Disclaimer: The following post is NOT a statement of my personal philosophy or beliefs. It's an account of an experience that I had and some subsequent thoughts about that experience. Please do not think that this is my final, fully thought-out and concluded opinion on these issues. This post is just me thinking out loud.
I'm at a conference in San Francisco this week. I've never even been to California, so I was very excited about this trip. I had an experience yesterday though that was completely unexpected and got me to thinking about some stuff.
I saw the Gay Pride Parade. Not a gay pride parade, the Gay Pride Parade.
I didn't mean to. Well, not at first anyway. I was meeting an old friend of mine who was coming in on a train. I walked out of my hotel and noticed a bunch of people gathering on the side of the street, so I asked a security guard what was going on. Turns out the San Francisco Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transsexual (GLBT) Parade was starting right outside the front door of the hotel. As I had some time to kill before my friend showed up (which ended up being an hour and a half through no fault of his) I just sat and people-watched.
It was one of the freakiest things I've ever seen. I've been lots of place, and I thought I understood how the world worked, but this was a completely new experience for me. First of all, let me say that there were some serious, no-holds-barred fruitcakes. I saw one guy, tanned and shaved and completely naked walking down the street (where did he keep his wallet?). I saw at least two guys riding bikes wearing shirts - and nothing else. There was a woman wearing a tight shirt with cutouts for her nipples. There was another woman was had one breast hanging freely out of her shirt. I saw a transsexual who was wearing an S&M outfit who appeared to have had her breasts surgically removed. I saw one guy who was wearing little besides a length of pantyhose wrapped around his genitals.
These people fit every stereotype I've ever had (and many I didn't even know I had) for how gay people should look, dress, and act. But there was something else I noticed. Something a a little more subtle. Many of them were holding signs that said something like "Together for 22 years, married for one week." As you know, in the last few weeks it effectively became legal to get married in California. These people were celebrating their new opportunities. They were walking with the kids they were raising together. I was even standing there when the mayor of San Francisco drove through, and everyone around me was cheering "Thank you!"
So this got me to thinking about the issue of gay marriage in this country. Stay with me here - I'm just thinking this out. Don't burn me at the stake for this one.
First of all, let me say that I believe that homosexuality is a sin. That is certainly not a popular viewpoint (especially for 99% of the people in this city), but I really do believe that the Bible teaches sex is meant for a man and woman. Specifically, I think that it teaches that sex is meant for a husband and a wife. Seriously, hold on, I'm going somewhere with this.
Many Christians claim that marriage between two people of the same sex is not holy. But I contend that many, many heterosexual marriages that take place in this country are not holy. When my wife and I got married, it was a binding contract between ourselves and our God that we would live our lives together and for Him. That is not what the legal and societal institution of marriage is in this country. From the government's perspective, marriage is effectively non-religious. So applying the argument that we should deny that right to gay people on religious grounds seems inconsistent; shouldn't we then be denying it to anyone for whom the marriage is not a holy contract, as is the case for the vast majority of marriages in our country?
Let's put it a different way (and I may really rock the boat on this one): why is it okay for two atheists to get married, but it's not okay for two gay people to get married? In neither case are they recognizing the holy aspect of a marriage, so why arbitrarily say one is okay but not the other?
Of course, once you start down that path, it gets really ugly. Does that mean you can only get married in a Christian church? What if I don't believe my wife should submit to me? What if I'm not a biblical literalist, or a pre- or post-millenialist? All of a sudden, we're living in a theocracy, and that's a scary place to be. The bigger question becomes - what is the place for our particular religious beliefs in the government's legislation?
So maybe we just say the gay people can get married. They're grownups, they both love each other (at least, as much as most heterosexuals do), so why shouldn't the state recognize that?
Now, tell me why I'm wrong...
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
What I'm reading...
What I'm playing...
SiteMeter
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(88)
-
▼
July
(12)
- Climbing Mt. Fuji, Part 3 - The Descent
- Climbing Mt. Fuji, Part 2 - The Summit
- Climbing Mt. Fuji, Part 1 - The Ascent
- New education?
- I tried, I really did...
- My first earthquake
- Sorry, bud, I can't let you play with that.
- Waiting
- The great questions of life
- Statistical probability
- This is why Japan is so awesome.
- Acceptance
-
▼
July
(12)
3 comments:
I'm with you on this one eMonk, and for many of the same reasons. It seems to me that coherent debate would be a bit easier if we'd stop to be clear about what we're discussing. I think most of the heat in this debate is coming from one side saying an apple is red and the other side insisting that oranges can't possibly be red.
The term to be clear on is "marriage." As a Christian, I take marriage to be the commitment a man and woman make to God to be joined in a holy relationship. That definition explicitly excludes homosexual marriage as part of the definition. Two people of the same sex can't get married that way.
The other definition of marriage is a relationship recognized by the state that establishes certain rights and responsibilities among the parties. With this definition, homosexual marriage makes as much sense as heterosexual marriage, polygamy, or any other kind of special relationship recognized by the state as acceptable.
Note that I don't think that marriage by the the state's definition is less important to the participants than marriage by the religious definition. Both are important, life-changing events for those involved.
Homosexuals can't enter into "holy matrimony" for the same reason that two plus two can't equal five. However, it seems a bit unreasonable to say that they can't be "married" by the state.
"From the government's perspective, marriage is effectively non-religious. So applying the argument that we should deny that right to gay people on religious grounds seems inconsistent"
First of all, I'm not sure your first statement is completely correct, at least not historically. The idea of keeping religion completely out of the public sphere is relatively recent. As originally conceived, the U.S. government was to be non-sectarian, not non-religious.
Secondly, I think serious Christians who argue against gay marriage today do in fact muster secular arguments rather than simply appealing to divine law. The basic argument is that the state has a vested interest in the nurturing of children. Marriage is given special status and privilege by the state because it is the union of a man and a woman which produces the children who will be the next generation of citizens. And it is not just a matter of gestation. Children also need a stable family with loving parents to raise them. Many studies have shown that children prosper best when they are raised by their biological mother and father.
So the state has a vested interest in men and women entering into long-term, stable domestic relationships. There is no reason for the state to subsidize other types of cohabitation relationships of non-married adults. Gay unions do not produce children and are not the best environment for children to be raised.
I recognize that an army of activists would dispute this last statement, and unfortunately recent research is becoming more and more politized. Therefore I fear this argument is being overturned and dissenting voices will be driven from the academic community.
Since I think God is right on this one (isn't he always?) I am heartbroken that the institution of the family is in the process of suffering yet another huge setback in our culture. It has already been under assault by the wide acceptance of everything from premarital sex to divorce, and polygamy is waiting in the wings. This is a very great loss and we will only see the full effects in coming generations.
We watched the Pride parade when we were in NYC. I don't remember any nudity but it was pretty outrageous. I remember feeling a bit sad because the gay people I know are lovely, ordinary people and not at all the freakish stereotype that shows up on the news after the Pride parade and influences the opinions of so many people.
I wish there had been more widespread supportfrom conservatives for civil unions for same-sex couples. I think it could have been done practically and generously and would have been a pretty effective compromise. In my view, state-sanctioned marriage is, by definition, a civil union. Then churches would be free to do what they want to about marriage or blessings for same-sex couples in their own traditions.
I think people get confused about the difference between morality and legality. Do we really want to make illegal everything that someone thinks is immoral? Some people would say yes--if God frowns on it (they would say), it should be against the law. I'd go the other way, I think--let's not criminalize any more than we have to to protect society and the common good. There has to be a way to protect the interests of all Americans, including gay citizens, without infringing on any.
Isn't it interesting, too, that at a time when heterosexuals are losing interest in marriage, preferring to cohabitate in greater numbers all the time, there are people fighting for the right to be "joined in the bonds of matrimony?"
And if our argument is that we are protecting children, then restricting cohabitation would be the way to go, since the research is clear that having a non-related male in the house is devastatingly dangerous for children. I don't see many people marching for that particular legislation (nor do I think they should--it's just an argument for consistency.)
Now, the issue of homosexuality and Christianity is a "whole nother thing," as us Texans would say. I don't think that was what you were addressig and so I won't either. : )
Post a Comment