Wednesday, 30 June 2010
-
The Trouble with Gay Marriage
There are two levels on which the gay marriage debate typically takes place. The first is an in-house Christian discussion about whether and to what degree a homosexual lifestyle is compatible with Christian discipleship. (In the Christian view, marriage is an aspect of discipleship.) The second is a broader cultural discussion about the place of same-sex couples in American society and jurisprudence. We can call the first the Christian discussion and the second the gay rights discussion, even though same-sex marriage is only one aspect of the gay rights movement. The trouble emerges when these two discussions are not sufficiently distinguished from one another.
The church, I am afraid to say, is much more confused than the world on this matter. This is for a couple of reasons. First, many in the church feel that the results from their discussion will have a significant impact on the results of the broader cultural discussion. It is assumed that if Christians conclude that the Bible forbids homosexual practice, it follows that America must outlaw same-sex marriage. For this reason, many in the church, such as Bishop John Shelby Spong, argue that even if the Bible does condemn it, the loving thing to do is to ignore what the Bible says. Others won't go so far as to overturn scripture, but instead refuse to provide an answer at all: Brian McLaren recently urged the Christian community to commit to a five-year moratorium on pronouncements about homosexuality.
But the church is even more confused than this, I am afraid. The church has largely lost track of its own understanding of marriage and adopted the world's instead. Everyone knows the world's understanding: two people fall in love, and enter into an egalitarian relationship, which either party can dissolve at will, provided they fall out of love first. Children complicate this understanding of marriage, but only barely. Christians have by and large taken this notion of marriage (a relatively recent development in western culture) and run with it, making it "Christian" simply by adding, "You're not allowed to fall out of love." This has given rise to an entire cottage industry of tools and resources--such as Five Love Languages, The Love Dare, the books of John and Stasi Eldredge, Promise-Keepers, etc.--to prevent Christians from falling out of love. But the traditional Christian understanding of marriage has nothing to do with falling in love. "Love" for the church only names what a lifelong marriage in the end amounted to and contained within it. Marriage for Christians has traditionally been understood as an aspect of Christian discipleship, a gift from God that enables us to more ably follow Jesus. (Celibacy and ministry are also understood as such gifts.)With its worldly understanding of marriage firmly in grasp, and its fear of ruining the lives of its homosexual neighbors, the church has largely come to a place where it makes no sense to deny marriage to same-sex couples, who, after all, can feel just as "in love" as any Christian, and often seem to do much better at it.
What the conversation needs if it is going to become intelligible is a divorce. Once we disentangle the Christian discussion from worldly rights-speak and worldly understandings of marriage, we can get on to the actual business at hand. For my part, I understand the Bible as teaching that a homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with Christian discipleship, which means that same-sex marriage has no place in the church. Those with same-sex attraction, along with many heterosexuals, will be called to live in the church as single and celibate, which means that the church as a whole is called to be a people whose friendship, hospitality and love can overcome the loneliness that can mark such lives.
But whatever my answer is the Christian discussion--and it is a complex discussion, whatever anyone says--it has no direct bearing on the gay rights debate. From my perspective, I would critique the entire notion of marriage as a civil institution. The state cannot marry anyone, gay or straight, and if it feels that it should recognize certain civil unions for tax purposes or allow individuals to name others as insurance beneficiaries or legal custodians, I don't see what the church's ethic has to do with anything.
What do you think? Could the same-sex marriage discussion benefit from this kind of distinction? Does the church's ethics have any direct bearing on the nation's laws? Does this post make me a conservative or a liberal today?
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: SirNickDon@xanga
- Name: Nick Don
- Location: Wichita, Kansas, United States
- About Me: I teach English as a second language for an online school based in Russia. I am working toward a Master's in Theology and working (very slowly) on writing my first book, an introduction to political theology.
-
True
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 126 Views: 0 79473 Comments: 0 2699 View all posts by SirNickDon@xanga
Comments (32)
Wonder how long it will take for people to run out of things to say on this subject.
I am with you on all these points. If we really want to influence our culture, how about we start acting like true disciples and stop forcing marriage down everyone's throats. Also, all this focus on sex, even in the church is hurting us. Unless you are the pastor, and they are having problems, you don't need to know what goes on in a heterosexual couple's bedroom. With gay couples, they should not be in fellowship in the church as a coupling, but should be free to live anyway they want in the world and we should let them be the world as they are, especially if they have repeatedly rejected the truth of the Bible on the subject. However, if people do struggle with that sin, and are single, they should still be in fellowship, but actively working, as we all are with our other sins, to be more of what Christ wants us to be in all aspects of life, including how we relate to people. I say you are a centrist today.
I'm all for gay marriage despite me being a Catholic because I view love as simply love. And I agree that it should be decided by the state and that the church should not have any hold over this.
Though you may not be liberal, your view will definitely be seen as liberal. But then again my best friend is conservative and gay. So really who cares if you are liberal or conservative.
The Catholic Church is crystal clear on its teaching on marriage and family. So to say that the Church is confused about this issue of gay marriage is incorrect.
Since Christian teachings on marriage and family are crystal clear then it must be concluded that it is people who are the ones confused.
@SexyGamerGirl@xanga - Marriage is about a lot more than love. Arguments based on emotion tend toward disorder.
Here are the Church teachings on homosexuality:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
That is what crystal clarity looks like.
@SexyGamerGirl@xanga - Love is not what makes marriage, in God's eyes.
Yeah, a clean-cut definition of "marriage" is really needed in this whole debate...everyone looks at it a little differently and I think that's where a lot of the arguing is coming from.
Also: Anyone else feel like the title of this blog is inaccurate/begging for attention?
@TheNewSeminarian - That definition is only crystal clear if you are Catholic and believe that Catholic doctrine is inerrant. Of course, in the broader Christian spectrum, the infallibility of the Catholic Church is greatly in question. The author of this blog is entirely right in stating that the modern view of marriage, largely embraced by both Christians and non-Christians is not firmly rooted in the Biblical depiction of marriage. We also have to deal with a completely different presentation of marriage between the OT and NT, and then we have to reconcile Paul's ideas about gender--and how gender affects a marriage--to a society in which gender roles are very different.
So, while the Catholic Church's doctrine may be crystal clear, what the BIble has to say about marriage (and for that matter, homosexuality) is certainly *not* crystal clear.
@the_silent_struggle@xanga - True, but Eve was only ever created to offer Adam companionship. As much as God did not make marriage for our modern conception of "love," he also did not make marriage specifically for reproduction. Marriage is ultimately about companionship (which usually evolves into love) and a monogamous means for sexual fulfillment.
@SexyGamerGirl@xanga - There is nothing simple about love--in fact, it is a very confusing word. For some it means affection, others passion, sometimes sexual attraction, and sometimes an active selflessness. Using such abstract terms is part of the reason the current debate is so confused. If we could all decide on what "love" is we would have a much easier time.
@CyanideNGunpowder@xanga - The title is certainly a bait-and-switch, a great rhetorical device Paul used himself--ironically, he used it in Romans 1, baiting his reader to judge the subjects of the first chapter so he could lay the smack-down in Romans 2. A good title *should* beg for attention.
@sarahzthoughts@xanga - Is your solution to the debate to just *stop talking about it*? We're still debating the merits of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, still deciphering Romans, still engaging in (mostly) thoughtful conversation about gender roles and women in leadership. In a couple of decades the discussion on homosexuality in the church may go the way of the polygamy debate in LDS circles, but until someone writes the definitive opinion on homosexuality and the Church or God convicts us all of the same truth simultaneously, we're in this debate for the longhaul. I'd encourage you to contribute something meaningful or to leave the conversation altogether.
@jgstudes@xanga - Whoa, calm down. No need to get defensive. I'm not saying the debate should stop, I'm saying that these posts -- articulate and intelligent as they are -- keep getting recycled over and over again, to a point where nothing new is being said anymore. No one is coming up with any more solutions and I can't be the only person who's sick of seeing yet another featured post on gay marriage. There are other pressing issues to deal with, yet this one and abortion are getting beaten to death, as if they are the only two that Christians care about.
Don't read too deeply into my comment, why should I keep posting my opinion over and over when I've said the same thing on dozens of other featured blogs on this subject (which more or less say the same thing) at least 12 times previously...in this week alone?
It also says in the Bible that men of faith do not take up weapons of the world and yet how many gun-toting Christians lividly defend their Constitutional right to bear arms? Does the Church come down on people who own weapons? Does the Church disallow them from participation? The Church cherry picks from the Bible. People cherry pick what what they want from the Bible based on personal preferences. I'm not saying this is right or wrong but how can there we a clear discussion on these topics when clear answers are based on subjective likes and dislikes? There are gay priests in the Catholic Church. A friend of mine attends a Catholic Church in which her favorite priest is gay and a lot of gay couples attend mass there. She doesn't have a problem with that.
People who are not members of any church or religious group often have a selfless love for one another and religious people sometimes don't. I think you could ask any priest who has given counselling to parishioners who are victims of spousal abuse about the latter.
Personally I think the church should just stay out of it. It's really none of our business. How really would it affect the church anyways if gays got healthcare and the same rights as straight married couples? Not at all? So just deal
@jgstudes@xanga - That definition is only crystal clear if you are Catholic and believe that Catholic doctrine is inerrant.
Clarity has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. Clarity means exact, understandable and well articulated.
The Church's stand is clear, whether you agree with it or not.
if marriage is such a religious institution, then Christian unions should be the only things called marriages. let everything else be called a civil union and receive the same benefits from a SECULAR government. either marriage is all about religion, or nothing about religion. you can't have it both ways.
also, when Christians seek to ban divorce, i'll stop thinking this is nothing but pure homophobia.
@TheNewSeminarian - Marriage is technically about love at least in this day an age. Back in the day people were simply married off by how much money you had. When people don't love each other (in this day) people get divorced. Everything about marriage is love.
And gay people are simply fun so they should be allowed to get married. Many have much better and healthier relationships than straight people
@the_silent_struggle@xanga - Not my God :)
Indeed, the "Christian discussion" about homosexuality and its religious/spiritual role is a sticky one for most people. However, where American law is concerned, homosexuality's religious/spiritual role has nothing to do with the arguments thereof, due to a little thing called separation of church and state. (Same for abortion). The Biblical principles of Christianity, or the principles of any religion, have no place in national jurisdictions. So what does? Though many issues remain controversial, a legal consensus can be seen as a product of the inherent values of humanity (which may or may not be unconsciously spiritual).
Are adulterers or fornicators barred from marriage in our country? No, and the Bible is just as hard on them as it is on homosexuals. So why is America "declining into the pits of depravity" when, from a Christian viewpoint, it's been that way for quite a long time now? My opinion holds that, spiritually, homosexuality is shady, but where the U.S.'s (ideally) unbiased justice system is concerned, homosexuality has all the virtues and vices a logical mind can discern.
I think some have unfortunately become complacent with same-sex marriage. No one wants to hurt anyone's feelings, no one wants to stir up trouble, no one wants to make people angry. Jesus, however, did these things. He stirred things up. People either loved him or hated him. He did not change his words to meet people's lifestyles. Homosexuality is a sin. There's no getting around it. There's no saying "love is love." Sure, you can love another person, but to have sex with them is a totally different thing. What makes homosexuals homosexual is their sexual desire for someone of the same sex. That's not to do with love, in my opinion. Sure, love can stem between these two, but love and sex are not mutually inclusive anymore, not with people "hooking up" with no love between them.
I think we should tell the Truth like it is. Don't worry about offending people if it's the Word of God. Yes, love others, but realize that just because we love them doesn't mean we should let them do things that we know are wrong.
I used to actually argue that a legal marriage and a Godly marriage can be two different things. That we could allow same-sex marriages in the legal system because they wouldn't be truly Godly. But I know now that we can't allow them either way, because it would change the already depraved view of marriage, and we might never get back.
It's not only with gay marriage - I find that religious institutions are often the most clueless as to where their religions stop and to where secular arguments start.
Though, it is particularly bad in the gay marriage debate, where there is no secular argument against homosexuality or marriages amongst it.
@lcf - "I think some have unfortunately become
complacent with same-sex marriage. No one wants to hurt anyone's
feelings, no one wants to stir up trouble, no one wants to make people
angry. Jesus, however, did these things. He stirred things up.
People either loved him or hated him. He did not change his words to
meet people's lifestyles. "
Jesus never said that homosexuality is a sin. The same books that say that menstruation and eating shellfish are sins do say homosexuality is a sin, however.
"What makes homosexuals homosexual is their
sexual desire for someone of the same sex. That's not to do with love,
in my opinion. Sure, love can stem between these two, but love and sex
are not mutually inclusive anymore, not with people "hooking up" with
no love between them."
What a hateful thing to say. Homosexuals are just as loving as heterosexuals. I know homosexual couples that have been together for decades, monogamously and are full of love.
"But I know now that we can't allow them either way, because it would change the already depraved view of marriage."
Depraved view of it? I'm sorry but this is the most hilarious argument against gay marriage that there is. The "sanctity of marriage" argument. Marriage stems from the tradition from when men bought women like property. The bible accounts this well, in addition to being able to hit women and "go unto" the womenfolk amongst prisoners of war.
The thought that a man being in a loving relationship with another man and wanting to marry another man is a depraved form marriage is just... too much. lol.
I'm not a Christian but if I were, I don't think my faith would affect the way I treat and respect people. Doesn't the Bible say, "judge not lest ye be judged," "he who has not sinned cast the first stone," and all that? In America, the Constitution explicitly says, "all men are created equal." Does that mean all straight men? No. If you think homosexuality is a sin, then I have to ask you, when was the last time you sinned? Did you choose to, or is it just part of our nature as humans? Gays don't have an "agenda" to obtain special treatment. They want EQUAL treatment under the law. anything less is unconstitutional. I don't expect to be treated any worse OR BETTER just because I'm a woman. How is gays getting married really consequential in your life anyway? We all fall short of the grace of God. Even straight people.
*sigh* There is nothing wrong with gay marriage...it's their life. They are free to live it the way they want to.
http://moonznstrz.xanga.com/729694171/consequences-of-gay-marriage/
@thenewseminarian
You said "also, when Christians seek to ban divorce,
i'll stop thinking this is nothing but pure homophobia."
Agreed!!!!
& I wanna throw in my 2 cents....
I think if two people, whether gay or straight, want to get married....then let them get married!
Church and state are separated on everything else. States allow abortions despite how religions view it as murder. What does the state care over who gets married????? Black people could not marry white people once upon a time. Now it seems that the only people left out of the whole marriage thing are gay people...hmm....
I think ultimately, when it comes to a wedding ceremony, churches should have a say in whether or not they'll recognize a marriage or wedding to gay couples....
But when it comes to the state, let them do it!!
"It is assumed that if Christians conclude that the Bible forbids homosexual practice, it follows that America must outlaw same-sex marriage."
Simply because one religious view in our culture may forbid homosexual practices, why does that mean that America (as a secular country) should outlaw same-sex marriage?
I think the idea of using religion as a basis for the discussion of whether gay marriage should be allowed is ridiculous. Not every one is Christian or Jewish or Muslim, or even spiritual. Just because you don't understand something, or just because you don't believe it yourself, does not make your opinions right or give you the right to push your beliefs on those of others. Religion is not a valid, unbyass argument towards basic rights all Americans are ENTITLED to.
As for the arguments that the sanctity of marriage would be destroyed by allowing same-sex marriages...um have you checked the divorce statistics lately? Over half the marriages in America end up in divorce or annulment. And that's considered ok? Because I am a heterosexual woman, I can decide next week to get married to any random heterosexual man, and with the right paperwork that is allowed. But a gay couple who are in love and willing to commit their lives to one another are not allowed the same right? A quickie Vegas wedding between two heterosexual people on a drunken night can be annulled 24 hours later and that's supposedly a sanctified union?
My opinion, no one has the right to deny anyone else basic rights simply because they are different from the "norm".