-support-gay-marriage.html
Curt Day,
DeleteThere are a lot of problems with your article.
You don't give us any reason to agree with your assertion that homosexuals have a right to marry members of the same sex.
You object to attempts to control other people's behavior, but that sort of reasoning would disallow all laws, not just laws against homosexual marriage.
Your objection to past governmental abuses by Christians doesn't justify the conclusion that Christians shouldn't try to implement their beliefs at the governmental level. Rather, past governmental abuses just tell us that we should try to avoid abuse. Whether opposing homosexual marriage at the governmental level is abusive is something you need to argue, not just assume. It's a disputed point. Since Christians have sometimes been abusive in other contexts, should we also avoid being involved in those other areas? If some Christians have voted the wrong way in the past, should all Christians avoid voting from now on? If some Christians have abused their friends in the past, should all Christians avoid being involved in friendships from now on?
The philosophy of government that you advocate in your article is itself part of your religious belief system, one that you attempt to support with citations of scripture. If it's acceptable for you to argue for and attempt to implement your religious view of government, why can't other people do the same?
In the comments section of your thread, you object to incestuous marriage on the basis that it "is biologically bad in terms of reproduction but there is no group of people who feel cheated out of this opportunity". But there are many health disadvantages to homosexualilty as well, like the ones discussed in the article by Dan McLaughlin that I linked above. And there are people who want incestuous marriage, so your claim that "there is no group of people who feel cheated out of this opportunity" is false. You then write that "the NAMBLA comparison doesn't hold since marriage is defined as between consenting adults". But marriage has traditionally been defined as between members of the opposite sex as well. That hasn't prevented people from arguing for a change in the definition, and you've defended that change. Besides, where are you getting your definition of marriage? From the Bible? Then why isn't homosexual marriage excluded? Or are you getting your definition from society? But society has been excluding homosexuals from marriage, so why are you telling us that homosexuals have a right to marry and that we should change our definition of marriage accordingly? And if we aren't supposed to try to "control" other people through the law, then why are you trying to control adults who want to marry children? Shouldn't you just let polygamists, people who want incestuous marriage, people who want to marry animals, children who want to marry each other, etc. do whatever they want?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the response. Regarding your first concern. You are right I didn't. I presupposed that in a nation founded on equality, consenting adults have the right to marry regardless of the gender. This is an equality issue for gays including those who have fought to defend this country.
Regarding your next concern, you are right that Christians should try their beliefs at the gov't level but that should depend on which beliefs. But should the gov't be able to outlaw heresy or other religions? Does the gov't have the right to punish me if I don't keep the sabbath the way it specifies or if I dance (I have neither the desire nor the ability to) or play cards or chew tobacco or drink (I don't do the latter two) or any other activity that some have objected to because of religion?
So here we are not talking about whether we can have Christian activism, we are talking about which beliefs should be implemented and which ones should not? How much control do Christians want over society? For Martin Luther King, he believed that gov't should implement his beliefs in uplifting the poor and eradicating racism. He also opposed militarism because it meant leaving the poor behind as well as it was most often based on racism as well.
As for your other concerns, incestuous marriage is bad for the offspring, there is no offspring with same sex marriage. Whatever health problem result from monogamous homosexual marriages are, not as great as you suppose, and accepted risk by the couple. If you want to prohibit same sex marriage because you see too much continuity with what groups like NAMBLA want and same sex marriage, realize that a significant number of child rapes are heterosexual. So would you like to outlaw heterosexual marriage because it could lead to married couples where one partner is a child?
Another presupposition I have is that society's standards do not necessarily have to be based on the Bible especially in a land founded on religious freedom.
Yes, there are issues where Christians should press their beliefs. But a balance should be reached so that we don't replace a democracy with either an ethnocracy--one particular ethnic or religious group dominates society, or a theocracy. That is because then your Biblical preaching against homosexuality will then be associated with your desire to dominate society. In other words, your desire to dominate will cause people to automatically shut their ears to your preaching.
The real issue with same sex marriage society is whether the Church should respond with evangelism alone or by using society as an auxiliary disciplinary arm. The latter choice has been a stumbling block to many who would listen to the Gospel. As for your slippery slope analogies, remember that heterosexual marriage is one step up the slope from homosexual marriage.
Curt Day wrote:
Delete"I presupposed that in a nation founded on equality, consenting adults have the right to marry regardless of the gender."
I don't accept that presupposition. Where's your argument for it? For example, how do you know that qualifiers like "adults" and "gender" should be included, whereas other potential qualifiers, like "people" rather than "adults" or "relationship" rather than "gender", shouldn't be included? Since polygamy meets your definition above, do you support the legality of polygamy?
You wrote:
"But should the gov't be able to outlaw heresy or other religions? Does the gov't have the right to punish me if I don't keep the sabbath the way it specifies or if I dance (I have neither the desire nor the ability to) or play cards or chew tobacco or drink (I don't do the latter two) or any other activity that some have objected to because of religion?"
Since this thread is about homosexual marriage, you'll have to explain why you think homosexual marriage is something that shouldn't be regulated against on religious grounds. Citing other things you wouldn't want the government to do doesn't address the issue this thread is focused upon. Once you acknowledge that the government doesn't have to be secular, you need to provide a justification for exempting something particular, like homosexual marriage, from religious considerations.
You wrote:
"As for your other concerns, incestuous marriage is bad for the offspring, there is no offspring with same sex marriage."
We have reason to be concerned with every citizen, not just children. And homosexuals can adopt. Again, see Dan McLaughlin's article linked above.
You wrote:
"The real issue with same sex marriage society is whether the Church should respond with evangelism alone or by using society as an auxiliary disciplinary arm. The latter choice has been a stumbling block to many who would listen to the Gospel."
Unbelievers object to a lot of aspects of Christianity, such as its view of premarital sex and its exclusivism. We're responsible for upholding those aspects of the faith anyway. Scripture teaches that governments should acknowledge God and exercise righteousness. And in our nation, we have a large amount of influence over the government through voting and other means. If some of our fellow citizens are offended by Christian influence over the government, then let them remain offended. Why do you think it offends them? Largely because they don't want Biblical standards upheld. The notion of leading people to the gospel by means of removing Christian influence over a society is perverse. Should we also abandon Christian teaching about premarital sex, pornography, abortion, etc., so that those offensive beliefs won't be stumbling blocks either?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteDeclaration of Independence says all are equal. It seems that you are against/afraid of this. So we have equality there. As for adults marrying adults regardless of gender, if you have equality and heterosexuals can marry, then people of the same gender can marry. And if we have religious liberty, the Christianity's definition of marriage cannot necessarily prohibit same sex marriages.
If we really want to confront same sex marriages, we will do it through the Gospel. When we try to do this using the law, we are seen as oppressors by more and more people. This will be a stumbling block to people listening to us while we share the Gospel. Same sex marriage is an evangelical issue, not a legal one.
If you want to use the argument that governments are to acknowledge God and exercise righteousness, you have to be more precise. Should governments punish believers in other religions? Should governments burn heretics at the stake?
Finally, one of the things that really offends people when we try to use government to enforce Christian viewpoints is the attempt to dominate. We are not called to dominate. We are called to serve. And if we combine serving with preaching rather than dominating with preaching, we will bring credit to the Gospel. In addition, we cannot be abandoning our Christian teaching because we are preaching the Gospel. Please read Martin Luther's statements on the Jews. He argued, while supporting persecution of the Jews for their unbelief, that if society does not punish the Jews then they will be complicit in their unbelief. Realize that Hitler added only 1.5 alterations to Luther's suggestions to perform the Holocaust.
Curt Day said:
Delete"Declaration of Independence says all are equal...So we have equality there."
1. Why don't you explain what legal authority the Declaration of Independence possesses over our lives?
2. However, if you're citing it in terms of a moral argument, then where's your argument? In fact, why should Christians even accept the Declaration as a predominant support for a moral argument in favor of same-sex marriage in the first place?
3. It seems to me you're equivocating and using the terms "equal" in a different sense than what the Declaration meant by "equal." It seems to me what you're really getting at is a form of egalitarianism, and in fact, a form of egalitarianism which is most often espoused by the socially liberal. But that's not what everyone means by "equal." And that's probably not what Thomas Jefferson would've thought when he used the term "equal." For example, it's not as if he freed all his slaves.
4. All this begs the question, equal in what respect? At what point are the two equal (e.g. innately)? You bandy around terms like "equal" and "equality" but you don't explain in what respect same-sex marriage is or should be "equal" to marriage between a man and a woman. You just take "equality" for granted, as if it were self-explanatory, yet your argument only works if we all agree "equal" and "equality" should mean the same thing. Yet that's a point of contention, for we would hardly grant equality means what you think equality should mean.
Or to put it another way, you're sneaking into your definition of "equality" the idea that heterosexuals and homosexuals should be classified under the same category in terms of marriage. But we would hardly agree.
5. Just because the word "equal" is used in the Declaration of Independence doesn't mean much in and of itself. You need to provide some sort of supporting argumentation. One could just as well say the Declaration includes the phrase "separate and equal" and take from it to mean some rather unsavory things.
"And if we have religious liberty, the Christianity's definition of marriage cannot necessarily prohibit same sex marriages."
DeleteThat's not what religious liberty means. Why should religious liberty be a means by which others like you are allowed to redefine what Christians can or cannot do, even if it goes against their consciences and/or what they believe the Bible teaches?
"If we really want to confront same sex marriages, we will do it through the Gospel. When we try to do this using the law, we are seen as oppressors by more and more people. This will be a stumbling block to people listening to us while we share the Gospel. Same sex marriage is an evangelical issue, not a legal one."
Why did you raise legal issues then?
"Should governments punish believers in other religions? Should governments burn heretics at the stake?"
This is neither here nor there. We're not attempting to craft a systematic Christian political philosophy for the state or whatever. We're addressing the issue of same-sex marriage within the context of this post. That's what's immediately relevant.
"Finally, one of the things that really offends people when we try to use government to enforce Christian viewpoints is the attempt to dominate. We are not called to dominate. We are called to serve."
We live in a democracy (give or take). We have a right to voice our opinions and vote just as much as any other American citizen.
Many groups such as social liberals attempt to "dominate" by imposing their values on society. Why can't American citizens who are Christians respond?
You're setting up a false dichotomy. Speaking out, signing ballots, voting, and other political activities aren't mutually exclusive to serving faithfully at a church or otherwise living a pious life.
"Please read Martin Luther's statements on the Jews. He argued, while supporting persecution of the Jews for their unbelief, that if society does not punish the Jews then they will be complicit in their unbelief. Realize that Hitler added only 1.5 alterations to Luther's suggestions to perform the Holocaust."
Realize you're not debating Martin Luther. What he says isn't what we would necessarily say. What he did isn't what we would necessarily do.
Curt Day
Delete"Jason, Declaration of Independence says all are equal. It seems that you are against/afraid of this. So we have equality there."
Well that's anachronistic. Do you have any evidence from Jefferson's other writings, or writings of other founding fathers, that Jefferson and the other founding fathers thought homosexuals were entitled to equal rights? You seem to be operating with a "Living Constitution" hermeneutic, where you "discover" new rights in defiance of original intent.
So Christians shouldn’t protect kids from child molesters by opposing laws that make pedophilia a legally sanctioned sexual orientation. Protecting children by opposing such laws would seem oppressive to pedophiles and be a stumbling block to child rapists.
DeleteLikewise, Christians shouldn’t protect the elderly, disabled, or mentally ill from being euthanized, since that really offends some people.
We live in a challenging time for Christians. It’s appalling that Christians like you can be so morally confused. The right thing to do is staring you in the face, yet you’re blowing the test. You don’t even have proper masculine instincts.
Patrick,
ReplyDeletePlease understand that I am only arguing for the society's acceptance of same-sex marriage, not the Church's. I have written about this in the following post:
http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/2012/05/should-christians-support-gay-marriage.html
Now for some of your points
Though the Declaration of Independence has no "legal" authority, the equality that is emphasized in the Declaration are presupposed, however imperfectly, in the Constitution. This is indicated by the Supreme Court decisions that undid the systematic inequality that existed in many of the discriminatory laws from our past. And that concept is still being used today. Of course, if you want to argue that gays cannot practice same-sex marriage because heterosexuals are superior and thus are the only ones who deserve the right to marry, be my guest. Just remember what you are associating with the Gospel when you do that.
So why should Christians accept the moral argument of equality? Again, don't and see what you are associating with the Gospel. Do you really want people to think of Christian domination of society when they hear the Gospel? Of course, there is another problem. That problem is that us Christians have difficulty in distinguishing what morals should be binding in the Church alone from those that should be binding in society as well. The cause of that inability to distinguish may not be religious or philosophical but psychological. Those who engage in too much all-or-nothing thinking struggle to make necessary distinctions.
We have a society whose laws are based on equality and respect. That means that none of us should be treated with preference before the law. Likewise, the law should not favor any group.
What some fellow Christians don't know what they are advocating when they want Christianity to determine the laws of the land is that they are asking for a place of preference in society. When a religious or ethnic group does that, they are not asking for democracy, which is the rule of all people, they are asking for an ethnocracy where one group has a position of advantage in making and living before the law over other groups.
Finally, I wasn't debating Luther. I was pointing out the similarities between Luther's treatment of the Jews later in his career with our treatment of gays. Certainly we are not as severe with gays as Luther was with the Jews. But the justification for society acting against a specific group is the same.
Curt Day,
DeleteYou keep repeating bad arguments without interacting with counterarguments that have already been offered. You suggest that we shouldn't "act against a specific group", yet I've given you examples of how we as a nation have always acted against groups, and you've acknowledged that you do the same. You act against people who want incestuous marriage, people who want marriage between adults and children, etc. And citing references to equality in the Declaration of Independence is facile. Equality can have different referents in different contexts. You don't think there should be marriage equality for those who want incestuous marriage or marriage between an adult and a child. How do you supposedly know that the Declaration of Independence is referring to equality in the sense of allowing homosexual marriage, but not in the sense of allowing those other types of marriage?
Curt, I've responded to you here.
DeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteYou blanketly say that my arguments are bad but that is all. I gave a specific grounds for why incestuous and adult child marriages should be rejected. In addition, you have not shown why those kinds of marriages are comparable with same-sex marriages. In each of these marriages, children are hurt. Who is hurt in a same-sex marriage between two consenting adults? How are your personal choices affected by a same-sex marriage between two consenting adults. Equality is the issue here because you have not shown how others are hurt or their rights are infringed on.
What you have argued instead is the same line of argument used by Southern businessmen who resisted civil rights and the same line of argument that could be used to refuse services to those from other faiths.
You are simply against equality. You are for privilege. And that is the problem here. Don't blame for your resistance to equality. Again, the comparisons you make between same-sex marriage and either polygamy or adult-child marriages are non-existent. Same-sex marriages between consenting adults is comparable to our current, monogamous heterosexual marriages or at least more so than what you listed. In heterosexual marriages, you have only two people and both are consenting adults. Your comparisons are a ruse to justify discrimination. And, btw, did the signers of the declaration of independence envision equality being extended to women and people from other races? You say that isn't valid because homosexuality is a behavior, not a race or gender. But the point was that the signers did not see all of the implications of what they wrote. They were divinely inspired. In addition, there is good evidence to suggest that at least some of the signers saw this being extended to people of different and even no religions.
Curt Day wrote:
Delete"You blanketly say that my arguments are bad but that is all. I gave a specific grounds for why incestuous and adult child marriages should be rejected. In addition, you have not shown why those kinds of marriages are comparable with same-sex marriages. In each of these marriages, children are hurt. Who is hurt in a same-sex marriage between two consenting adults?"
You're either remarkably dishonest or remarkably inattentive, if not both. See the articles linked at the beginning of this thread, which give many examples of the harmful effects of homosexuality. And since you've agreed that homosexuality is a sin, and you claim to be a Christian, it logically follows that under your view many negative consequences result from homosexual marriage (alienation from God, the wrath of God, the discouragement of those who are trying to live righteously, etc.). To claim to be a Christian, and to acknowledge that homosexuality is sinful, yet ask "Who is hurt in a same-sex marriage between two consenting adults?" is deeply irrational. If you don't think sin has negative consequences, then why do you even claim to be a Christian?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteA correction my last post. I wrote this about the signers:
"They were divinely inspired."
That should have said
"They were not divinely inspired."