Today Rod Dreher, Andrew Sullivan, and John Derbyshire are contemplating the question of whether there is a secular case against same-sex marriage. Is there?
Well, there would have to be. God doesn't rule arbitrarily. He has in mind the aim to encourage human flourishing, and He knows better even than Andrew Sullivan does. That doesn't mean His reasons are always entirely scrutable. That may be why the exact nature of a religion-free case against state-sanctioned gay marriage sometimes seems a bit hazy. Nevertheless, I'll give you my three thoughts about how human interest is served by resisting attempts to remake matrimony.
First, the institution of marriage is very ancient, and that by itself tells us something. A profound wisdom accumulates over the millennia, as generations discover the kind of institutions best suited for human beings. For thousands of years and across a multitude of cultures, people have agreed that marriage means the union of man with woman. This consensus is enshrined in religious beliefs, revered by Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus alike. You can think of these beliefs as God-given, but you don't have to. You also can think of them as human discoveries.
Second, our own experience tells us that society has a stake in preserving the unique status of heterosexual marriage. Marriage has a mystique, a prestige, in part because of the force of government sanction. Married couples invest in their marriage, accepting compromise and overcoming difficulties, because they regard their relationship in the light of this mystique. Complicate that by endorsing gay unions and you have diminished the prestige of heterosexual marriage, weakening it. At what cost? Social science makes clear the beneficial effects that being married has on health, self-esteem, earning potential, and more. Adults need the challenge of integrating their life with someone very different from themselves -- a member of the opposite sex. Children need the influence of a mother and a father.
Third, the integrity of moral tradition as a whole is at stake. Apart from its impact on family life, government endorsement of gay marriage undercuts other, seemingly unrelated beliefs about right and wrong, because those beliefs derive from the same authoritative source. It calls into question the whole authority and structure of traditional morality. Our confidence in this tradition gives us strength to face moral challenges in every area of life. Government-imposed gay marriage makes it harder for us all to be as good as we would wish.
Your thoughts?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I agree with capekwassa here entirely. Not only is David trumpeting the most reactionary and bigoted aspects of his own faith – which by definition necessitates the abstention of reason, which is evident all throughout David’s vulgar prose, but, as is transparently usually the case, doing so in order to score points with the powerful Christian right. It's enough to make anyone sick.
David claims that the mere fact that marriage is very ancient “tells us something” in and of itself. While that is no doubt true, David is egregiously wrong to cull from this platitude the alleged fact that because “[f]or thousands of years…people have agreed that marriage…” is between a man and a woman, that this validates the premise. The only fact that can be logically deduced is that the institution of marriage, as with any ancient institution, carries with it still many heinous historical residues (David’s anti-gay bigotry here being an example of such a residue) and that many people have subscribed to this premise: it really shouldn’t have to be explained to an adult that consensus is neither evidence nor justification for anything. David without any apparent self-awareness or understanding of elementary logic presents the fallacy of consensus gentium as justification for his bigoted anti-gay dogmas.
David then goes on to make the bizarre claim that marriage has a “mystique.” What precisely is this mystique? David only mentions “the force of government sanction.” How government sanction produces mystique David of course doesn’t explain nor does he explain why this mystique justifies oppressing gay people, how it validates his anti-gay bigotry. I suppose its all just too mysterious for me.
David claims that allowing gay people to get married takes away from “the prestige of heterosexual marriage.” How? Again, he doesn’t bother himself with providing any explanatory substance. What is prestigious about a prejudiced social institution? Did allowing interracial marriage take away from the “prestige” of single-race marriages? Surely it did in the eyes of the racists and the reactionaries. Allowing gay people the fundamental human right of marriage only takes away from the “prestige of heterosexual marriage” in the eyes of anti-gay bigots and religious extremists like David, for, in my view and in the view of anyone with a rational and humane ethical calculus, denying gay people the right to marriage is very much diminishing of the “prestige” of marriage, not to mention diminishing of morality, civil and human rights and of our society in general. In no sense does David’s citing of mystique and prestige support or justify his anti-gay bigotry, quite the opposite, as my analogy should help illustrate.
David’s claim that “the integrity of moral tradition as a whole is at stake.” That is plainly false. What he means to say is that the integrity of HIS moral tradition is at stake and his moral tradition is without question not something to be proud of. Morality in and of itself is also at stake, but David fails to realize that through his anti-gay bigotry and general prejudice and oppression, HE is the one subverting a sane and humane moral calculus all in the name of “faith” (which requires the abstention of reason and which is supposed to be separated from political questions).
Actually that's not true. Hinduism and Buddhism have a long history of accepting marriages between members of the same-sex. Unfortunately a lot of the negative attitudes towards homosexuality, which are decreasing in most of these nations since they have gone back to their pre-colonial roots. Buddhism doesn't even mention homosexuality, since what is important in buddhism is to overcome your dhakka (suffering, shortcomings, ect,) and help others.
Quote: "Kwassa, the problem with your rhetorical move here is that while I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, I try not to decide what's true based on how it makes me or other people feel."
The main point here is that you support discrimination against gays because of what YOUR Bible says, while very recently you called two other bigots "a couple of nasty little anti-Semites" because they brought out what their religion says about Jews. You are a hypocrite to call them antisemitic because you fail to see they are mirror images of you. You and the two Jew-haters both base your opinions on your Bibles and religious teachings.
Buddy, the New Testament is WAY more anti-Jewish than the Torah is anti-gay. The only reason most Christians and Jews are able to peacefully co-exist is because most Christians are moral enough to interpret their Bible in a way that's not savage, primitive, and evil. You and your ilk should do the same with your own Bible. It's time for Christians and Orthodox Jews to treat gay people with the same level of humanity that most Chrisitans treat Jews, depsite what savagery their ancient scriptures say.
Sigh...the cause of all human evil, not wanting to be told what your doing is wrong. It grows from thoughts, to desire to the actual physical action when all reasoning and morals are totally ignored in order to justify your actions; followed by wanting to be forcefuly accepted by others. Homosexuality is wrong, whether YOU believe in God or not it won't change The truth that He does exist and that he intended marriage and sexual interaction to be among man and woman only.
Everything that we do that goes against his character and as matter of "rebellion" corrupts the body, mind AND soul of us humans.
As Followers of Christ we are to be full of love and compassion. But that doesn't mean that we are going to give a pat in the back to those who would like for us to accept Sin. We are all sinners, slaves to our sinful desires. True followers of Jesus understand this because we've been there, living a life justified by our own corrupted thinking and ways. We are not condeming but trying to bring light and truth with love, boldness, just like someone else brought light to us.
Pride, human rationale, pervertion of freedom have darkned the minds of those who live in sin, those who insist on ignoring God. Christians are to reprent truth, which most of the time is not welcome. That's why when confronted with sin and evil we must stand by the truth whether people like it or not. At the end, it's up to you to respond to God's call to the light and repentance. We all have a choice, a choice that represents willingness and humbleness.
When you yield to the light and truth is not to us you are yielding to but to the Almighty God who is full of Love and Faithful to forgive. Love, by nature wants the best for us and the best is always in God and his ways. When we are not going Gods way we are going the wrong way.
I personally know ex-homesexuals and The joy and peace they have found in Jesus makes you want to weep. There is a way...
God has been around for lots more than a mere 5000 years—and at last report, did quite alright.Further, there is nothing to suggest that for some 200000 years His creations also managed without exterminating themselves.Tentatively, more than we can with assurance say for ourselves, It also seems that sexual activity without marriage and same sex marriage has also been around for more than 5000 years.*
There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that same-sex marriage was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history. It was even more common in Africa and in the north American continent, pre-invasion.
Hu Pu'an records the phenomenon of two-women commitment ceremonies in "A Record of China's Customs: Guangdong.In the neighboring province of Fujian, same-sex marriages between males were also recognized):
In “The origins and role of same-sex relations in human societies” James Neill, writes that primitive tribes (for reasons discussed in the book) very early engaged in partnering both same sex and mixed sex. When more established ritualization of unions began, older and dominant males collected women while younger males commonly resorted to same sex unions. It is likely these same sex unions were encouraged because they created a more peaceful and less competitive intrigue and violence.
Woman-woman marriage has been documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa.1
Formalized, socially-recognized relations between two men also exist in Africa. Among the Zande (located in southwestern Sudan, northeastern Congo, and the Central African Republic), a male warrior could marry a teenage boy by paying bridewealth to the boy's parents.
Many indigenous societies in the Americas supported alternative gender roles for both biological men and women. Among the Mohave, men have married alyha (biological males.
* see cited source and wikipedia
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.