Monday, 16 April 2012
-
The Trouble with Gay Marriage
[This is reposted as part of our Best-Of Revelife Week. It was originally posted on June 30, 2010.]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 (25)
The "Christian discussion" includes the "gay rights" discussion. There is no separation between the two.
That's because faith and reason are integral to one another.I believe it is the intention of progressives to divide the arguments. And once Christian values are stripped out the secular argument against gay marriage there is nothing standing in the way of redefining marriage to include all sexual preferences.
@starvingdrunkard@xanga - Marriage and sexual preference are not human rights therefore they are not subjects that concern the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence cites the human rights that the American government was created to protect:
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each of these are endowed by God.
Homosexuality is no more endowed by God than other sexual preferences such as bisexuality, transexuality, bestiality, pedophilia or even heterosexuality.
That's because sexuality does not determine humanity.
Leave it up to so called Christians to find some group to hate -- when no groups exist to hate on they make up groups. If it isn't gays - its Muslims - or Atheists - or even members of competing cults within their larger cult.
What a joke. Homosexuality has never done anything negative to the church or politics. Arsenokoites and Malakos both occur in 1 Cor 6:9 and arsenokoites recurs in 1 Tim 1:10. Some scholars refer to these texts as homosexual in nature. Some refer to this as economic exploitation, probably by sexual means: rape or sex by economic coercion, prostitution, pimping, or something or that sort. In 1 Tim1:10, which many scholars date later than Paul's work, arsenokoites appears in a list of vices. The NRSV translates it with the ambiguous word sodomites. Sodomite was not used in the Old Testament to mean a resident of Sodom. It was introduced in English in a half dozen Old Testament passages in the King James Version of the Bible in 1611. Nor does the word appear in the Greek text of the New Testament.
The modern concept of homosexuality should by no means be read into Paul's get, nor can we assume that Paul's words in 1 Cor 6:9 condemn all homosexual relations in all times and places and ways. The meanings of the words= are too vague to justify this claim. Many scholars, such as Marion Coards, believe that only indirectly may we derive information regarding homosexuality from this material.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - In the US, civil rights are rights that are grounded in the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage is indeed a right:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" - Chief Justice Earl Warren, Loving v Virginia (1967). This is the case that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, which prohibited mixed-race marriages.
See also: Zablocki v Redhail (1978) and Turner v Safley (1987), regarding a prisoner's right to marry.
Second, homosexuality is different from bestiality and pedophilia in that it involves consent. The historical trend of "acceptable" relationships has been one that increasingly values consent. Hence wives are no longer treated as property, divorces are easier to obtain, and an age of consent has been established.
Gay men and women engage in consensual relationships. The only difference between gay and straight relationships is that the former involve two men or two women, whereas the latter involve one of each.
Pedophilia and bestiality, on the other hand, can never involve consent. Pedophilia and bestiality are as different from homosexuality as they are from heterosexuality. A man who has sex with young girls or female animals is not what we typically mean when we talk about straight people.
Homosexuality is wrong. But yes, our view of marriage is different, and it doesnt have to do with the gov.
@Pollypinks@xanga - My point here wasn't whether Paul had homosexuality in mind or not, but that Christians aren't well equipped to interpret Paul accurately as long as we feel this cultural burden to make Paul intelligible to the culture at large. Does that make sense?
@PunkRockCowboy@xanga - Why is homosexuality wrong? As far as I know, the only thing the Bible prohibits is gay sex (sodomy, in particular). But being gay isn't just about sex; there are gay virgins as well as celibate gay couples. These people aren't violating any Biblical laws, as far as I know.
I'm not a Christian and I'm relatively unfamiliar with the Bible, so I may be wrong. But my understanding is that the Bible doesn't say that it's wrong for two men (or women) to love one another and/or establish a happy life together.
At the end of the day, I agree with you that civil and religious marriage are different and don't need to agree. But I do think there is room in Christianity for honoring gay couples, as long as they follow the rules set forth in the Bible (i.e., no sodomy).
Yes, it makes sense. We don't want clear interpretation of the text, we want reasons to hate and to blame errors and mistakes on others. I might ask of anyone here, when was the last time some gay couple down the street ruined your marriage? Rather silly,no? Or Falwell's take on 9/11 happening because of birth orientation. Fundamentalists have allowed non sensical hate filled versions of Biblical code to control every aspect of our society, even shoving legislation down the throats of those who wish for legislation that is driven by hate. Focus on the Family has come out against hate legislation, because then they wouldn't be able to teach their children to go up to children whose parents are gay and tell them they will burn in hell. Won't be able to treat them differently than other children because of sexual orientation. Dobson's fighting this one tooth and nail, just like he does every other piece of scripture he doesn't understand.
StarvingDrunkard, I missed your post earlier, but I think you hit the nail on the head. God did create us to care for one another and to seek happiness, but there are so many assholes out there, it's darn near impossible. Just look at all the serial killers.
@jim_the_american@xanga - The Supreme Court is the judicial part of the government. Therefore, it cannot bestow or create rights since rights can only be endowed to man by God.
Since all men are created equal there is no man or group of men with the rightful authority to bestow rights upon other men.
What you expressed in your comment is the Progressive and thus European view of government which is tyranny.
And Progressivism is diametrically opposed to the original thinking of the Founding Fathers who designed and created the American government.
@jim_the_american@xanga - Pedophilia and bestiality, on the other hand, can never involve consent.
All we need to do to get around the consent problem is redefine it just like gays want to redefine marriage.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - The judicial branch of the government is responsible for checking whether legislation is constitutional. This includes determining whether or not legislation violates anybody's federal civil rights. You're right that the Supreme Court cannot bestow or create rights. It does, however, identify rights that are implied by the tenets of the Constitution (e.g., a person's right to interracial marriage).
I'm not sure I understand what it means to redefine consent such that babies and animals can agree to engage in sexual relationships. It's a bit nonsensical, and I feel like you're missing the larger point of my argument: gay and straight relationships are different from pedophilic and bestial relationships because the former involve consenting adults whereas the latter are a form of rape(regardless of the relative genders of the men, women, children, and animals involved). It is just as ridiculous to equate gay people with pedophiles as it would be to do so for straight people.
Finally, the idea that gay people are "redefining marriage" is a popular one, but it is misguided. Nobody wants to redefine the rights and responsibilities of married persons. Rather, gay couples merely want to be allowed to participate in the institution. The rules of the game are staying the same; the only change is regarding who is allowed to play.
@jim_the_american@xanga - Checking the legislative branch is the proper function of the judiciary. It's function is not to create rights where there are none.
The abortion holocaust was created for example because the judges created a right to privacy out of a "penumbra". That's means shadow.
Manufacturing rights out of shadows demonstrates how ridiculous it is for men to create rights. When men create rights they usually destroy other basic, real God-endowed rights like the right to life.
In another example the Supreme Court violated its function with the Dred Scott decision which gave American white men the right to own black men as chattel slaves.
@jim_the_american@xanga - Marriage is defined as the union between man and woman. Since America was settled by Christians, Christian morals and values inform our law and ethics. Homosexual marriage is a repudiation of Amercan culture.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I disagree with you that your examples (Roe v Wade and Dred Scott v Sandford) are evidence of the Supreme Court creating new rights. Instead, I would argue that they are examples of the court's interpretation of the Constitution when deciding whether or not legislation violates a person's civil rights. For instance, the decision in Roe v Wade is not based on a fabricated "right to abortion," it is based on the constitutional right to privacy. Whether or not you agree with the interpretation is a different matter...
But let's assume for a moment that you are correct that Roe v Wade, Dred Scott v Sandford, and Loving v Virginia are all examples of the court inventing rights out of shadows. Then your claim that "the court's function is not to create new rights" is wrong; according to you, the court has been inventing rights for over 150 years!
Just to be clear, I don't think the court *should* create new rights, and I don't think it *does.* I think it interprets the Constitution, sometimes in a way that I agree with and, in other instances, in ways that I don't (e.g., Citizens United v Federal Election Commission).
In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court determined that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting political contributions by corporations. You could say that corporations like Citizens United "gained the right" to donate as much money as they want to PACs. However, the court didn't create a new right; instead, the right to make unlimited political contributions is a consequence of the First Amendment. (For the record, I don't agree with the reasoning, but that's the way the cookie crumbles!)
Regarding the civil institution of marriage, there is a huge body of case law that supports the idea that the Constitutions protects a person's right to marry. The right to marry is a consequence of other, more fundamental rights that are outlined in the Constitution.
@jim_the_american@xanga - I have stated the facts about Roe and Dred as given by justices themselves.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - You are correct that in many states (more than half!), marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. But in other states (Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and several others), marriage is defined otherwise: it is a legally recognized union of two consenting adults.
Outside the US, marriage comes in many forms. Many--but not all--countries restrict marriage to straight couples. However, some countries allow gay couples to participate in marriage, while others recognize polygamous relationships.
From a historical perspective, marriage has been similarly diverse. Abraham had three wives. Women used to be treated as property, and would come with dowries. More recently and locally (i.e., in the USA), many Native American tribes celebrated gay unions. Mormons settled in Salt Lake City to escape persecution for polygamy. Interracial couples were once prohibited from marrying. Today, gay couples in Iowa can marry.
The definition of marriage is neither static in time, nor uniform with respect to geography. Instead, it is an evolving institution. As a people, we have come to value consensual, loving relationships. The evolution of marriage reflects this growth.
@jim_the_american@xanga - Marriage is not diverse, it is specific: the union between man and woman. And when Americans choose that at the ballot box they are overruled by the tyrannical judiciary.
Progressives only acknowledge the will of the people when it agrees with them.@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - It's been nice talking to you. Unfortunately, I don't think either of us was able to change the other's mind very much--we seem to be married (ha!) to our positions. Hopefully somebody reading this thread will be able to see both sides of the argument and decide for him/herself.
Take care, -Jim
@jim_the_american@xanga - The reason we can't agree is because Progressives believe that all definitions, all meaning and all justice are relative and thus changeable and easily redefined.
In the American way of thought, God defines rights, and he also defines marriage (see Genesis). That makes definition and meaning fixed from age to age.
So your argument that this culture did that, or that culture did this has no bearing on the issue.
The American way of thinking is that truth is absolute and that the meaning of words like liberty and rights don't change over time but are fixed.
Progressivism is a philosophy that intends to send the American Revolution to the ash heap of history.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I'm curious to know how you would answer these two questions:
(1) In 2 Samuel 12:8, God said that if David's wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. According to 1 Kings 11:3, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. If God defines marriage and that definition is fixed, how do you reconcile Biblical polygamy with the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage?
(2) The Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments ended slavery, granted citizenship to all persons born in the US (including former slaves), and guaranteed the right to vote regardless of race. These amendments resulted in dramatic changes to the meaning of liberty and rights. How do you reconcile them with your belief that the American way of thinking is that the meaning of words like "liberty" and "rights" are fixed?
wblessing37@yahoo.com.ph
hello
how are you today i hope that every things is ok
with
you as is my pleassure to contact you after viewing
your profile in love.www.
really interest me in having communication with you
ifyou will have the desire with me so that we can
get to
know each other better and see what happened in
future.
i will be very happy if you can write me through my
email for easiest communication and to know all
about
each other here is my email (wblessing37@yahoo.com.ph)
i will be waiting to
hear from you as i wish you all the best for your
day.
yours new friend.
blessing
wblessing37@yahoo.com.ph
hello
how are you today i hope that every things is ok
with
you as is my pleassure to contact you after viewing
your profile in love.www.
really interest me in having communication with you
ifyou will have the desire with me so that we can
get to
know each other better and see what happened in
future.
i will be very happy if you can write me through my
email for easiest communication and to know all
about
each other here is my email (wblessing37@yahoo.com.ph)
i will be waiting to
hear from you as i wish you all the best for your
day.
yours new friend.
blessing