I recently spoke to a friend about her view on the Prop 8 question. She had joined the "No on Prop 8" group and I simply wanted to know what she was thinking. No argument from me; just curiosity. She said that she felt bad for gays. She said, "I put myself in their shoes. If I was gay, I could never call myself a 'wife'."
I thought about the argument. Was it valid? It was, in fact, true that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would make it impossible for two people of the same sex to marry. It would also mean that homosexuals could never be "husband" and "wife" (unless, of course, a homosexual man married a lesbian). (I had to wonder how changing "marriage" to mean something different would change that. I mean, in a same-sex couple, who is the "husband" and who is the "wife"?) She was correct. Prop 8 in California (where she was from) would preclude her from being a "wife" if she was a lesbian.
It just struck me as odd. I suppose this is a key part of the problem. The two sides are talking past each other. Too much of this debate is centered on the morality of the homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual community is quite sure that it is only because of religious bigotry that there is even a question. To me, I am just not getting it. To me, it's as if a "cats' rights" group went on the rampage. "If you define 'dog' as 'canis lupus familiaris,' a cat can never be called a dog! Where is the equality?" Now, I know, it's not about cats and dogs ... any more than it is about civil rights. It's about definitions. You can't call a cat a dog ... because of the definition of cat and dog. You can't call a same-sex couple "married" because of the definition of "married."
Look, this is simple. If you want to fix this problem, it's very easy. Eliminate the word "marriage." I don't mean to eliminate the concept. Just pick a different word. Who cares? Make one up! Define it how you want and apply that word to whatever sort of couple you wish. Now all "grouples" (as an example) are the same -- equal treatment. What's the problem?
Look, for me this isn't about "anti-gay." It's about marriage. It's not about the morality of homosexual relationships. It's about marriage. Marriage has a definition and a function. It is the fundamental structure of society. It is comprised of "husband and wife." It is aimed at raising children. It is marriage, and surrendering the term from "husband and wife" to something else will be significant.
8 comments:
In your posts (and in general the argument for state interference into marriage), you repeatedly emphasize the "institution of marriage" as if traditional marriage in historical context is equated to some sort of fantasy.
In fact, the history is quite the opposite. For most of civilization history, marriage has been polygamous. Or even after polygamy, people forget the 2nd class status that women (and even the Church ignored and repressed Jesus radical message here) were relegated to, and marriage was viewed as a system of man property — like chattel, or fruit of a system of patronage. It's only been within the last 100 years that women (qualified to say in just a few parts of the world) have attained equal status, and even as recent as 20-30 years ago, women still treated as inferior.
Most of the government intrusion into marriage has been to discriminate — to declare interracial marriage illegal, to protect the "white blood".
While I do not agree with gay marriage, I do not believe government should intercede into marriage — let each church decide what is legal. I can already here the chorus of "why not polygamy" then, but there are other issues there, mainly exploitation of minors that go hand in hand with polygamy (and for which polygamy would not be possible).
Furthermore, it seems Christians are acting most unChristian in this regard, that they need to "walk a mile in someone else's shoes". While again, I do not condone the behavior, it must be acknowledged that not everyone is in agreement (and even Christians do not agree about many things) with adherence to biblical standards (which also invokes questions about whose interpretation and what exactly the words meant when they were written — even in the same language, words morph in meaning, and applying strict edicts is rife with legalistic folly).
Finally, even scriptural view of marriage is more nuanced than so-called protectors of marriage acknowledge.
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.
The very notion of a "sex ethic" reflects the materialism and splitness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest of life. No sex act is "ethical" in and of itself, without reference to the rest of a person's life, the patterns of the culture, the special circumstances faced, and the will of God. What we have are simply sexual mores, which change, sometimes with startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. Just within one lifetime we have witnessed the shift from the ideal of preserving one's virginity until marriage, to couples living together for several years before getting married. The response of many Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.
Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacked it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is biblically justified? One hundred and fifty years ago, when the debate over slavery was raging, the Bible seemed to be clearly on the slaveholders' side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone would agree that it does not. How do we account for such a monumental shift?
Actually, I refer to the California Supreme Court's designation of marriage as "the longstanding and traditional definition." I understand that marriage has had various views over Man's time.
As for government intervention, that's a different question, isn't it? It is not possible to have an American society where we "let each church decide what is legal." Churches don't get to decide law.
I'm curious (although I doubt you'll respond) what you recommend since you point out that "not everyone is in agreement" even among "Christians." Should we only do what is agreed upon (which would be nearly zero, I suppose)? Should we assume that if Christians don't agree, there is no truth? What do you recommend?
I disagree with Walter Wink. "There is no Biblical sex ethic." On the contrary, the Bible has one sex ethic: Only within the bounds of marriage. The professor also acknowledges "Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that." He goes on to say, "The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct." Well, then, what are we talking about? If we're free to cancel the Bible, why bother using it? (I don't think that's a sarcastic or "over the top" question. Take it or leave it, but don't play with it.)
The Problem with Walter Wink is that he compeltey misses the point.It is not a question of looking for some strained condmenation of Sodomy. It is that Scripture is quite clear on what *is* allowed sexually... and everything else falls into the perversions of fornication and adultery.
Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct.
Wink here denies the validity of Scripture, thus making any exploration of his into a 'sexual ethic' laughable.
No, churches do not decide what is legal or not, but the realm of "marriage" should be their domain. Unfortunately, government has dipped into it, and that term grants benefits to people. Now, you may find gay marriage morally reprehensible but there are those that do not believe that way. To impose your view of morality (when their adoption causes you no harm, threatens not your marriage, etc.…) on those who do not share similar beliefs is to those people, to declare them less than human.
Von, Wink is making the point that throughout history, what the Bible sanctions and does not sanction has morphed. Slavery, he accurately cites, was justified by Christians and Bible was used to beat down abolitionists. Today, that would be a ridiculous proposition. Another example would be usury where it's clear from the bible that charging interest was against scripture and that was dominant belief for over 1000 years.
And sorry, OT/Hebrew Bible scholars are pretty much in consensus that sexual mores were a lot more nuanced than one man / one woman. Honestly, do you dispute the Hebrew Sexual Mores Wink lists that don't jive with the 21st century?
You are viewing the matter through the context of cultural goggles that blindly ignores the historical truth.
I really am saddened by Christians adopting such a hateful posture when we should be known by our sacrificial love and emblematic of the model Jesus set forth.
Naum: "Now, you may find gay marriage morally reprehensible but there are those that do not believe that way."
You just don't get it, do you? Read carefully. "Look, for me this isn't about 'anti-gay.' It's about marriage. It's not about the morality of homosexual relationships. It's about marriage." I haven't lodged a complaint about the morality of "gay marriage." It's about the nonsense of the concept.
Has marriage taken twists and turns in time? Sure. But the original definition was the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. It was the Genesis definition. It was Jesus' definition. And defending something that God considers one of the fundamental functions for human society and an important picture of His truth is not "a hateful posture."
But why am I "hateful" when you admit that "I do not agree with gay marriage"? And you didn't offer an alternative. We can't stand by Scripture. We can't stand by what we believe. What do you recommend?
1. We're talking past eachother. Your view that "nonsense of the concept" strikes those born that way that you're terming them less than human and second class citizens.
2. Regarding Scripture, it's far from cut and dry, as any serious study attests to:
a. the text of Genesis was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy
b. Levirate marriage
c. why is adultery considered less sinful than homosexuality? nobody is clamoring for laws to stone adulterers. seems like it's just a numbers game here…
d. Jesus forbids divorce also, yet I see not millions of dollars directed into propositions banning divorce
These points may make perfect sense to you, but they strike many as blatant Christian hyprocrisy. Imposing their theocratic order from their inconsistent imposition of sexual mores.
Yes, we're talking past each other. Marriage has a definition. I'm not concerned about Levitical law. I'm not worried at all about polygamy. I'm not making a religious argument. Marriage has a -- the California Supreme Court terms it -- "longstanding and traditional definition." Look at the phrase. No religion included. No Old Testament. No New Testament. No Christianity. No moral judgment at all. It is the "longstanding and traditional definition." What is the longstanding, traditional definition? "The union of one man and one woman." Given this "longstanding and traditional definition," it is neither immoral nor hateful to say "same sex couples can't do that," not because they should be precluded from doing it, BUT BECAUSE IT IS DEFINED. They "can't do that" because it doesn't meet the definition. I'm not saying "They're not allowed." I'm saying "They can't do that" like I'm saying "A square can't be a circle."
I am not imposing a theocratic order. I may have biblical reasons that make it an important issue to me, but I am not imposing any religious view at all here in this argument. It isn't, as such, "hateful."
Post a Comment