The Case for Gay Marriage
My good friend Steve Kindle has been posting responses to the National Organization for Marriage's FAQ's. Today, Steve takes a bit different tack, and takes a lengthy quote from a book by NOM's leader, Maggie Gallagher, which suggests the benefits of marriage, and wonders why people want to deprive homosexual's from having access to this beneficial institution.
Here is a quote from the book that Steve has posted:
Steve asks -- if this institution is so beneficial to human beings and society, that it makes people healthier and happier, why deny it to gays? He writes:
I know that Steve would be interested in your thoughts on this issue -- and he'll offer his thoughts as well. It is an issue that isn't going to go away soon. The majority of people under 40 are already supportive of gay marriage. If marriage is so beneficial, can it be kept from the people. Courts are saying no. Religious institutions don't have to bless anything they don't want to bless, the government is in a different place from churches. But even churches will soon face the issue.
Here is a quote from the book that Steve has posted:
The key [to well-being] seems to be the marriage bond itself: Having a partner who is committed for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, makes people happier and healthier. The knowledge that someone cares for you and that you have someone who depends on you helps give life meaning and provides a buffer against the inevitable troubles of life. [from: The Case for Marriage, by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher]
Steve asks -- if this institution is so beneficial to human beings and society, that it makes people healthier and happier, why deny it to gays? He writes:
It astonishes me that anyone who has such a high regard for the multitudinous benefits that marriage brings to a relationship would want to keep such a wonderful way of life solely for oneself and those like oneself, for heterosexuals only. There is every reason to believe that marriage would be good for non-heterosexuals for the same reasons it is good for heterosexuals.
I know that Steve would be interested in your thoughts on this issue -- and he'll offer his thoughts as well. It is an issue that isn't going to go away soon. The majority of people under 40 are already supportive of gay marriage. If marriage is so beneficial, can it be kept from the people. Courts are saying no. Religious institutions don't have to bless anything they don't want to bless, the government is in a different place from churches. But even churches will soon face the issue.
Comments
One issue regarding contract law is the notion that certain contracts are against public policy - for a variety of reasons. Those reasons usually revolve around issues of health, economic justice, and social/moral considerations.
It would seem that none of these public policy issues militates against civil unions between same gender individuals. This is especially true where public opinion is not opposed to such unions, and where constitutional privacy protections prevent the State from inquiring into the details of consensual relationships between adults (See next post).
The church, in its various manifestations, either approves, disapproves, or is silent about civil unions/marriages. Such decisions should be left up to each church to make and to effectuate.
John
This ruling in my mind ended the debate about the State's role as to same sex marriages.
Each human relationship adopts its own rules of what is permitted, and what is expected between the partners. It is possible for a heterosexual married couple to adopted a variety of postures towards sexual their relationship, including hypersexuality, celibacy, or somewhere in between. So long as the parties are in agreement, and there is no disturbance of the peace of their neighbors, the State cannot question the nature and quality of their sexual relationship for any reason.
Since the state is precluded from inquiring into the particulars of a married couple's sexual relationship, even as to whether they have one, I find it difficult to understand why the state could deny a same gender couple the rights of a married couple.
Obviously, the general objection is sexual in nature. I know that the sexual aspect of the relationship makes people uncomfortable, but, by the same token, disclosure of the sexual details of a heterosexual couple's relationship makes people uncomfortable.
If two people choose to claim each other as spouses, with all of the compromises and adjustments having been made between them, including issues of sexuality and finance, what possible justification can there be for the State to prevent them from legally manifesting their agreement in marriage?
The justification cannot be a lack of pro-creative ability because such a concern would prevent anyone incapable of conceiving and/or bearing children from marriage.
It took years for my opinion to evolve to this point, and the final trigger was the Texas anti-sodomy case. Once the State was prevented from looking in the bedroom of otherwise law-abiding and consenting adults, there simply can be no justification for denying same gender couples the right to marry under state law.
John
My only consolation in this infuriating mess is that God is just and will judge the wicked. And that includes both John and Bob.
So if God punishes me will your eternity be enhanced? Will you even know? If you are judge benevolently and I harshly, will you not ask for compassion for me for my well intentioned waywordness?
John
I don't believe you are well intentioned.
I'm not gay, and I don't think John or even Bob is. Anyway, I always see through your type of con. You are either just naturally hateful/evil, and/or you are attracted to men. The real question is, where did you learn this hate? Our beliefs are generated through pure compassion.
I, and I suppose John and Bob, know for an absolute fact that sexual persuasion is not a choice. I repeat. It is not a choice.
Why do you avoid insulting me?
I'm feeling left out.
David Mc
You might just be scared of those a bit different than you I guess.
David Mc
I apologize for my oversight; I'm always happy to insult those who have bad theology and bad morals. And those are usually the same people.
You know for an absolute fact that sexual persuasion is not a choice? How do you know that? And if you are persuaded of something, does that not mean you made a choice? Or has the meaning of the word persuasion been perverted like the words marriage, husband, and wife have?
You suggest that because the colloquial term for one's innate sexual attitude towards mating partners includes the term "persuasion," therefore it can be inferred that the mechanics of the matter operate by choice and not by genetic imprinting.
What a bunch of semantic hogwash. You may dispute the role of genes (I suggest that you and I require much more education in genetics to do so sensibly) but the truth of the matter is not going to be determined by the use of a colloquialism.
John
Gary, You can learn many things by simply listening to those who cross your path. Of course most people need to know you have a gentle, open heart and mind. If you can give an impression that you might truly listen and want to learn truth, and withold judgement or vengence, you hear truth often.
This is called loving your neighbor. Don't abuse it though.
Are you actually someone's alter-ego? The truth please.
David Mc
Whether sexual orientation is genetic is irrelevant. It makes no difference whatsoever. The reason is because God has said that homosexuality is a sin. Note that it isn't me who said it, God did. You can read about it in the Bible, if you're interested.
Now that raises an interesting point: Can you imagine why God would make someone genetically predisposed to feelings and conduct which are sinful? How shall we respond to the afflicted soul? How did Job respond to him? Is it fair to compare the divinely authorized afflictions of Job to the divinely authorized genetic predisposition of the homosexual? (I acknowledge that many homosexuals would be offended at the suggestion that their sexuality is an affliction but I make the comment in the context of this discussion with Gary!)
Also, are the feelings sinful because God has decreed them sinful or are they sinful for some rationally discernible reason?
John
I don't know of anything God calls sin that He gives a pass for if it is linked to genetics. Can you cite a Biblical reference?
John
As a heterosexual, I am genetically predisposed to be attracted to beautiful women. But I am also instructed that adultery and fornication are sins. Jesus also said that simply lusting after a woman was adultery. Genetics do not excuse sin.
Feelings or acts are sinful if God says they are. Sin is not defined by people.
--OH MY GOODNESS.. this is a big one. No offense John, but aren't we all the seed of Adam, all born sinful? This argument could be said about alcoholism, materialism, lust for power, lust for the same or oppsoite sex.. I could go on and on.
Sorry.. but I can't buy this argument. I know I have addictions.. plop me in front of a video game and I can play for hours. My wife.. she could care less about games. So I could argue I am predisposed to this behavior and therefore be excused of all of my behavior.
Same sex posts are like honey to a bee on blogs. Guaranteed to attract thousands of posters. Personally I am bored of this argument. The arguments are retreads on both sides... you could split it down church/government lines like John did.. and its the smart way if you are for it. The opposition would be wise to respond with the warning that once you open the door, it opens the way for adoption, etc. Is it fair for a child to be place in a same sex environment? Could the birth parents put up warnings?
This is a complicated issue with tons of arguments both for and against it.
Chuck
I was merely opening up the area for discussion. I would never suggest that genetic predisposition obviates sin. But it may affect culpability.
I am just asking the very serious question: why did God created us to be predisposed to do things that will separate us from God and from each other? How does this aspect of humanity fit together with the puzzle pieces of free will and our inescapable desire to be with God?
Some things are and always be a mystery and this is probably true with this issue, but I am compelled to wonder about it. I can't help but feel that reflecting on this issue will bring me closer to God, and to those around me.
John
I honor your statement that something is sinful because God decreed it so.
How do we take into account that at some points in the Old Testament certain actions are decreed sinful, and then later in the New Testament the leaders of the Jerusalem church determine that such conduct is no longer sinful? Is the determination of sinfulness flexible over time? Who is authorized to make such decisions - the Church?
John
If God requires something, or prohibits something, we had better listen. If God repeals some rule, we can find out about it in the New Testament.
I believe the Bible is "the" source of doctrine for everyone. I don't believe that God has changed His mind about morality or doctrine since the New Testament was written. I don't think God is giving new doctrine or new rules today that contradict what is in the Bible.
I think you may be right.
John
Just a thought
Chuck
There is a risk in your line of thought that one could conclude that God intentionally imposes afflictions on us to bring us closer to Him. I agree that afflictions can have the effect of bringing us closer to God, and that God can turn our afflictions to our benefit by bringing us closer to Him as a constructive response, but I can't accept that our afflictions are purposeful.
Perhaps the problem is as simple as free will. For us to have genuine free will to love God or not to love God, we must be able to choose to love God and to chose not to love God. And each option has to have its own advantages, or the choice is skewed one way and not a real choice at all.
I tend to think about loving God the same way I think about romantic love: such love cannot be compelled. To be true love, we want our lover to choose us, not because there are no other options, but we want them to have chosen us from among all the other suitors because there is something special which they love in us. I think that is the love that God seeks; not from fear, not from lack of other options, but genuine romance.
For that kind of choice to be made, the other options have to be real and they have to be desirable in their own regard. And thus we are drawn to sin and away from God.
John
Gary suggests he was created greater than a homosexual.
How should we to treat those created lesser than ourselves if this is our view? Who were we told to assume they really are?
David Mc
To give Gary due credit, I think he understands that homosexuals are doing two objectionable things: a) committing grave sin intentionally, and b) attempting to redefine this grave sin into non-sin, or worse, redefine this grave sin into divinely approved conduct.
So I don't think he is claiming to be greater than a gay person, but he is objecting from the heart to
the license that he perceives gay Christians are taking with Scripture.
So the better question for all of us is: how do we respond to those who knowingly commit grave sin? It is probably too simple an answer but we might look for guidance to the story of how Jesus responded to the woman caught in adultery.
As to the definitional issues, I think that the Bible, and especially th New Testament, is a conversation, not a code of laws, and thus invites dialogue between the human and divine participants, and this opens up the possibility of new and previously unimagined possibilities for understanding who God is and who God calls us to be.
John
Thank you; you have understood me exactly, except for one thing. The first two paragraphs of your last post accurately describe my point of view except that I do not believe there is such a thing as a "gay Christian" who is trying to justify his/her sin.
I would not say that there aren't some Christians who struggle with the sin of homosexuality. But I believe that if someone is really a Christian, really born again by the Holy Ghost, they understand that their sin, whether it is homosex, adultery, stealing, or whatever, is something to be ashamed of and repented of, and not something to be proud of.
These people that claim to be "gay Christians" and who demand "gay rights" and "same-sex marriage" and other such evil are not real Christians at all. And I believe the same can be said for those heterosexuals who claim to be Christians, but who champion "gay rights" and the "gay agenda". I don't believe they are real Christians either.
I am aware that you think some sins deprive the sinner of the right to claim a faith in Christ. I was not trying to layout your whole theological position, just that part which I think can be defended to some degree.
I find your attitude towards those who claim the faith but fail to live up to the degree of orthodoxy you claim to be absolutely reprehensible, and as unChristian an attitude as my feeble imagination can take me. You are a pharisee of the worst sort.
My retort here has nothing to do with homosexuality or even your attitude toward homosexuality, but the sin of arrogance: the claim that one is less of a sinner and therefore more worthy of God's love, of God's mercy and compassion than another.
We all have sins to confess; for me the sin is graver the more it prevents us from loving God and loving our neighbors.
My earlier response to David was intended to put you in the best light, now you have gone and spoiled my effort. That's OK, I will keep on trying.
John
But thanks.
I'm not going to force anyone to consider unnatural sex, or worry what that might be to a person.
This is a private and trivial matter (but as Chuck said, complex).
Just as we have lived with laws allowing abortion without revolution, we should be able to give any loving and committed couple the benefit of doubt (and marriage, and adoption) and not even consider the notion that they wouldn't be worthy to strive to be Christian at the same time.
So, let freedom reign. It’s the safest thing. How does gay love harm Gary? Besides his feelings?
David Mc
I want to give you two a chance to justify yourselves morally. Just prove either one of two things from the Bible:
1. Prove that a marriage does not need both a husband and a wife.
or
2. Prove that a man can be a wife, or a woman can be a husband.
If you can prove either of those from the Bible, then I'll admit that you are right and homosexuals can marry morally and should be allowed to.
Prove that the Bible does not say judge not lest you be judged.
You are ignoring my critique.
John
Jesus did say, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." And I notice that did not prevent you from judging me an arrogant pharisee.
Jesus also said "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement." John 7:24 So, which is it? Don't judge at all, or judge righteously? But in order to judge righteous judgment, you have to know what that is.
Now back to my questions. If you can prove that homosexual marriage is approved by God, then I'll change my mind and endorse it too. I'll even join your side and work for it. But if you can't, where does that leave you? We both know.
We can disagree on the issue of homosexual marriage. I am more than willing to acknowledge that your position that the church should not participate in approving homosexual unions is fairly supportable with Scripture. I still think you are wrong, and that you are too tied to some parts of Scripture(which say exactly as you have quoted). At the same time, I think that you do not pay sufficient heed to the Scriptural passage which I would quote. You rely on your preferred Scriptural passages and I on mine; fair enough, we can disagree honorably.
But as to your pharissaical arrogance, I cannot concede any justification whatsoever. You are a bully, and you pretend to a worthiness you do not possess - you are no better than the people you judge. Yet you would deny this, because of your arrogance and because you have little compassion for those you judge less worthy than yourself. In truth, you reject the New Testament commandment to be compassionate as your father in heaven is compassionate and instead assert that you are perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Base upon your words on this blog, it is fair I think to say that you are not worthy to untie the sandals of the least of these, of the very homosexuals you judge.
Where is your heart?
John
I'm a bully? Because I won't yield to those who call good what God has called evil? Because I'm dogmatic? If that makes me a bully, I'll just have to plead guilty to that one.
And you are putting words in my mouth. I have never suggested that I am without sin. I struggle with certain sins just like every believer. What I don't do is try to pretend that I'm sinless or that God approves of my sin.
I have compassion for homosexuals who will honestly face their sins and admit they need help. But I don't run into many of them on the internet. Most of them are probably too busy trying to get free from the sin that has them bound to get on here and argue for their "rights".
On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for those who boast of their sins, and even less for those heterosexuals who justify the wickedness of sexual perverts by claiming they have some supposed "civil right" to pervert the definition of marriage.
Can't stamp it out like the Nazi way.
David Mc
David Mc