Someone asked me the fair and reasonable question, "What difference would it make to you if Bob and Larry got hitched?" I answered in the comments, but thought I would expand that answer here for everyone to see.
As a Christian, I believe that God created Man. As the Creator, He knows what works best for His creation. So when He says it's bad, I have to conclude it's bad. I don't mean simply morally bad. I mean bad for you. Now, all you morally outraged Christians out there, I would suspect that this is not the thinking you had. You were likely offended. You were likely indignant. But were you concerned for them? I am fairly sure that the genuine love that says, "I am concerned about your well-being" doesn't really come across when we shake our fists and proclaim, "It's evil!!!" Of course, they would argue, "But, we don't think it is bad for us." I'm not sure what is expected of us at this point. Let's say that I saw a kid drinking a bottle of rat poison. I try to snatch it from him and he's outraged. "It's bad for you!" I assure him. "No it's not!" he fires back. Oh, okay, then here you go, drink away. Who am I to try to impose my perception on you. Right? That's caring? That's loving? Yet that is the demand.
"But ... sinners marry all the time." That's true, but this is a unique situation. There is nothing significant about uniting a fornicator and a thief in marriage. The marriage has no impact on the sin. This situation isn't the same. When Bob and Larry get hitched and they call it "marriage", you've managed to perpetuate the problem. Bob and Larry already had to contend with the problem of being gay in a heterosexual world. This serves to legitimize their standing. It steps away from "queer" and toward "normal". It diminishes their motivation to stop their sin. It's bad for them.
Of course, most people aren't at all concerned about my view as a Christian. The secular world believes that my beliefs have no place in the public arena. Fine. As a citizen of this country, redefining marriage as "a kind of agreement between two people, whatever their gender, where they agree to commit to one another or something for some time or another" will impact me. Why? It won't change how I view my wife. It won't change the relationship I have. Why does it affect me? Let me illustrate from my past.
I joined the Air Force in the '80's. They had a system of performance review that would rate each airman's performance on a scale of 1 to 9. Every year your supervisor would sit you down and rate you over various areas along with an overall score. Now, it makes sense that in a system of 1 to 9, the average would be something around 5. Anything above, say, a 7 would require extraordinary performance and something below, perhaps, a 3 could lead to disciplinary possibilities. So when I got my first review, I was amazed. My supervisor explained to me that I was an outstanding worker in every area with nothing that I needed to improve except the normal stuff that continuing the work would improve. "Congratulations, Airman," he told me, "you have received an overall rating of 9." Wow! Top numbers! Excellent rating! I was pleased. Then the next airman went in for his evaluation. When he came out I asked him what he got. "A 9," he told me. Now I was lost. Why? What did it matter if he got a 9? Well, he wasn't a hard worker. He put out the minimum effort. He didn't try to improve. He showed no initiative. And he got the same score I did. Why did it matter? My supervisor was still pleased with my work. I would still do the same job. Nothing changed there. The impact, however, was that it undercut anything that resembled pride of service or motivation. As it turned out, 9 was the norm. Some people got 8's, but that was bad. If you received a 7 or lower, you were likely looking at corrective measures. In other words, 9 became meaningless. There was no such thing as "outstanding." From that point on there was no possibility of affirmation for a job well done, no way to demonstrate excellence, no way to even improve. The 9 was pointless.
Redefining marriage is like that. It doesn't change my relationship with my wife. Still, the "special" is gone. We're no longer special. We're no longer a special contribution to society. The "special" was severely tarnished when "no-fault divorce" was loosed on us. Now the "special" is all but eliminated because "marriage" no longer carries any significance. It doesn't mean tradition. It doesn't mean a special contributing part of society. It doesn't really mean anything at all. It's just a 9 in a world where everything is 9 -- meaning nothing at all.
It won't have a particular impact on me if Larry and Bob get hitched. I will go on being married. I will still define marriage the way I used to. But society will no longer see marriage the way it did. And our progeny will not have a clear definition of marriage, nor a clear path for right and wrong. There will be no foundation on which to rest, no means by which to claim, "The law should be this here and not that there." It's a sliding scale based on how people feel. Your vote? Irrelevant. Your perception? Who cares? Your beliefs? Oh, no, those aren't allowed here. Yeah, I don't see this as a good thing.
17 comments:
I am still curious as to what method you use to determine what locale you use for who is or is not allowed to marry as to how it lessens your own marriage.
Do you use States? That raises an interesting question as to whether allowing incest would make your marriage less special. Do you realize some States define marriage to first cousins as incest, but others do not? Is the fact some States allow incest and some do not cause your marriage to be less special?
Do you use your country? Massachusetts already allows gay marriage. Has your marriage appeared less special to you, or those within the community you live since it has been allowed?
Do you use the world? Canada allows gay marriage. Does that make your marriage less special? Some African countries allow polygamous marriages. Again—does that affect your marriage?
And what rationale can you use to (other than arbitrary) demonstrate that the specialty of your marriage is dependent on your State, but not your country? Or your country, but not the world?
Does it make a difference today? Maybe not. Understand, marriage is already weakened and diminished. It didn't make a big difference when California created "no fault divorce" ... but as California goes, so goes the nation, they say. When Hawaii approved it, it was a small ripple. When Massachusetts, it was a small but bigger ripple. And now it's California. How long do you think it will take before it's all over the country. And what does that matter? It matters because this is the society I live in. It matters because this society in which I live already devalued marriage when they enable divorce. They devalued marriage when they decided that sex was recreational. They devalued marriage when they decided that two parents aren't better than one.
Marriage already stands on a precarious edge, pushed there by the society in which I live. This is another push toward meaninglessness. I'm not entirely sure if it's a push toward meaninglessness or just farther into it.
As for the rest (incest and all), I am completely without any resources to offer to anyone as to why we should not legalize bigamy, polygamy, or incest -- since my rationale for holding to the standard definition of marriage is of no value to the society in which I live.
I thought of an illustration that might help further understand what I'm saying. (I am not comparing homosexual behavior to murder. I'm using murder because it is almost universally viewed as evil.)
A serial murderer of prostitutes is pursued and caught by the police. The murderer is quite sure that he will now be tried and put to death. He is surprised, obviously, when the mayor trots him out in front of the city and hands him a coveted city honor award. "Thanks for helping diminish the surplus population of our city and putting a damper on the prostitution problem of our city."
The results will be two-fold. First, will the man stop murdering? Of course not! If he is going to receive benefits from it, why would he stop? Granting him special status will simply encourage him to continue. The special status is not, in itself, evil, but the special status does serve to encourage him to continue his evil. Second, what about the cop who received the same award two weeks ago? What will he think of his award now? "Wait ... that guy received the same award that I did? What is the value of my award now? Why would I be proud of what I accomplished now?" What he actually accomplished may have been noteworthy, but the award and the perception of that award will be forever changed to those who rightly earned it. Indeed, it's entire definition has now changed. Would any law-abiding citizen want it?
It's an extreme example. I'm just trying to use an extreme to get the point across. You will likely not agree with it, but do you understand it better now?
Stan,
I understood your point. Part of it is that we come at this from different perspectives. I don’t see marriage as a “benefit”—something a person is awarded for having the right number of teeth, or picking the right spouse. So comparisons to tax rebates or honorary awards do not line up to what is meant by a “right.” (But I am not interested in nit-picking your analogies.) As far as I understand you, though, you do not consider marriage a right.
Takes us down different paths.
Nor do I personally evaluate the value of my marriage by who can or cannot marry. In my city, township, state, country or world. I could not fathom coming up with a method of doing so consistently. Just curious as to whether you could within your perspective.
I don't see marriage as a "benefit" in the sense you are describing either. I see it as a benefit to society. But I also see it as necessarily "a man and a woman", so we are indeed coming at it from different directions.
Nor do I evaluate my marriage by everyone else's definition of marriage. (Again, a different direction -- the root of my difficulty.) The problem is that everyone else will (already does -- this just magnifies it) see marriage in general (the classification into which my marriage falls) as less ... and decreasing. The cop who won the medal didn't perform with any less valor, but what purpose does the medal serve now that the murderer has earned it as well? My personal relationship with my wife will not change (because we both continue with our original definition of marriage and our original relationship), but what purpose does the classification "marriage" serve now that the terminology is being stripped of its meaning?
And why must we only be concerned with how things affect us? This mentality of looking out for yourself and not caring what other people do because it "doesn't affect me" is detrimental. Everybody cries for world piece, yet won't even bother to be concerned about their neighbor. I have said it before, and I'll say it again, the world is schizophrenic. We cry out for one thing, and do just the opposite.
(Pssst! David! I think it's "world peace" you're saying that everyone is crying for. ;))
Yeah, that too.
dagoods,
I read your blog on the topic and I have to ask. You say that Christians don't like homosexuals so they're just trying to make them uncomfortable. I don't think I've expressed (or thought or felt) anything of the kind. So ... do you think of me as a liar or an exception?
Not quite. If you read the first paragraph of the blog entry, I say:
Me: It is a way of saying, “I don’t like what you do; so I am going to make it as uncomfortable as possible for you in another aspect of your life.” [emphasis added]
Please note that two-letter word, “do.” I figured the readers of my blog are intelligent enough to figure out what I meant by “do,” and in order to keep it at least PG-13, there was no need to be graphic about what that “do” was. Obviously, I am not talking about the occupations homosexuals choose, or the hobbies they enjoy.
I did not say “Christians do not like homosexuals.” I DID say, “Christians do not like homosexual acts.” Am I wrong in this? Look at some of the statements you have made:
Stan: I agree that God doesn't like it.
…
I object on moral grounds, of course, but my moral grounds don't offer a basis for everyone. I object on biblical grounds, obviously, but my biblical view doesn't offer a basis for everyone.
…
Stan the Christian would say that the Designer of Humans says that's bad for people, so allowing it would be bad for people.
…
As a Christian, I believe that God created Man. As the Creator, He knows what works best for His creation. So when He says it's bad, I have to conclude it's bad.
I understood this to mean a homosexual act; not homosexuals in general. Was I so wrong in my assessment that Christians say, “I do not like what you do”?
Looking at Part two: “Christians are going to make it as uncomfortable for homosexuals in another aspect of their life”—again, statements you have made:
Stan: Does it hurt Bob and Larry? Yes. In my view, of course, but, yes. It tells Bob and Larry that it's okay. It tells them that there is no difference between straight and gay. It tells them that marriage no longer has the meaning it once had. It perpetuates their original problem by giving them confirmation. I think that's bad for them.
…
I'm not saying that the marriage is the sin. I'm saying that when we approve marriage, specifically in this situation, we approve the sin. We give our societal "OK!" We deny any possibility that they might be immoral. We give our societal stamp of approval.
…
My father didn't stop me. He couldn't. But he did do all he could. I guess that's how I see it. I'm not looking to pass biblical laws, but neither am I hoping to rescind laws that assist people in living better lives. I don't believe that passing laws against sin make people less of sinners. Neither do I believe that ignoring them and letting them sin as much as possible is good for them. So I have to do what I can, striking some sort of a "happy medium" between theonomy and anarchy. To me, the California choice is a step closer to anarchy.
…
This situation isn't the same. When Bob and Larry get hitched and they call it "marriage", you've managed to perpetuate the problem. Bob and Larry already had to contend with the problem of being gay in a heterosexual world. This serves to legitimize their standing. It steps away from "queer" and toward "normal". It diminishes their motivation to stop their sin. It's bad for them. [emphasis in original]
Again, was I wrong in my assessment? Do you want homosexuals to be “comfortable” with their homosexuality by allowing them to marry?
And yes, I understand you have an additional component in that you think this decision devalues marriage—yet I still see elements of not liking what homosexuals do; and a desire, by eliminating marriage as an option, to coerce them to conform to what Christians approve.
I would guess, then, that you consider me a liar, at least to myself.
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. It's nothing as petty as "I don't like what you do."
You do understand, I hope, that portraying Christians -- and you don't seem to make any exceptions -- like you have is really demeaning and, frankly, unfair, as if all Christians are alike -- like all atheists are alike -- all Christians are petty and shallow and pretty much mindless. Of course it's your right to view us all that way, but it's not right.
No, Stan, I do not consider you a liar. I do not see you as an exception, either.
I started to write out (another) response, but it involved too much ranting.
I blame myself for the inability to communicate here.
Well, you see, my view is not "I don't like it so I want to make it uncomfortable for you." You affirm that it is. One of us is wrong. I would guess that, since you hold your position, you would have to hold that I'm not being honest. I don't take that personally. I assume you guess that I'm not being honest with myself. But to me it is abundantly clear that there is a vast difference between "I don't like it" and "It is fundamentally wrong."
But, I have a question for you, unrelated to this latest exchange. I don't know if you can offer an answer or not, but I thought I'd ask. You think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry (and we should redefine the term to match). Why? In California they were given "Domestic Partnership" rights, which include all the rights and responsibilities of marriage without the term "marriage". Why, then, would it be necessary to subvert "marriage"? If they already have all the rights and privileges, why is it important to have the term?
As I was at lunch, it struck me how I may be failing to communicate here.
When I say, “Christians do not like what homosexuals do..” I am not intending the word “like” to mean a personal preference. As in: “I like chocolate ice cream, but not vanilla” or “I like heterosexual sex; but not homosexual sex.”
I am NOT saying, “Christians find homosexual sex icky and distasteful and for those reasons…” I am incorporating a number of reasons within “like” including the reason it is immoral.
As a matter of pique, I would note I pointed out you use the same terminology when you said, “…God doesn’t like it.” In attempting to charitably understand your point, I understood that to mean “Homosexual sex violates my God’s moral character.” NOT “My God doesn’t like silver as much as He likes Gold; and oh, by-the-way, He equally prefers heterosexual sex over homosexual sex.”
If you can use the term “like” to mean more than personal preference—can you understand how I would too? It is simply a use of vernacular.
If that doesn’t clear it up, I don’t know how else to put it.
That helps clear it up a bit. You certainly understand that expressing it with the term "like" calls up the notion of "personal preference" and seems petty and arbitrary in this application.
Nonetheless, I still think it's inaccurate to suggest that I'm against allowing the redefinition of "marriage" to include homosexuals so I can make their lives uncomfortable.
The better part of wisdom tells me I have overstayed my welcome here. Certainly on this blog entry. Ah well—“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”…
Stan: You certainly understand that expressing it with the term "like" calls up the notion of "personal preference" and seems petty and arbitrary in this application.
Sir, we both used the same verb (“do not like”) with the same objective noun (“homosexual sex”)—the only difference being the subject of the sentence:
Me: “Christians do not like it.”
You: “God does not like it.”
Yet when I used the term “like” in the same sentence it is “petty and arbitrary,” and when you used it; it was…what? Manna from heaven?
Stan: Nonetheless, I still think it's inaccurate to suggest that I'm against allowing the redefinition of "marriage" to include homosexuals so I can make their lives uncomfortable.
Yet I can’t help but notice, you never respond to the lengthy quotes I listed above. Nor, of course, to the question I asked, “Do you want homosexuals to be ‘comfortable’ with their homosexuality by allowing them to marry?”
You don’t want homosexuals to marry because it provides “confirmation,” “approval,” “tells them marriage no longer has the meaning it once has,” “it’s bad for them,” “tells them its okay,” “denies any possibility that homosexual sex is immoral,” and “legitimizes their standing.”
Yet you want them to be comfortable in marriage?
I looked at what I wrote regarding "God does not like it." I was keying off of the previous phrase where Christians mistakenly argue "God doesn't like it; we shouldn't allow it." I was, essentially, agreeing that God "doesn't like it" but dismissing that argument as irrelevant. Further, you surely understand that what God doesn't like is much more highly significant than what I may or may not like ... right?
Do I want them to be comfortable in marriage? First, you have to know that the question is nonsensical to me. It would be like asking, "Do you want your cat to be comfortable as a dog?" The terms are not workable. But, you and I can work past that. Of course I don't want them to be comfortable when they steal a term that isn't theirs and make it their own. I don't want a 3-year-old to be "comfortable" placing his hand on a hot stove. I don't want an 8-year-old to be "comfortable" stealing from another kid. But it's not the discomfort I'm seeking.
I was talking with someone else on another blog about worship and emotions. I was concerned that too many made emotions the aim of worship. He was concerned that I was trying to eliminate emotions from worship. That wasn't my aim. I believe that true worship will naturally result in heartfelt emotions. It's just that the aim of worship should not be emotions. By the same token, it is not my aim to make homosexuals uncomfortable.
Here's the thing. According to the opinion of the California Supreme Court, one of the primary reasons they decided to redefine the longstanding and traditional definition of marriage to include same-sex couples was because California had already passed laws allowing "domestic partnerships." These laws gave same-sex couples all the same rights and responsibilities as married people. It just didn't call them "married." And you didn't see me writing protests about it, did you? "No! Don't let them be comfortable! Don't let them tend to their loved one's health needs or any such thing! Make them squirm!" No, no such thing from me. Still, the "domestic partnership" wasn't good enough. Why? Why did the homosexual community feel that it was necessary to steal the term "marriage" from its longstanding and traditional definition? What did they gain by snatching the word from its moorings? They didn't gain extra rights. They gained acceptance for their lifestyle. Do I want someone who is engaged in activities that I believe harms them to feel like it is acceptable by all? No. So they will be uncomfortable? NO! So they will ask themselves, "Is it possible that this is wrong?"
What God likes or dislikes is significant. What I like or dislike is irrelevant. And whether or not a person doing a bad thing is comfortable or not is never my concern. I am concerned about their well-being, not their comfort.
As to whether or not you have overstayed your welcome, I wouldn't say that you have. I do think that your reasoned, even kind conversation with me doesn't quite match up with what appears to be a serious dislike for Christians in general (and I am a Christian in general) that shows up elsewhere. It does make me wonder if you're being disingenuous. But as long as you remain reasoned and charitable, you're still welcome here.
Post a Comment