We didn't think it was, but, to be clear, the game isn't over. Sure, we voted in several states to amend the Constitution to define marriage. In California, they amended it in spite of the court ruling that it just wasn't so. Still, the fight goes on. Iowa fell to judiciary legislation this week when they decided that the standard definition of marriage was against the law. Vermont's legislature has also decided to change the definition for their state. So the struggle continues on one side to force the rest of the world to change their definition and on the other side to retain the time-honored definition of marriage.
Here's the standard argument. "It's wrong! It's immoral to prevent a certain group of people from expressing their love for and commitment to one another simply because they are a 'non-standard' couple!" It's the moral high ground, you see. We who believe that marriage is, should be, and always has been between a man and a woman are immoral, even hateful. Well, to tell the truth, it's primarily us Christians. We're influencing everyone else, you see. (I suppose the "gay rights" side should be delighted that Newsweek has declared The End of Christian America.) I frankly don't get the "standard argument". Here's what it claims. Every religion ever has been wrong ... forever. Every religious leader has been wrong. Jesus was wrong for not standing up for a change in the definition of marriage, sure. We got that. Christians are to blame. But so was Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Joseph Smith, Mohamed, and the Pope. No, please, go on. There are lots of religions and lots of religious leaders in history. They never saw the fundamental inequity in the definition of marriage. Every single one of them ... was wrong. No, worse. Since it is immoral to prevent the union of same sex couples, they were all immoral. In fact, no society, large or small, has ever redefined marriage this way. So not only were all religions and all religious leaders evil, so were all societies, from the little village of Maori in deepest Africa to the sprawling Roman Empire. Dirty rotten humans! Well! It's about time someone got it right, eh?! I don't know, dear reader, it really strikes me as arrogant.
"No," they might reply, "You're misrepresenting us. Marriage has been constantly redefined throughout history." I would beg to differ there, my friend. While it is certainly true that marriage has been practiced in different ways throughout history, it has never been defined in a different way. It was always a union of opposite sexes -- always. Sometimes that union took place by force, as in arranged marriages or even conquered brides. Sometimes a certain society would define "that ethnic group" as "not human" or, at least, as a different breed of human, and forbid the union of a human with a non-human. Many societies would allow the union of one man to multiple women. Sure, there have been a variety of practices regarding marriage ... but not a variety of definitions. It has always been "man and woman" (two different genders) for the purpose of making a family unit.
No, the definition hasn't changed, and no society and no religion prior to the 21st century ever thought it should. Still, they'll throw this at you. "What difference does it make to you? How will it change your marriage?" That one generally trips us up. It certainly wouldn't change the way I relate to my wife. They're right ... as if that's the only concern. But this fundamental redefining of marriage would have to make a difference in subsequent generations. How do I know? Because we've already gotten lax on the existing definition and the results have already been devastating. The original definition (in its simplest form) was "the union of a man and woman ... for life". Even the disciples said, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). So we moderns have decided that we don't really think that this whole "for life" thing is really too important. The result is split families, destroyed homes, torn children, and vast ripples into everyday life. Why should your teenager work it out in school when you won't work it out at home? Why should this young adult put in the effort to work hard at his job when his parents didn't bother working hard at marriage? And so it goes. Now ... change that definition again. It's no longer a family, no longer procreation, no longer a union of man and woman. It's ... well, essentially whatever you feel like. You see, it's about "love", isn't it? And, he surely loves both those women and she surely loves both those three guys and, look, to be honest, poor old Aunt Sally really loves her devoted Lhasa Apso. Commitment? Already irrelevant. Faithful? Now, don't you think that's a bit narrow? Family? Now why do you have to go inserting things that have no business in this discussion? And I'm quite sure that the ramifications of such a change would be much larger than I'm currently able to envision. No, it wouldn't change today for my wife and me. We already hold a different view of marriage than much of the rest of our society, and society's changing their definition wouldn't alter ours. But it would certainly change the next generation's view and the next and the next. Or ... don't they really matter to anyone?
What is really at stake here? What is the real goal? No one is talking about this, but the real goal is and has been the removal of gender entirely. There can be no difference between the sexes, you see. Men and women aren't different. Look! That's why we have "transgender"! They're ... both ... right? Gender is simply how you feel, a societal construct, not a reality. Now, if we can remove this false societal construct, then women will be free to rule the world and men will be free to marry men and reality will have no real connections to ... reality. Truth, you see, is not discovered; it's made.
I don't think my stand is hateful. It is historical. Nor do I think my position is "right wing". It has been the standard view of all religions and all civilizations for all of history. My view is informed and shaped by my religious beliefs, but it's not a case of imposing my religious beliefs on my society. It's a case of standing on what has always made sense ... even when there was no "Christianity". Nor am I opposing a particular group. No, I'm thinking instead of all those who come after. Will we leave them with a marriage minefield? Are we going to exchange the glory that is manhood and the wonder that is womanhood for a morass of sameness? Are we going to stand on what's true, or are we simply going to devolve into oblivion? Overstatement? I don't think so. When we make truth statements that deny truth, what do we have left but oblivion? This question of redefining marriage is not a small one, despite how you may feel or what you may think.
8 comments:
Good summary. Satan is at the root of this, attempting to silence the church and destroy more people and families.
The Left's arguments are pretty easy to refute but most people stumble. We don't even need to bring religion into the discussion.
They'll claim it is about "love," but we just need to point out that the gov't has no interest in governing relationships just because love is involved. They only get involved in marriage because by nature and design heterosexual couples produce the next generation and ONLY heterosexual couples can provide a mother and a father to a child.
It is really quite simple.
And when they play the "it won't hurt your marriage or you in any way" card, they are just lying or ignorant. Oxymoronic "same sex marriage" will inevitably result in silencing authentic churches and teaching all sorts of perversions to kindergarteners or younger (that has already started).
1. You brandish the phrase "time honored" as if the state of marriage as it should be practiced has always been in that form — fact is, it has been to relatively recently that women were considered anything more than chattel or property and the "marriage covenant" definition set different rules for the male and female side. The OT is replete with such a male dominator pattern as most biblical scholars (both Christian and nonbelievers) will attest to. Sure, Jesus instructed for a different model, but Christians after Jesus resurrection discarded much of that teaching and embraced the culture in that regard. Marriage, as we know it, is a recent phenomenon - the last 100 years or even less — prior to that, women were accorded little rights as culture, nation's legal systems, etc.… acted out as if women were 2nd class citizens.
2. Without considering that fact, that women are full citizens and possess the same rights as men, we can't really argue about "traditional marriage" as that thought is laden with a faulty premise.'
3. No, the real goal is not the "removal of gender", but that those who are different are not treated as "less than human".
4. @4simpsons: not a left/right issue per se, especially when it comes to younger Americans. In fact, you're going to see the right splintered by this issue, as many a conservative see this issue not in the stern manner that many others do, even if they themselves do not favor gay marriage. And gay people are not settled on a quest to "make you gay", damage your heterosexual marriage in any shape or form or even care if you "like" them. They just want to be treated as human equals, and not treated as horrid freaks and objects to be scorned and marginalized (as much of history has shown).
Finally, a eloquent passage from Scot McKnight on the matter:
"Today I'd like to speak to two issues: the bottom line in civility and the intent of our convictions.
The bottom line in civility issue is this: For pro-gay-as-Christian or pro-gay marriage/civil union folks: Christians who differ from you are entitled to take their stand on what they think the Bible says and say they think such views are contrary to God's order as revealed in the Bible and as taught in the history of the Church. They deserve, even must, be respected for that view. If you label such persons as dinosaurs or bigots in order to brand them and exclude them, you fail in love and you fail our society.
For anti-gay-as-Christian or anti-gay marriage/civil union folks: Those who affirm civil unions, gay marriage, etc, are entitled to form their own viewpoint in believing that they think these relations are justifiable for Christians and they must be respected for their viewpoint. If you label such persons as morally bankrupt in order to brand and exclude them, you fail in love and you fail our society.
The issue here is entitlement. I contend that folks must be given the freedom to believe what they want. When we refuse to let others think what they want, we break down a civil society. This has nothing to do with whether we think the other person is right. We may well think they are not.
Until we get to positions of mutual respect, we cannot have a conversation and cannot make progress. Until we get let the other person say "I think you are wrong and I have legitimate grounds for thinking so" we cannot genuinely sit at the table. When the other person's viewpoint is grounds for exclusion -- and I see this from both sides of this debate -- we haven't even achieved a tolerant society. In fact, we strain the tethers of a tolerant society. And this doesn't even bring up the Christian virtue of charity or love: those who love others will never exclude from the table those who differ from them simply because they have a view that they think wrong."
Naum: "You brandish the phrase 'time honored' as if the state of marriage as it should be practiced has always been in that form."
What I actually said was "While it is certainly true that marriage has been practiced in different ways throughout history, it has never been defined in a different way." (Emphasis was in the original.) In other words, I agreed with you that marriage has had different practices. Now ... can you offer some point at which it had a different definition? For instance, you reference the time when women were more like chattel. True. Can you find a time in history when marriage was defined as anything other than between genders? Has there ever been a time when it was defined to include man and man, woman and woman, or anything other than man and woman, husband and wife? That is my point.
As for Mr. McKnight's perspective (with which you appear to agree), I have to wonder. "If you label such persons as morally bankrupt in order to brand and exclude them, you fail in love and you fail our society." It's an interesting idea because it typically includes the idea, "Those of you who label such persons as morally bankrupt ... are morally bankrupt (or deficient in some way)." Those who demand that we all be non-judgmental are quite judgmental of those who disagree. Those who decry the lack of tolerance in people are quite intolerant of those people they decry. It all seems ironic to me.
Please note, in the final analysis, that I made no statements about the morality of the homosexual lifestyle or even of homosexuals and their unions. My entire post and my entire thought was not on morality at all, but on definition -- the definition of marriage. I know that no matter how many times I say that to people who wish to protest my viewpoint, they never accept it. "No, no," they assure me, "You're just hateful of homosexuals." Personally, I think it's quite rude to assume without cause that I'm a liar. Seems ... I don't know ... judgmental and intolerant ...
What is confining to the "definition of marriage"?
Marriage as defined in OT, while strictly for man and woman, still was worlds apart the so called misleading "time honored tradition" some say it was. Was it a piece of paper? An edict from the state? Or strictly the domain of the church? Or province regulated by familia?
And as defined in the OT, attributed differences to man v. woman. You read the texts today in your own cultural context but in the age of antiquity, the biblical "rules" prescribed mandated a different standard for men than women.
It seems to not acknowledge that truth, is to construct an argument for that "definition" on an entirely faulty premise.
I believe Jesus spoke and instructed differently — and that was extremely radical for the age — the equality of woman and man, Jew v. Gentile, etc.…
And for the record, I am not a proponent of gay marriage, but the more I ponder and pray on it, I am kind of split — and aghast at the resources spent by many Christians in this futile "culture war" that could be corralled better to serve the Kingdom and be a light to the world.
And there are Christians that disagree with your assessment and believe the biblical passages against homosexuality should be considered in the same context as admonitions against charging interest, stoning someone for disobeying the Sabbath, etc.…
Again, I am not one in their court, but as witnessed here, sympathize with their argument and think that Jesus commandment to love trumps all this minor squabbling.
Happy Resurrection weekend to you, family, friends and all the onlookers on here…
Marriage is defined in the Old Testament long before paper, state, or church existed. But you still agree that it was "strictly for man and woman" ... and ever has been. You are quite sure, I suppose, that the Old Testament God viewed people (women in particular) in a manner different than the New Testament God (Jesus). I don't see it, but I'm sure I won't be changing your mind.
There is a vast difference between "equality" and "same". Jesus, for instance, was equal with God, but 1) not the same person as the Father and 2) submitted to the Father. Equality does not demand sameness. When it comes to marriage, I demand equality for homosexuals. They should be allowed people of the opposite gender just like anyone else. What they want is modification. They want to be able to change the historical definition. (By the way, even the California Supreme Court, when it rendered its verdict last year to change the definition of marriage, recognized that it was the "long-standing traditional definition" between man and woman.) They aren't asking for what everyone else has; they want something more. They want a fundamental change in our definition of the term and in our thinking. I am not to be allowed to continue to hold to the traditional definition nor think as I do. That's equal?
There are indeed some who call themselves Christians who dismiss the admonitions on the immorality of homosexual behavior. Since it is included in both the Old and the New Testament, I can't dismiss it so easily. But I repeat that this question (changing the definition of marriage) is not (to me) about the morality of homosexual behavior.
Well I, for one, would certainly include the immorality of Sodomite behavior in my reasons for opposing Sodomite marriage. Giving a good name to an evil behavior is precisely what is forbidden when God condemns those who call evil good.
You quote:For anti-gay-as-Christian or anti-gay marriage/civil union folks: Those who affirm civil unions, gay marriage, etc, are entitled to form their own viewpoint in believing that they think these relations are justifiable for Christians and they must be respected for their viewpoint.This is a wonderful statement of post-modernism; a denial of all truth and all moral values (and a contradictory one, as pointed out above.)
However it fails to understand the actual root of the anti-Sodomite beliefs. It is precisely because we believe that the action is evil that we do not believe it should be given a name marked as good by God.
If you wish to call Sodomy evil, or blasphemous, or degraded, or perverted... those are all excellent words. But marriage? Wrong word.
It is unloving to call evil good. It is unloving to rejoice at the wrong.
"If you wish to call Sodomy evil, or blasphemous, or degraded, or perverted... those are all excellent words. But marriage? Wrong word."
That's my point. I don't have to condemn or agree with the behavior (sodomy) of a certain set of participants to oppose the wrong word for a particular activity (marriage). If you wanted to change the word "marriage" to include two cats or two flowers or two houses, I would still oppose it because it is the wrong word.
(On the other hand, opposing the redefining of the word "marriage" apart from the morality of the participants does not mean I have no view on the morality of the participants.)
Post a Comment