Dekon
08-07-2009, 11:46 PM
This is long - and I'm not sorry for it. It's a deep topic, and it needs a lot.
Having said that, I understand that a great deal of you will highly disagree with me - that's fine. Still, I worked hard to try and be respectful with this, and I do respect all of you and your views.
I worked very hard and spent a lot of time in research for this - I hope it inspires some thought.
Without further ado :
One Ring to Bind Them
In creation of a perfect day, the brush strokes of the sun's light rained down through the brilliantly blue skies. They shone against the walls of a massive church consisting of many buildings, high triangular ceilings, and a generally awe-inspiring presence. And though it was towards this goliath that I was being driven, I would soon find that it was not my destination. It was instead in the shadow of this structure that lay my reason for coming to Austin, Texas. So small and aloof, it might have been mistaken for an old and less used chapel belonging to the church next door. It was, however, a church of its own. And it was in this small building that my cousin would be wed. While this was a beautiful and amazing event, it is not the purpose of this scene here. What is notable here is not whom was married, but who married them. For standing before my cousin and her soon to be husband, facilitating their union before g-d, was a woman who, in the worst sort of irony, would never have the same pleasure. Though she had dedicated her life in service to g-d, and swore no vows of celibacy as the Catholic preachers do, it was the laws of mankind that would deny her the joy she had worked hard to be allowed to give to others. She was a lesbian – her partner was kind enough to do the photography and video of the wedding. In my conversations with her, I discovered she was a very normal woman. I was still young in my faith and prone to its less tolerant perspectives, but it was perhaps my communication with her that began to allow this to change. She was not evil or sinful. She was not a beast of crude lusts. She was none of the stereotypes, but instead a strong sister in Christ. Yet her brothers in faith do not allow her the rights she employs for others, and they do so through the cold script of the law.
Same-sex marriage should be available, but it should not be the state that allows it, for the state does not have the authority. However, this claim cannot be made without still addressing the issues and concerns of my fellow Christians – specifically those of conservative and moderate persuasion. The former shroud themselves in the belief that homosexuality is an evil social ill that will inevitably lead to the downfall of all society. Further, and perhaps more applicable here, the general consensus of these conservatives is that homosexuality is an abomination to g-d, a great sin, and a corruption to the form of marriage intended by scripture. The moderate brothers and sisters often uphold a more tolerant view – that homosexuals should be loved as everyone should be loved, and still greatly respected. These moderates view homosexuality as a sin, same-sex marriage as wrong, and several believe homosexuality a curable condition. Yet a strong distinction between the moderates and the conservatives exists, as the moderates find these 'acts' wrong, while the conservatives find the 'people' wrong. The moderates distinguish between the two, and seek to love the homosexuals while dispelling homosexuality. Present as well are liberal Christians who support both homosexuality and homosexuals and seek to bring forth the legalization of same-sex marriage in the courts. While I sympathize with their loving acceptance, it must be stated in fairness that they have made mistakes as well. Namely, they have distinguished themselves with harsh words and thoughts from the Christian conservatives, and are often prone to build arguments from incomplete information to support their conclusions.
Each of these groups must be addressed individually, as all have valid concerns and views – and thus it shall begin with the conservatives. It should be admired, first, that the conservatives would stand against the tide of culture to uphold their views. They recognize, as should all, that the majority is not 'right' simply because it is a majority, nor is the 'new' right simply because it is 'new.’ Instead they do not fear to place their palm upon the worn pages of scripture and state boldly “Here I stand, and no further!” And thus it must begin with them, because in finding what the g-dly perspective on homosexuals is, it must begin with finding what is right in the 'old' – what is right in scripture.
Perhaps no Christian conservative stands out more boldly than James Dobson on this issue. A leader of Focus on the Family, Dobson seeks to convince audiences far and wide that homosexuality “will quickly destroy the traditional family” (483). Dobson, as well as many of his associates, argues that if same-sex marriage is legalized, “the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and, from a spiritual perspective, the sanctity of marriage” (483). First, it is important to state that Dobson is correct in holding these values dear – for they are. However, his error is not in his values, which are honorable, but in his support and presuppositions. Concerning the latter, it would seem Dobson believes that homosexual relationships cannot hold these values. Yet no proof of this presupposition stands. Certainly there exist homosexual couples that hold lifelong relationships, have deep emotional bonds, are faithful to each other, have a strong value and wish for children, and are spiritually strong. For the percentage which is not some or all of these, who is to say that they are not simply victims of a culture that tells them they are wrong, and therefore they leave the values behind? Are homosexuals naturally deviant, unable to feel, and promiscuous, or are they simply reacting to abandonment by the world around them? For support, Dobson cites European countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, and the reader is to presume his suggestion is that the 'family life' in these countries is enduring great suffering. While the latter is perhaps true, the former is not necessarily the cause. Changes in cultural views and the direction of society could have caused this, but there seems a more likely cause. For since World War II, family life has suffered in almost all European countries – only one or two still have a rising population at all. Indeed, all of Europe still lives under the shadow of a war that threatened to tear the world apart. It is not simply those countries that have legalized same-sex marriage.
The second argument Dobson gives (and again, many of his contemporaries – for it would matter little if it was one man) is to state that the allowance of same-sex marriage would open the door to polygamy, incest, and bestiality. Once again, the conservative’s values are admirable – for these actions would be negative towards society and the family structure. The suggestion being made here, though, is a categorization of the mind. 'A' leads to 'B' which leads to 'C' simply because society structures it so. The presupposition in Dobson's argument is first and foremost that same-sex marriage is 'A'. If it is not 'A' at all, but rather '2,’ then there ceases to be a difficulty. In order for Dobson's fear to be true, homosexuality must be the same type of thing as the others – that is, a deviant thing. Thus, his argument is found to be circular. Homosexuality is bad because it will lead to bad things – and it will lead to bad things because it is bad. In addition, his point suggests that humanity has no control over the direction of culture. Fate, it seems, plays in to even modern world views – even by those would state disbelief in fate. For it is fate Dobson suggests here by suggesting that 'if A, then B.’ The presupposition here is that society has no control over the 'then', and that is simply not true.
Perhaps the most common argument against same-sex marriage is not one made by Dobson in his article, but is made by a great number of conservatives. Randomly, as it has been said many times in many ways, Donald Demarco's words shall be used to illustrate when he states that “people who are of the same sex can love each other, be friends, or remain lifelong allies. They cannot, however, be married to each other according to a two-in-one flesh intimacy that is intrinsically ordered to parenthood.” It is important to take a moment and state that biblical language has now been entered, and shall be addressed again momentarily. For now, the moment shall be centered on the word 'parenthood' in its relation to marriage, for the argument at hand here which is so oft given by the conservatives is that marriage is defined by procreation. The purpose of marriage is the family, they claim, and the purpose of the family is children. This argument, however, is 'holy' in a very wrong way. The errors are glaringly obvious. To begin – this statement suggests a very linear, emotionless view of marriage. The very feeling of it is empty and stale – that this most sacred union simply exists to continue the line of humanity endlessly. Certainly the means to marriage is love – and thus love should be the focus. When was it decided that the focus should be children, and not the hearts of the two being married? Certainly children are never mentioned in the vows the couples take. The mothers do not spend vast deals of time designing imaginary children of the couples to place on the wedding cakes. Wedding gifts have never consisted of diapers and cradles. Indeed, the wedding ceremony seems to hold absolutely nothing to do with children. It does, however, seem to hold everything to do with love. In fact, it would seem to be the extreme focus on children that has created the infamous modern difficulties with marriage to begin with. The very reason many young couples fail is likely due to their own parents focus on children instead of each other, thus never providing the model for relationships. Likewise, it would seem to be that many failed marriages late in life have everything to do with the man looking across the table and seeing a woman he does not recognize, for his eyes had been so trained on the children for so many years. Perhaps the healthiest means of raising a child and having a successful marriage is to place the focus of the marriage on the spouse. It is love that binds the couple, and not the child they had. Of course, the old and still unanswered line remains: what of couples unable to procreate? Or those that do not wish to have children, even if they are heterosexual? Should they be allowed to marry? If yes, then the argument that procreation is the focus of marriage is rendered null entirely.
Yet the question is begged – where does this presupposition that marriage is focused on procreation come from? George and Tubbs argue from a biological perspective: “The norm originates in the sexual complementarity of a husband and wife as a biological unit, and it functions to increase the likelihood that children will be reared by their biological parents” – that the man and woman function in union to create children. However, humanity has utterly and bluntly disregarded biology in the determination of its values, as it keeps alive its disabled and weak in defiance of evolution, and so it would seem quite foolish to begin determining values based upon biology now. If we are to accept George and Tubb's views on biological-ethics, then we ought to take lessons from some of the more terrible leaders in human history. Thus, it is perhaps wise to look to the stronger moral law of the conservatives: The Bible.
It would be wise to begin by stating that the authority of the Bible shall not be contested here. It is an authority the author here submits to, and in this agrees heavily with the conservatives. However, that the Bible has much to say at all in favor of this view of marriage is disagreed with. In fact, the Bible would seem to fly in the face of the idea that the focus of marriage is children. The marriage spoken of in scripture seems to revolve instead entirely around the couple. In Genesis, g-d did not make Eve for Adam because Adam needed offspring, but because “It is not good that man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18). Even though they are told to ‘be fruitful and multiply,’ it is not in direct relevance to why they are a couple. In Ephesians, husbands are called to submit to and love their wives as themselves, and wives are called to submit to and love their husbands as themselves. Never does scripture tell humanity to marry in order to raise children.
Of course the deeper issue at hand of whether homosexuality is acceptable at all according to scripture remains. Only twice is this subject ever raised in all of scripture. The first is in Leviticus, in the Old Testament. No one – not even modern Jews – follows the Law of Moses any longer. Jesus declared himself a replacement for the Law, and summed up the entirety of the Law in a new way by commanding humanity to simply love g-d and love each other. The Emmanuel never spoke of homosexuality directly, but Paul did after him in both Corinthians 6:9 with “homosexual offenders” and in Romans 1:24-27. It has been suggested that he is misread either due to translation issues or because Paul was addressing the more deviant social leaders of the time (Miller, 30). Perhaps more important, and more relevant here, is an examination on the nature of morality and sin.
This is best done by stating first that they are two separate matters. Both are determined by g-d, but they are achieved through entirely different means, and defined separately. The father of contemporary moral philosophy is generally considered to be Emmanuel Kant – a follower of Christ who was one of the first to suggest that morality was determined by g-d given reason rather than direct biblical authority (Connelly). And it is with this that we find this author’s definition of modern moralistic thought: The establishment of ethical philosophy using g-d given reason and critical thinking that judgment and law can be addressed across the religious and secular divide. In contrast, sin, by definition, is much more straightforward. It is simply this: Disobeying g-d. Therefore, one might sin without breaking any moral law. One might feel commanded to speak to a lonely-looking man across the room, and might sin if she do not, but certainly no rationally moral wrong is committed. This is important, because there is no rationally ethical reason why homosexuality should be deemed immoral by any moral philosophy models (Kant, Utilitarianism, etc). Yet if g-d commands against it, it is still sinful.
Several matters, however, still insist to be addressed. To begin, because sin is simply disobediance of a command of g-d, this command can be ceased at any time. It can also be given to one, but not to another. It can tell one man that his sexual behavior is wrong, and another that it is right. Such knowledge is subjective, but it is the reality of a living g-d. Who among human thinkers has the right to argue otherwise? No one can tell a man that g-d has not given him permission for his actions, and truly be right. Though it is never stated, the manner of speech of many common speakers seems to suggest that g-d is bound to a ‘moral code’. Such things are said as ‘He is holy, and therefore cannot do wrong’. This suggestion imparts a moral authority which g-d is subject to. The difficulty with this is that g-d would then be ‘subject to’ something, and therefore cease to be a supreme authority. G-d would cease to be g-d. Instead, g-d has the right to do whatever it wishes, and deem right or wrong whatever it wishes for any man or woman.
For the sake of argument, let it be presupposed that homosexuality is a sin in a general sense. The difficulty becomes – ‘How should Christians handle it?’. While I applaud the conservatives for their steadfast hold on their beliefs, I believe this particular question has wrought the greatest failure. For even against those who sin, Christians are commanded to love and forgive. Therefore, those such as McMillan, who claims that “all that homosexuals have achieved since the 1960s has been achieved through manipulation, coercion or stealth,” are performing as great a sin as any homosexual. If such a thing as a ‘worse sin’ exists, it would be McMillan’s, for many homosexuals have abandoned g-d utterly purely because of language such as his. And if Christian doctrine proves true, it seems highly probable that g-d will one day state to him ‘Yes, he has sinned – but it is because of your sin that he never sought me, and never loved me! I have loved you despite your sin, yet you could not love despite his.’ A hypothetical example of this is a story of two brothers. The father of the two commands the brothers to never drink of a certain cup, but one day while the father is away one of the brothers disobeys and drinks. The second brother catches the first, and declares ‘What have you done? You will be in great trouble now, and our father will hate you and cast you out!’ In fear, the first brother runs from the house and never returns. Years later, the father meets his lost son by chance, and after embracing him asks ‘Why did you leave?’ to which the son replies ‘Because my brother told me you will hate me and despise me.’ If the father of this story is loving, it is likely his wrath will be turned towards the brother who caused the seperation and destruction of their family through his judgemental and self-righteous actions.
Unfortunately, it would seem to be the case that it is purely because of Christians that such a great number of homosexuals hold no value in religious belief, or at least value in the Judeo Christian Muslim concept of g-d. And the author and his brothers and sisters in faith shall be accountable for this. Yet it raises a new point as well – the rules and laws of the faith cannot be used to restrict and bind those who do not follow it. ‘Because g-d says so’ is not an appropriate response to the secular homosexual or, truly, the secular anything. Morally, homosexuals have done no wrong, and if they do not believe in sin, then little to be done or said except to answer the previous questions.
Thus, how should Christians handle homosexuality? With incredible love. And it is here that the Christian moderates are met, and that the author now invites into the conversation. Moderates such as Chad Thompson still view homosexuality as a sin, and still find themselves against as same-sex marriage as their conservative brethren, but are judgmental only of the action, and not the homosexuals themselves. Rightfully, the moderates apply ‘love your neighbor’ to these men and women, and seek to minister and evangelize to the homosexual community.
While this is admirable, they still hold a large number of misconceptions held by the conservatives addressed previously. Different, though, is an additional thought on how to handle homosexuality – ‘curing’ it. Thompson concludes that, “as Christians, we know that homosexual feelings can be overcome, but most LGBT people view their attractions as an immutable identity.” Many moderates believe homosexuality a condition that can be treated with therapy. They will even acknowledge that homosexuals do not agree with this conclusion, such as when Thompson states, “If I were a homosexual who honestly believed that my orientation was unchangeable, I would probably view conservative Christians as bigots, just as many of them do.” It would seem that, faced with a desire to love the homosexuals and bring them into Christianity, yet still find homosexuality sinful, these moderates have simply and fully convinced themselves with no evidence that it must be changeable. No reliable source suggests any truth to this, and it would seem most psychological studies state otherwise. The American Psychological Association states that “even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.” Again, they deal with the moderates views directly, stating :
“Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports, however, show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention. The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients.”
Given this, the moderates have found themselves a dilemma. They must either accept that homosexuality may not be a sin, find themselves believing that some must simply be damned to a life of sin, or continue living with a very happy and pleasant lie that justifies their values.
It is the first of these that leads farther to the left- to the Christian liberals. The Christian liberals often believe homosexuality to not be a sin, either due to translation issues, misreading, or other philosophies. Lisa Miller of Newsweek even goes so far as to suggest that the Bible is a terrible place to find an understanding of marriage. The Old Testament, she says, seems to suggest the acceptance of polygamy, and the New Testament at times would seem to say that marriage is only a last resort for those entirely unable to remain single (28-30). While their efforts are admirable, and their conclusions are useful, but one presupposition here that the author must disagree with wholeheartedly still remains. It is, in fact, a presupposition held by all three view points. And it is here the author makes his case.
The matter can be stated as such: ‘Is marriage not a religious institution? Why, then, does it exist in secular society at all?’ It is this presupposition that is never proven – that the institution of marriage has any right whatsoever to determine what marriage is or is not. In fact, could it not be suggested that it is the secularization of marriage that has been its greatest downfall? That the union of man and woman before the creator of the universe – a lifetime commitment of joy and pain, of the union of two beings into one flesh – can be provided by a man in an Elvis costume in a slum district next to a brothel? The state does not care for the emotions and bindings of marriage – it is only concerned to whom it is to give legal benefits. Is it not possible that this emotionless machine of marriage is not partially responsible for the high divorce rate and disregard for the sacredness of marriage altogether?
Marriage should be returned to the religions, and it is within each respective faith that the issue of same-sex marriage will debate it. This would be the single greatest act of returning marriage to a sacred place, and same-sex marriage could not harm it there. The author here will continue to advocate for it, but shall be advocating for it on the ground it belongs, in the hands it belongs. For the secular world, the emotionless drum of the state can issue civil union licenses to all who wish one – A man and his wife or a man and his husband. It is not homosexuality that threatens marriage, for marriage was threatened by the modernist world view long ago, and is in dire straits because of it today. Truly, this is what Jesus spoke of – society has ignored the log in their eye in favor of the (perhaps imaginary) splinter (Matt. 7:3). If Christianity is to truly save marriage and return it to a sacred place, it must put down the picket signs and take up the cross, purifying it finally from secularism – not from homosexuals.
Works Cited
American Psychological Association. Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality. 2004. 04 May 2009. <http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31>
Connelly, Michael. Personal Interview. 05 May 2009
DeMarco, Donald. "Same-Sex Marriage Should Not Be Allowed." Opposing Viewpoints: Family. Ed. Karen Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Metropolitan Comm. Coll. Longview Campus, Lee’s Summit. 05 Mar 2009 <http://infotrac.galegroup.com/>
Dobson, James. “Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage.” Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle. Sisters, 2004. Rpt. In Perspectives on Argument. 5th Ed. Nancy Wood. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. 2007. 482-485.
Holy Bible, New International Version. 1984 International Bible Society.
McMillan, Craige. "Gay Marriage Is a Religious Hate Crime." At Issue: What is a Hate Crime?. Ed. Rob Winters. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Metropolitan Comm. Coll. Longview Campus, Lee’s Summit. 1 May 2009. <http://infotrac.galegroup.com/>
Miller, Lisa. “The Religious Argument for Gay Marriage.” Newsweek 15 Dec. 2008: 28-31
Thompson, Chad. “Banning Gay Marriage Is Not The Answer.” Christianity Today 48. August (2004). May 1 2009. <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/augustweb-only/8-30-22.0.html>
Tubbs, Robert P. George and David L. "Same-Sex Marriage Will Undermine the Institution of Marriage." Sex. Ed. Mary E. Williams. Opposing Viewpoints®. Detroit: Greenhaven Press,2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Metropolitan Comm. Coll. Longview Campus, Lee’s Summit, MO 01 May 2009 < http://infotrac.galegroup.com/>
Having said that, I understand that a great deal of you will highly disagree with me - that's fine. Still, I worked hard to try and be respectful with this, and I do respect all of you and your views.
I worked very hard and spent a lot of time in research for this - I hope it inspires some thought.
Without further ado :
One Ring to Bind Them
In creation of a perfect day, the brush strokes of the sun's light rained down through the brilliantly blue skies. They shone against the walls of a massive church consisting of many buildings, high triangular ceilings, and a generally awe-inspiring presence. And though it was towards this goliath that I was being driven, I would soon find that it was not my destination. It was instead in the shadow of this structure that lay my reason for coming to Austin, Texas. So small and aloof, it might have been mistaken for an old and less used chapel belonging to the church next door. It was, however, a church of its own. And it was in this small building that my cousin would be wed. While this was a beautiful and amazing event, it is not the purpose of this scene here. What is notable here is not whom was married, but who married them. For standing before my cousin and her soon to be husband, facilitating their union before g-d, was a woman who, in the worst sort of irony, would never have the same pleasure. Though she had dedicated her life in service to g-d, and swore no vows of celibacy as the Catholic preachers do, it was the laws of mankind that would deny her the joy she had worked hard to be allowed to give to others. She was a lesbian – her partner was kind enough to do the photography and video of the wedding. In my conversations with her, I discovered she was a very normal woman. I was still young in my faith and prone to its less tolerant perspectives, but it was perhaps my communication with her that began to allow this to change. She was not evil or sinful. She was not a beast of crude lusts. She was none of the stereotypes, but instead a strong sister in Christ. Yet her brothers in faith do not allow her the rights she employs for others, and they do so through the cold script of the law.
Same-sex marriage should be available, but it should not be the state that allows it, for the state does not have the authority. However, this claim cannot be made without still addressing the issues and concerns of my fellow Christians – specifically those of conservative and moderate persuasion. The former shroud themselves in the belief that homosexuality is an evil social ill that will inevitably lead to the downfall of all society. Further, and perhaps more applicable here, the general consensus of these conservatives is that homosexuality is an abomination to g-d, a great sin, and a corruption to the form of marriage intended by scripture. The moderate brothers and sisters often uphold a more tolerant view – that homosexuals should be loved as everyone should be loved, and still greatly respected. These moderates view homosexuality as a sin, same-sex marriage as wrong, and several believe homosexuality a curable condition. Yet a strong distinction between the moderates and the conservatives exists, as the moderates find these 'acts' wrong, while the conservatives find the 'people' wrong. The moderates distinguish between the two, and seek to love the homosexuals while dispelling homosexuality. Present as well are liberal Christians who support both homosexuality and homosexuals and seek to bring forth the legalization of same-sex marriage in the courts. While I sympathize with their loving acceptance, it must be stated in fairness that they have made mistakes as well. Namely, they have distinguished themselves with harsh words and thoughts from the Christian conservatives, and are often prone to build arguments from incomplete information to support their conclusions.
Each of these groups must be addressed individually, as all have valid concerns and views – and thus it shall begin with the conservatives. It should be admired, first, that the conservatives would stand against the tide of culture to uphold their views. They recognize, as should all, that the majority is not 'right' simply because it is a majority, nor is the 'new' right simply because it is 'new.’ Instead they do not fear to place their palm upon the worn pages of scripture and state boldly “Here I stand, and no further!” And thus it must begin with them, because in finding what the g-dly perspective on homosexuals is, it must begin with finding what is right in the 'old' – what is right in scripture.
Perhaps no Christian conservative stands out more boldly than James Dobson on this issue. A leader of Focus on the Family, Dobson seeks to convince audiences far and wide that homosexuality “will quickly destroy the traditional family” (483). Dobson, as well as many of his associates, argues that if same-sex marriage is legalized, “the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and, from a spiritual perspective, the sanctity of marriage” (483). First, it is important to state that Dobson is correct in holding these values dear – for they are. However, his error is not in his values, which are honorable, but in his support and presuppositions. Concerning the latter, it would seem Dobson believes that homosexual relationships cannot hold these values. Yet no proof of this presupposition stands. Certainly there exist homosexual couples that hold lifelong relationships, have deep emotional bonds, are faithful to each other, have a strong value and wish for children, and are spiritually strong. For the percentage which is not some or all of these, who is to say that they are not simply victims of a culture that tells them they are wrong, and therefore they leave the values behind? Are homosexuals naturally deviant, unable to feel, and promiscuous, or are they simply reacting to abandonment by the world around them? For support, Dobson cites European countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, and the reader is to presume his suggestion is that the 'family life' in these countries is enduring great suffering. While the latter is perhaps true, the former is not necessarily the cause. Changes in cultural views and the direction of society could have caused this, but there seems a more likely cause. For since World War II, family life has suffered in almost all European countries – only one or two still have a rising population at all. Indeed, all of Europe still lives under the shadow of a war that threatened to tear the world apart. It is not simply those countries that have legalized same-sex marriage.
The second argument Dobson gives (and again, many of his contemporaries – for it would matter little if it was one man) is to state that the allowance of same-sex marriage would open the door to polygamy, incest, and bestiality. Once again, the conservative’s values are admirable – for these actions would be negative towards society and the family structure. The suggestion being made here, though, is a categorization of the mind. 'A' leads to 'B' which leads to 'C' simply because society structures it so. The presupposition in Dobson's argument is first and foremost that same-sex marriage is 'A'. If it is not 'A' at all, but rather '2,’ then there ceases to be a difficulty. In order for Dobson's fear to be true, homosexuality must be the same type of thing as the others – that is, a deviant thing. Thus, his argument is found to be circular. Homosexuality is bad because it will lead to bad things – and it will lead to bad things because it is bad. In addition, his point suggests that humanity has no control over the direction of culture. Fate, it seems, plays in to even modern world views – even by those would state disbelief in fate. For it is fate Dobson suggests here by suggesting that 'if A, then B.’ The presupposition here is that society has no control over the 'then', and that is simply not true.
Perhaps the most common argument against same-sex marriage is not one made by Dobson in his article, but is made by a great number of conservatives. Randomly, as it has been said many times in many ways, Donald Demarco's words shall be used to illustrate when he states that “people who are of the same sex can love each other, be friends, or remain lifelong allies. They cannot, however, be married to each other according to a two-in-one flesh intimacy that is intrinsically ordered to parenthood.” It is important to take a moment and state that biblical language has now been entered, and shall be addressed again momentarily. For now, the moment shall be centered on the word 'parenthood' in its relation to marriage, for the argument at hand here which is so oft given by the conservatives is that marriage is defined by procreation. The purpose of marriage is the family, they claim, and the purpose of the family is children. This argument, however, is 'holy' in a very wrong way. The errors are glaringly obvious. To begin – this statement suggests a very linear, emotionless view of marriage. The very feeling of it is empty and stale – that this most sacred union simply exists to continue the line of humanity endlessly. Certainly the means to marriage is love – and thus love should be the focus. When was it decided that the focus should be children, and not the hearts of the two being married? Certainly children are never mentioned in the vows the couples take. The mothers do not spend vast deals of time designing imaginary children of the couples to place on the wedding cakes. Wedding gifts have never consisted of diapers and cradles. Indeed, the wedding ceremony seems to hold absolutely nothing to do with children. It does, however, seem to hold everything to do with love. In fact, it would seem to be the extreme focus on children that has created the infamous modern difficulties with marriage to begin with. The very reason many young couples fail is likely due to their own parents focus on children instead of each other, thus never providing the model for relationships. Likewise, it would seem to be that many failed marriages late in life have everything to do with the man looking across the table and seeing a woman he does not recognize, for his eyes had been so trained on the children for so many years. Perhaps the healthiest means of raising a child and having a successful marriage is to place the focus of the marriage on the spouse. It is love that binds the couple, and not the child they had. Of course, the old and still unanswered line remains: what of couples unable to procreate? Or those that do not wish to have children, even if they are heterosexual? Should they be allowed to marry? If yes, then the argument that procreation is the focus of marriage is rendered null entirely.
Yet the question is begged – where does this presupposition that marriage is focused on procreation come from? George and Tubbs argue from a biological perspective: “The norm originates in the sexual complementarity of a husband and wife as a biological unit, and it functions to increase the likelihood that children will be reared by their biological parents” – that the man and woman function in union to create children. However, humanity has utterly and bluntly disregarded biology in the determination of its values, as it keeps alive its disabled and weak in defiance of evolution, and so it would seem quite foolish to begin determining values based upon biology now. If we are to accept George and Tubb's views on biological-ethics, then we ought to take lessons from some of the more terrible leaders in human history. Thus, it is perhaps wise to look to the stronger moral law of the conservatives: The Bible.
It would be wise to begin by stating that the authority of the Bible shall not be contested here. It is an authority the author here submits to, and in this agrees heavily with the conservatives. However, that the Bible has much to say at all in favor of this view of marriage is disagreed with. In fact, the Bible would seem to fly in the face of the idea that the focus of marriage is children. The marriage spoken of in scripture seems to revolve instead entirely around the couple. In Genesis, g-d did not make Eve for Adam because Adam needed offspring, but because “It is not good that man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18). Even though they are told to ‘be fruitful and multiply,’ it is not in direct relevance to why they are a couple. In Ephesians, husbands are called to submit to and love their wives as themselves, and wives are called to submit to and love their husbands as themselves. Never does scripture tell humanity to marry in order to raise children.
Of course the deeper issue at hand of whether homosexuality is acceptable at all according to scripture remains. Only twice is this subject ever raised in all of scripture. The first is in Leviticus, in the Old Testament. No one – not even modern Jews – follows the Law of Moses any longer. Jesus declared himself a replacement for the Law, and summed up the entirety of the Law in a new way by commanding humanity to simply love g-d and love each other. The Emmanuel never spoke of homosexuality directly, but Paul did after him in both Corinthians 6:9 with “homosexual offenders” and in Romans 1:24-27. It has been suggested that he is misread either due to translation issues or because Paul was addressing the more deviant social leaders of the time (Miller, 30). Perhaps more important, and more relevant here, is an examination on the nature of morality and sin.
This is best done by stating first that they are two separate matters. Both are determined by g-d, but they are achieved through entirely different means, and defined separately. The father of contemporary moral philosophy is generally considered to be Emmanuel Kant – a follower of Christ who was one of the first to suggest that morality was determined by g-d given reason rather than direct biblical authority (Connelly). And it is with this that we find this author’s definition of modern moralistic thought: The establishment of ethical philosophy using g-d given reason and critical thinking that judgment and law can be addressed across the religious and secular divide. In contrast, sin, by definition, is much more straightforward. It is simply this: Disobeying g-d. Therefore, one might sin without breaking any moral law. One might feel commanded to speak to a lonely-looking man across the room, and might sin if she do not, but certainly no rationally moral wrong is committed. This is important, because there is no rationally ethical reason why homosexuality should be deemed immoral by any moral philosophy models (Kant, Utilitarianism, etc). Yet if g-d commands against it, it is still sinful.
Several matters, however, still insist to be addressed. To begin, because sin is simply disobediance of a command of g-d, this command can be ceased at any time. It can also be given to one, but not to another. It can tell one man that his sexual behavior is wrong, and another that it is right. Such knowledge is subjective, but it is the reality of a living g-d. Who among human thinkers has the right to argue otherwise? No one can tell a man that g-d has not given him permission for his actions, and truly be right. Though it is never stated, the manner of speech of many common speakers seems to suggest that g-d is bound to a ‘moral code’. Such things are said as ‘He is holy, and therefore cannot do wrong’. This suggestion imparts a moral authority which g-d is subject to. The difficulty with this is that g-d would then be ‘subject to’ something, and therefore cease to be a supreme authority. G-d would cease to be g-d. Instead, g-d has the right to do whatever it wishes, and deem right or wrong whatever it wishes for any man or woman.
For the sake of argument, let it be presupposed that homosexuality is a sin in a general sense. The difficulty becomes – ‘How should Christians handle it?’. While I applaud the conservatives for their steadfast hold on their beliefs, I believe this particular question has wrought the greatest failure. For even against those who sin, Christians are commanded to love and forgive. Therefore, those such as McMillan, who claims that “all that homosexuals have achieved since the 1960s has been achieved through manipulation, coercion or stealth,” are performing as great a sin as any homosexual. If such a thing as a ‘worse sin’ exists, it would be McMillan’s, for many homosexuals have abandoned g-d utterly purely because of language such as his. And if Christian doctrine proves true, it seems highly probable that g-d will one day state to him ‘Yes, he has sinned – but it is because of your sin that he never sought me, and never loved me! I have loved you despite your sin, yet you could not love despite his.’ A hypothetical example of this is a story of two brothers. The father of the two commands the brothers to never drink of a certain cup, but one day while the father is away one of the brothers disobeys and drinks. The second brother catches the first, and declares ‘What have you done? You will be in great trouble now, and our father will hate you and cast you out!’ In fear, the first brother runs from the house and never returns. Years later, the father meets his lost son by chance, and after embracing him asks ‘Why did you leave?’ to which the son replies ‘Because my brother told me you will hate me and despise me.’ If the father of this story is loving, it is likely his wrath will be turned towards the brother who caused the seperation and destruction of their family through his judgemental and self-righteous actions.
Unfortunately, it would seem to be the case that it is purely because of Christians that such a great number of homosexuals hold no value in religious belief, or at least value in the Judeo Christian Muslim concept of g-d. And the author and his brothers and sisters in faith shall be accountable for this. Yet it raises a new point as well – the rules and laws of the faith cannot be used to restrict and bind those who do not follow it. ‘Because g-d says so’ is not an appropriate response to the secular homosexual or, truly, the secular anything. Morally, homosexuals have done no wrong, and if they do not believe in sin, then little to be done or said except to answer the previous questions.
Thus, how should Christians handle homosexuality? With incredible love. And it is here that the Christian moderates are met, and that the author now invites into the conversation. Moderates such as Chad Thompson still view homosexuality as a sin, and still find themselves against as same-sex marriage as their conservative brethren, but are judgmental only of the action, and not the homosexuals themselves. Rightfully, the moderates apply ‘love your neighbor’ to these men and women, and seek to minister and evangelize to the homosexual community.
While this is admirable, they still hold a large number of misconceptions held by the conservatives addressed previously. Different, though, is an additional thought on how to handle homosexuality – ‘curing’ it. Thompson concludes that, “as Christians, we know that homosexual feelings can be overcome, but most LGBT people view their attractions as an immutable identity.” Many moderates believe homosexuality a condition that can be treated with therapy. They will even acknowledge that homosexuals do not agree with this conclusion, such as when Thompson states, “If I were a homosexual who honestly believed that my orientation was unchangeable, I would probably view conservative Christians as bigots, just as many of them do.” It would seem that, faced with a desire to love the homosexuals and bring them into Christianity, yet still find homosexuality sinful, these moderates have simply and fully convinced themselves with no evidence that it must be changeable. No reliable source suggests any truth to this, and it would seem most psychological studies state otherwise. The American Psychological Association states that “even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.” Again, they deal with the moderates views directly, stating :
“Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports, however, show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention. The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients.”
Given this, the moderates have found themselves a dilemma. They must either accept that homosexuality may not be a sin, find themselves believing that some must simply be damned to a life of sin, or continue living with a very happy and pleasant lie that justifies their values.
It is the first of these that leads farther to the left- to the Christian liberals. The Christian liberals often believe homosexuality to not be a sin, either due to translation issues, misreading, or other philosophies. Lisa Miller of Newsweek even goes so far as to suggest that the Bible is a terrible place to find an understanding of marriage. The Old Testament, she says, seems to suggest the acceptance of polygamy, and the New Testament at times would seem to say that marriage is only a last resort for those entirely unable to remain single (28-30). While their efforts are admirable, and their conclusions are useful, but one presupposition here that the author must disagree with wholeheartedly still remains. It is, in fact, a presupposition held by all three view points. And it is here the author makes his case.
The matter can be stated as such: ‘Is marriage not a religious institution? Why, then, does it exist in secular society at all?’ It is this presupposition that is never proven – that the institution of marriage has any right whatsoever to determine what marriage is or is not. In fact, could it not be suggested that it is the secularization of marriage that has been its greatest downfall? That the union of man and woman before the creator of the universe – a lifetime commitment of joy and pain, of the union of two beings into one flesh – can be provided by a man in an Elvis costume in a slum district next to a brothel? The state does not care for the emotions and bindings of marriage – it is only concerned to whom it is to give legal benefits. Is it not possible that this emotionless machine of marriage is not partially responsible for the high divorce rate and disregard for the sacredness of marriage altogether?
Marriage should be returned to the religions, and it is within each respective faith that the issue of same-sex marriage will debate it. This would be the single greatest act of returning marriage to a sacred place, and same-sex marriage could not harm it there. The author here will continue to advocate for it, but shall be advocating for it on the ground it belongs, in the hands it belongs. For the secular world, the emotionless drum of the state can issue civil union licenses to all who wish one – A man and his wife or a man and his husband. It is not homosexuality that threatens marriage, for marriage was threatened by the modernist world view long ago, and is in dire straits because of it today. Truly, this is what Jesus spoke of – society has ignored the log in their eye in favor of the (perhaps imaginary) splinter (Matt. 7:3). If Christianity is to truly save marriage and return it to a sacred place, it must put down the picket signs and take up the cross, purifying it finally from secularism – not from homosexuals.
Works Cited
American Psychological Association. Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality. 2004. 04 May 2009. <http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31>
Connelly, Michael. Personal Interview. 05 May 2009
DeMarco, Donald. "Same-Sex Marriage Should Not Be Allowed." Opposing Viewpoints: Family. Ed. Karen Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Metropolitan Comm. Coll. Longview Campus, Lee’s Summit. 05 Mar 2009 <http://infotrac.galegroup.com/>
Dobson, James. “Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage.” Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle. Sisters, 2004. Rpt. In Perspectives on Argument. 5th Ed. Nancy Wood. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. 2007. 482-485.
Holy Bible, New International Version. 1984 International Bible Society.
McMillan, Craige. "Gay Marriage Is a Religious Hate Crime." At Issue: What is a Hate Crime?. Ed. Rob Winters. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Metropolitan Comm. Coll. Longview Campus, Lee’s Summit. 1 May 2009. <http://infotrac.galegroup.com/>
Miller, Lisa. “The Religious Argument for Gay Marriage.” Newsweek 15 Dec. 2008: 28-31
Thompson, Chad. “Banning Gay Marriage Is Not The Answer.” Christianity Today 48. August (2004). May 1 2009. <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/augustweb-only/8-30-22.0.html>
Tubbs, Robert P. George and David L. "Same-Sex Marriage Will Undermine the Institution of Marriage." Sex. Ed. Mary E. Williams. Opposing Viewpoints®. Detroit: Greenhaven Press,2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Metropolitan Comm. Coll. Longview Campus, Lee’s Summit, MO 01 May 2009 < http://infotrac.galegroup.com/>