The Sabbath and Same-Sex marriage, pt II
by Kendra Perry
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
First of all, I’d like to thank everybody very much for reading and sharing and commenting on my previous column. I got an AMAZING amount of feedback about it, and I’m very glad for all the conversations that have been started. In the responses that came to me, both on the AToday website and in other venues such as Facebook, I’ve several different themes arising. I’ve decided to address a few of them in follow-up columns.
This first follow-up has to do with the separation of church and state. I’m also working on another one that will address issues of gays and the church. Look for it soon!
Under the realm of church and state, there were several sub-themes that arose. I’ll address them by the common questions or objections that I got and then attempt to answer them.
1. Don’t Christians have an obligation to vote to keep or make the country moral? Or Didn’t the Framers of the Constitution intend for this to be a Christian country?
The Framers of the Constitution ingeniously put two balancing phrases into the first amendment. One prevents Congress from ESTABLISHING a national religion. This means that the government cannot tell us what to believe or how to worship. The second phrase prevents Congress from IMPEDING the practice of our sincerely held religious beliefs. This means that we can keep the Sabbath, wear religious symbols, or bow our heads in public to pray before we eat our lunch. BOTH of these are essential to preserving religious liberty.
In countries where the government is not prevented from IMPEDING the practice of religion, persecution of Christians and often other religions follows. Historical examples include the ancient Christian persecutions under the Emperor Nero, which occurred because he was trying to eradicate Christianity. Nazi Germany looked with disfavor on most religions. Communist governments are typically restrictive or hostile toward religion since it is viewed as “the opiate of the masses.” Modern France pursues a secularist agenda in which public expression of religious affiliation is limited. Christians’ interest in opposing these restrictions on religious practice seems clear. Our right to FREE EXERCISE of our religion must be protected so that we can serve God according to our conscience.
The question of ESTABLISHMENT is a bit trickier. If we as Christians believe that the Bible is God’s inspired word, and that his word shows us the best way to live, wouldn’t we want to help others live that way so they also can be blessed? We can do so through the law, and then our nation can flourish because of both the natural consequences of right, moral living AND the blessing that God will bestow on us for following his will. Seems like a great idea, right?
But there are a few problems with this.
First, even if we want to go about running (or ESTABLISHING) the United States as a Christian nation, we run into the immediate problem of which brand of Christianity to choose. While all Christians believe that Jesus is their Savior, beyond that it gets a bit murky. Should worshiping in church be mandatory? If so, on which day? Should divorce be outlawed? Not all denominations agree on the circumstances (if any) under which divorce should be allowed.
Pretty soon, we are right back to the religious wars that destroyed a good chunk of Europe during the Reformation — those good old days when you lived in fear for your life if you prayed directly to God without the assistance of a priest, had a Bible in your native language, or wanted to be baptized by immersion. That is, until the church controlling the government changed, and then you had to fear for your life if you wanted a priest to hear your confession, preferred your Scriptures in Latin, or wanted to have your child baptized by sprinkling.
ALL these beliefs and practices were once punishable by death in places without separation of church and state. All this infighting, besides decimating the population, is not exactly the best way to make disciples of all nations. And so the Framers of the Constitution realized that, while the nation should indeed be moral (because rules notoriously don’t work well for corrupt people), it should be up to individuals to decide on the BRAND of morality they would follow.
So, as a Christian, if you want to continue to practice YOUR variety of Christianity freely (and have the liberty to change your mind if and when God brings something new to your attention in your Quiet Time), it is in your own best interest to make it possible for OTHERS to be able to practice their religion freely according to the dictates of their conscience. Yes, up to and including Paganism, Atheism, Satanism, and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If respected, this separation of church and state allows the moral republic to flourish with each citizen following his or her sincerely held religious beliefs. The morals will be MORE meaningful and MORE authentic because they come from within, rather than because they are enforced by external motivation.
Seventh-day Adventists have traditionally been strong proponents of religious liberty. We have a clear understanding of the damage caused by its absence in the past, and our understanding of Revelation 13 leads us to anticipate a day when church and government will again unite to compel worship. Because of this, it seems in keeping with historical precedent for the Adventist church to oppose legal decisions made on the basis of sectarian reasoning.
2. If we legalize same-sex marriage, what about polygamy and marrying children and incest and bestiality?
Same-sex marriage occurs between two consenting adults. They must both be adults and able to give consent. They would be able to marry someone of the opposite sex if they wanted to.
Marrying a child involves a minor child who cannot legally give consent. There’s clear infringement on the rights of the child. The state has a clear interest in preventing this apart from any religious or moral obligation to do so.
Bestiality involves an animal, which is incapable of giving consent; therefore the state could not possibly recognize such a union.
Marriage between close relatives is prohibited (as far as I know) on the grounds of preventing harmful genetic mutations in their descendants. This is not a moral or religious reason and therefore would still be maintained by the state.
Polygamy (assuming all participants are consenting adults) differs from traditional marriage and same-sex marriage only in the number of participants. Objections to this do seem to be largely values-based as well. If same-sex marriage were to be legalized, polygamists might be able to argue for their right to marry as well. Unlike same-sex marriage, this form of marriage does have some historical and even biblical precedent.
3. I believe in separation of church and state, but gay marriage is not a freedom of conscience issue.
People who express this thought usually go on to say that “it’s a civil rights issue” or “it’s a redefinition issue.” I think it’s true that same-sex marriage can be framed in all of these ways, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it ISN’T also the other.
The fact is that same-sex couples feel called to make lifelong monogamous commitments to each other. They feel led to become life partners. Some of them are even Christians (belonging to theologically liberal denominations) and feel called to make those commitments before God. These same-sex couples are not being allowed to marry or to make that commitment in any way that is recognized by the state. If that’s not an issue of conscience, I really don’t know what is.
A frequent follow-up to this is, “Well, why can’t they just make those commitments privately and live together? Why do they have to make everybody else recognize their commitment?”
In legal terms, when two people get married, the state recognizes a change of how those people now relate to their families of origin. When I was single, my nearest relatives were considered to be my mother, father, and sister. Now that I am married, my nearest relative is considered to be my husband. When the state is making decisions about me, they will consider my husband’s wishes before my other family.
This can impact everything from who may visit me in the hospital to whose medical insurance provides benefit for me, to whose tax form I may appear on. Those of us in heterosexual marriages probably never even consider the many small ways our marriage LEGALLY changed our lives.
But same-sex couples must either do without these legal recognitions of their commitment or attempt to reconstruct them piece by piece through contracts, power of attorney documents, etc. There are significant differences to “living together” versus having a legally recognized lifelong commitment.
4. There are plenty of non-religious reasons for the state to prevent same-sex marriage.
A number of people have said this to me, but no one has yet shown me what those reasons might be. There is vague talk of “research,” but of course one has to disregard the “biased research” conducted by those who want to promote same-sex marriage (I think they may be saying the same thing about your research, but don’t tell anybody).
In any case, even if there is research, now we are back again to the government making decisions based on competing authorities which may change when the majority changes. It’s not religious authority, but it can have a similar effect. The government’s attempts to legislate education policy with reading programs based on “research” were notoriously problematic in this way.
I think this type of approach opens the door to dangerous social engineering. It may seem innocent to say, “A two-parent household is best for raising children.” But China’s ideal family consists of one woman, one man, and one child. Even that level of social engineering is wreaking havoc.
5. It IS a redefinition issue. The word “marriage” has historically always meant an agreement between one man and one woman.
Yes, we would be redefining the word marriage. This doesn’t upset me, for some reason (probably because I tend to be a descriptive linguist rather than a prescriptive one), but it definitely bothers a lot of people.
If this is the deal breaker for most folks, then there would need to be a separate word for what the state does. I happen to think that “civil union” is fine, but it could be anything. In essence, the term needs to describe the state’s role in recognizing the legal union between two individuals. I would apply this term to ALL state-sanctioned unions (same-sex and opposite-sex). The term “marriage” would then be reserved for religious use.
6. The majority of the country thinks that same-sex marriage is wrong, so shouldn’t their understanding of right and wrong take precedence over a minority view?
Only approximately 4% of the American population is estimated to be gay or lesbian. The number actively pursuing same-sex marriage is even smaller. But remember that our country has checks and balances among the various branches of government in order to protect minorities. This is why the judicial branch can overturn laws passed by a majority of a legislature or even popular vote if they are found to be unconstitutional.
Although the Founding Fathers had not lived through World War II, they were wise enough to realize that the majority might not always have the best altruistic interest of their brothers and sisters at heart. Just because the majority of Germans believed that the world would be a better place without Jews in it DOESN’T MEAN THEY WERE RIGHT.
So let’s put the rights of the GLBT minority in a perspective that hits a little closer to home. According to my calculations, the Adventist population of North America (about 1 million) makes up around 0.3% of the population of the United States (the US Census Bureau puts it at 313,525,963 as of this writing). That makes the GLBT population of the US a much LARGER minority than the Adventist population.
The overwhelming majority of Americans could very easily decide that my sincerely held belief in keeping the Sabbath holy from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday is a frivolous "preference" that I don’t really need. And they might vote overwhelmingly to deny me the right to observe Sabbath and keep my job.
Now, suppose the only job I could find required me to work on Sabbath, and so I subsequently had to choose between keeping Sabbath and feeding my family. I would want someone from the majority to support me, even if they didn't understand my reason for keeping Sabbath or perhaps flatly disagreed with it. Would you?
If that is how you would want to be treated as a minority, then I am suggesting that the Golden Rule encourages you to support the rights of other minorities to follow their conscience, even if you don’t understand their reason for believing what they believe or even perhaps disagree with their choice.
P.S. Thanks to commenter Vini Marques for this very concise and elegant summary of the legal concept at hand (I’ve reworded very slightly):
1) If marriage is a religious institution defined by biblical principles, then the government has no authority to establish marriage as the only legally recognized civil union. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" – 1st Amendment).
2) If the government is going to define marriage and thus the benefits thereof, such as tax rates, healthcare, survivor benefits, etc, then it cannot restrict those privileges to certain citizens. ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" – 14th Amendment).
So, the government is bound by the Constitution to either:
1) Get out of the marriage business entirely. Legally recognize the civil union of any two consenting adults and relegate marriage to a religious institution that individuals can enter into if they so choose. And religious groups, as is their freedom, can define marriage and restrict it to whomever they choose.
OR
2) Lift the restrictions on marriage.
Special note from author;
Let me be clear: we aren't here to persuade each other.
We are here to LISTEN and to grow in understanding.
If we understand each other, we all win.
Please listen respectfully and honor each person's experience, even if you disagree.
Perhaps thank them for daring to share this sliver of their soul on this corner of the Internet?
Asking honest, respectful questions is always a good thing.
These are ways we can make love visible. Right here, right now.
Let me be clear: we aren't here to persuade each other. We are here to LISTEN and to grow in understanding.
If we understand each other, we all win.
Please listen respectfully and honor each person's experience, even if you disagree. Perhaps thank them for daring to share this sliver of their soul on this corner of the Internet?
Asking honest, respectful questions is always a good thing.
These are ways we can make God's love visible. Right here, right now.
Also, just a note. It's hard for me to respond to long comments with many issues in them. If you leave a comment like this, I may respond in several shorter comments.
If you have several issues or questions to raise, you could help me out by posting each one separately; but if not, just be aware that I may respond in several "waves."
"2) If the government is going to define marriage and thus the benefits thereof, such as tax rates, healthcare, survivor benefits, etc, then it cannot restrict those privileges to certain citizens. ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" – 14th Amendment)."
The problem is, the right to marry has not been restricted to certain citizens. Homosexuals have precisely the same right that I do. If I am eligible, I can marry any eligible member of the opposite sex who agrees to marry me.
"But they just want the right to marry the person they love." As long as the parties meet eligiblity requirements, they can wed. As I've pointed out previously many people cannot marry the person they believe they love.
"But he wants to marry another man, and he cannot." I can't either. That's why this is not a matter of rights. We all have precisely the same right.
Since the premise is false, the conclusion is false.
"I think this type of approach opens the door to dangerous social engineering." And changing the definition of marriage doesn't?
You cite how China's attempt at redefinition has caused problems. But it was being heralded by progressives not so long ago. What happened, with China having now some 20 million more men than women of marriageable age, was predictable and predicted. You're right, it's a disaster. But we were told it was necessary and even good! As it happens, the same people who were in favor of that policy–Hillary Clinton being a prominent example– are now in favor of changing the definition of marriage.
Besides which, I'm wondering if you see no difference between a law which favors children being raised by their own parents, by giving those parents some privileges (which, by the way fall way short of compensating the parents for their efforts), and a law which prohibits a second child, even going to the extreme of forced sterilization, forced abortions, and infanticide?
You say we would be redefining the word marriage. If only that were so! What we're redefining is the legal institution of marriage.
FWIW, I think the call for same-sex marriage is a symptom of the decline of marriage, not an initial cause. Heterosexuals have damaged the institution. So by all means, let's accelerate the decline.
"If we all understand each other, we all win?"
"Captain Smith, do I understand that the Titanic just hit an iceberg?"
"Yes, Mr. Andrews."
"Do you understand that I did not design her for that?"
"I do, Mr. Andrews."
"Well, fine, then. We all win."
Finally, "we're not here to persuade each other," and yet you opine you are not persuaded.
How about if we let the Holy Spirit be in charge of giving directions, and we share information and ideas? That's what I'd prefer in this space, anyway.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
"Let the Holy Spirit be in charge of giving directions." Sounds quite pious. Have no idea what it contributes to the discussion.
Reminds me of a business meeting where one old pillar declared that "Angels in heaven must be weeping" because people didn't agree with him, and planned to vote against his position. As far as I was concerned, if "angels in heaven" actually wanted to vote in our business meeting, they could transfer their membership and vote like anyone else. Since they didn't show up, we just had to take his word for how they would have voted.
And then there were the Mormon missionaries, who told my wife and me that "If we prayed to the Holy Spirit," we would see that the Book of Mormon was true. A week later, we reported that we had indeed prayed, but were not convinced. He told us we had not prayed sincerely enough. Can't tell you how helpful that was.
And then there are the countless committee and board meetings, where, if someone was failing to persuade others, he/she would say, "I think we should all pray about this," with the clear indication that if we actually did, we would see how correct the speaker was.
Years of this sort of thing has made me wary of such declarations. But I'm open to persuasion. With that in mind I'll be watching the comments section closely.
Fortunately, since this is neither a board nor a committee, we will not have to take a group vote at the end of the comments section. All of us can vote in the privacy of our own voting booth under the direction of our own consciences and the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, none of us is in charge of giving direction to the others. So we can all focus on expressing our ideas as clearly and lovingly as possible so that others can read, understand, and make up their own minds, in their own time, as God leads them.
"But he wants to marry another man, and he cannot." I can't either. That's why this is not a matter of rights. We all have precisely the same right.
Since the premise is false, the conclusion is false.
The problem I see with your line of reasoning here (and your previous example) about the right to marry is that, if you and Charlize Theron did, in fact, both want to marry each other, you would be able to find a way to make it happen. Here we have a situation where two parties are in agreement that they want to marry and are not able to do so. Your argument rests on Charlize Theron withholding her consent. Assuming that you consent, and she consents, and both of you are free from other constraints, you can marry. Even your wife cannot stop you by forcing you to retain your marital status. Thus, the only difference between the two situations is sexual orientation. Splitting the legal hair that gays have the same right as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex may make a fine logical argument, but it does not help address the heart of the concern.
We all have exactly the same right.
There is nothing I can do that the homosexual cannot do. I cannot marry someone of the the same sex, neither can the homosexual.
I cannot marry a minor, neither can a homosexual.
If I cold marry a man, but a homosexual could not, then I would have a right the homosexual does not.
You cannot name a right tha I have, that the homosexual does not also have.
"a fine logical argument, but it does not help address the heart of the concern."
The problem is that you keep calling 'the heart of the concern' a matter of rights, when it simply is not. If addressing 'the heart of the concern' requires an illogical argument, then it will lead to a mistaken conclusion.
Your whole case is based on this being a rights issue, a freedom of conscience issue, but it simply is not. The heart of the concern is that some people desire something that current law denies them, and they want to change the definition of marriage so that they qualify.
But they don't want to say they want to change the definition, because it opens up the whole polygamy etc. can of worms. Once we decide to change the definition, why should we change it only in the way some people desire? If other people, like fundamentalist Mormons, want to live in plural marriage, and all the adults consent, what reason do we have to deny them? For that matter, why should we deny any particular combination of consenting adults to unite and call it marriage?
And please, please, don't waste our time with the 'slippery-slope' business. There's no slope here at all. Open up the definition of marriage to changes, and it is open to changes. There's no argument made for same-sex marriage that cannot be made for polygamy, polyandry, or community marriages.
"I've always desired . . ."
"Can't remember a time . . ."
"Just want to live in a commited relationship . . ."
"Would you deny us the right to visit someone on their deathbed. . ."
Make any argument you want, and then just fill in the blanks with.
"To have more than one wife . . ."
"To be a sister wife . . ."
"To live with a loving community of consenting adults."
But what is the definition of marriage that people are seeking to change? I know that here in Australia, all that is being argued for is removing the phrase 'between one man and one woman' and the explanatory sentence that Australia must not recognise a marriage between two men or two women contracted elsewhere, both of which have only been in the constituion since 2004. Apart from that, the definition of marriage in the Australian constitution can stay as it is. From what I understand, the situation is similar in the US. It is not about redefining the legal definition of marriage, but going back to an older definition that does not exclude same-sex marriages by specifying what was formerly assumed: that marriage is between a man and a woman.
If you mean redefining the popular or 'traditional' definition of marriage, then we are back to 'whose/which definition?' And I would argue that the redefining that is so feared has already occurred and that is why same-sex marriages can be contemplated. When marriage was primarily about offspring and inheritance (and only secondarily about sex and companionship), same-sex marriage was not only unthinkable, it was unnecessary. It is only when you redefine marriage as a mutual commitment between two individuals based on love that same-sex marriages are thinkable. It can only make sense in the context of a companionate marriage ideal. And I am sure you know that that redefining took place by the middle of the C19th, so is well and truely a fait accompli. If people are talking about a 'right' to marry someone they love and want to spend their life with, then extending that to same-sex couples is not unreasonable. That the same argument can be made for other romantic/sexual configurations does not in itself argue against giving the argument some consideration.
The right that you have which the homosexual does not have is to marry the person with whom he shares mutual love, sexual attraction, and a desire to spend the rest of their lives in a committed monogamous relationship. You don't happen to desire to do that with someone of the same sex, so it's no big deal to you. But it is to him.
And, incidentally, I don't have a problem with legalizing polygamy either, provided all participants are consenting adults. Therefore, your "slippery slope" argument does not disturb me in the least.
Ed said: "I think this type of approach opens the door to dangerous social engineering." And changing the definition of marriage doesn't?
I see a distinction between the two types of approaches. One broadens the definition of family for those who choose to use the broadened definition. It does not affect those who are already choosing to use existing definitions.
The other approach, which you seem to be advocating, restricts and enforces the definition of family. China's restrictive policy has been very damaging. Similarly, if we LEGALLY define "the ideal family" as being a two-parent household, the next natural steps would be not only disallowing same-sex marriage, but outlawing divorce, penalizing adultery, penalizing out of wedlock births. Although these might be laudable social aims, I do NOT think these are things we want government meddling about with by means of laws, restrictions, and penalties.
The options you pose of providing incentives for people to form "ideal families" is indeed a different approach, but also one which does not rely on the prohibition of same-sex unions in order to be successful.
I would be interested where you think there is a legal definition of "the ideal family." I've encountered many straw man arguments before, but this is the first straw family so far. If there is a movement abroad to legally define and enforce n ideal family, I'd be interested in where you find it. China doesn't care about the family, it just wants to limit population growth.
There is a great difference between enforcing an ideal and 'encouraging' an ideal through tax and other incentives. Rather than social 'engineering.' it simply recognizes that there are societal benefits to certain arrangements.
If our only options were legalizing same-sex marriage OR outlawing divorce, penalizing adultery, and penalizing out of wedlock births, your post might make some sense. But those are not the options.
Actually, it's hilarious. Proponents of same-sex marriage have protested the "slippery slope" argument; the one you just made depicts a non-existent slope.
"The options you pose of providing incentives for people to form "ideal families" is indeed a different approach, but also one which does not rely on the prohibition of same-sex unions in order to be successful."
"A different approach?" Apparently you're unaware of tax breaks for dependent children, or for married people filing jointly. Those are just such incentives.
I'm fascinated that you keep raising the "ideal family" straw man and surround it with quote marks. Either way, your statement is self-contradictory.
Let's take your notion and apply it to a different arrangement.
If we provide veternas benefits for those who serve in the military, that doesn't require us to prohibit non-veterans from receiving identical benefits.
Well, of course it doesn't prohibit us from acting stupidly, but it does in fact reduce the incentive to join the military.
The argument against same-sex marriage you consistently offer that is NOT religiously based is that it is "not good for society." And the evidence you offer is based on research promoting the notion of an ideal family structure. That is the only reason I bring up the ideal family at all.
Even supposing there is some ideal family which the government wants to promote, surely it is possible to do so without outlawing formulations of the family which fall short of the ideal?
What is it with the need to jump from A to Z? It's a long ways from monogamy to "ideal family structure." Society has no interest in ideals. It has an interest in survival.
"outlawing formulations of the family which fall short of the ideal"
The survival of this straw man is astonishing. There's a big difference between outlawing co-habitation and subsidizing it. There is an absolute iron law of behavior every parent should know: what gets rewarded gets repeated. This is as true in society as it is in a family.
Working with the wreckage of these situations makes "less than ideal" sound like mockery, kind of like describing cancer as "less than optimum health."
Ed also said, "FWIW, I think the call for same-sex marriage is a symptom of the decline of marriage, not an initial cause. Heterosexuals have damaged the institution. So by all means, let's accelerate the decline."
I very much agree with this statement (except for the very last part). I hope to address it in more detail in a future follow-up column on marriage and sexuality. I disagree with your implication that prohibiting same-sex marriage would, in some way, accelerate the decline of the institution of marriage. I find it strangely ironic that heterosexuals try to prevent gays from engaging in relationships that promote monogamy and commitment when this is the very thing many claim they are trying to protect by prohibiting same-sex marriage. It would make more sense to me to encourage respect for monogamy and commitment in whatever ways we can among ALL groups: gay and straight alike.
Right. We both agree that the call for same-sex marriage is a symptom of the decline of marriage.
I think encouraging a symptom of a disease will worsen the condition.
Your approach is simply to redefine the symptom as healthy, thus eliminating the condition.
My approach says, "Let's treat the condition, not institutionalize it"
Your approach says, "Let's define the symptoms as signs of well-being."
I'll try that the next time I get a cold.
No, my approach is also to treat the condition. I don't believe that treating a cold with chemotherapy is effective. I would rather treat it with treatments that are actually effective at alleviating colds.
You agreed that the call for same-sex marriage was a symptom of the decline of marriage. But you want to normalize the symptom. Normalizing a symptom doesn't make the disease go away.
When we define marriage by 'love', we are using a definition that is not traditional. In the majority of societies across the world, love was (and often still is) a bonus if it came after marriage, not a pre-requisite. The Greeks made that clear by using a totally different word for love of family and other types of love. To 'love' your wife as you loved a friend or lover was madness. It was defined by action, not feeling. The same still is true in many parts of the world – love is how you act, not what you feel. The only reason we can contemplate extending marriage rights to same-sex couples is because we have already redefined 'marriage' to something unrecognisable (and probably unwise and incomprehensible) to our ancestors.
I think it is also time to acknowledge that historically marriage is not a religious institution but a social one. Religion did play a part in determining who you could marry in some cultures, but it was not primarily a religious ceremony. Not even for most Christians until a couple of centuries ago. Church marriages are as traditional as isolated nuclear families. A return to 'ancient' tradition would be a return to marriage being primarily a family and social occasion, with only minimal religious input. If there has been any 'stealing' of rights, it has been by religion, not the state. The situation in Europe and other areas where marriage is a state-sanctioned ceremony followed optionally by a religious service of blessing/confirmation is simply a return to, or continuance of, the traditional practice of marriage. It seems to me that it is the only way to remove the threat to secular people of being 'forced' to take part in (or be excluded from) a 'religious' service, and the threat to religious groups of being 'forced' to accept and conduct weddings for people they do not believe should be married.
Kevin, you are coming to many of the same conclusions I have as I pondered this topic over the past week. The biblical model of the Old Testament is an agreement between families, with the patriarch bestowing the blessing.
The idea of the CHURCH blessing a union holds the idea that the church has some virtue to dispense (such as a sacrament) that the believer cannot obtain from his or her individual relationship to God. It seems to go to the doctrine of ordination, priesthood of all believers, and again, freedom of conscience within the church.
So, yes, what is viewed as "traditional" can be very recent indeed — as long as it is older than our lifetimes, I suppose!
Many of the arguments in favor of same sex "marriage" (sorry, call it what you want, but it's not marriage. One could decide that day is night and vice versa, but that would not make it so) could have been used to support the legalization of alcohol during prohibition. Maybe the consumption of alcohol has a more deleterious effect on society than homosexual "marriage" would. But where does one draw the line? We were counseled to vote for prohibition. That infringed on the "rights" of a certain segment of the population. I'm not convinced that homosexual perversions under the guise of marriage can be construed to be a civil right. We will perpetually disagree on this, I'm sure. How low in our slouch toward total decadence would we have to go before Kendra and here cohorts would say "enough is enough?" She had to allow that polygamy would be just as legitimate as homosexual "marriage," because the same arguments can be used to justify both of them. But how stable and prosperous are polygamous societies? Is that the kind of country we really want to live in?
Prohibition is indeed an interesting parallel case, and one I would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts about. My initial thought is that it's a costly public health issue, aside from any moral stance one might have on it. And I do certainly imagine that alcohol has a far more widespread effect on our society than same-sex relationships of any variety (committed or non-committed).
However, even though Adventists did vote for Prohibition, and even though it did pass, it is now widely viewed as an unsuccessful attempt to address alcohol in the public sphere. This might also suggest to me that personal ministry to those affected by ANY sinful or decadent behavior might be more beneficial than passing laws for or against it.
Please share more details about the Prohibition vote if you know them. I would love to learn more about this issue.
I believe the original plan – and the one we strongly supported – was to prohibit strong liquor, which would have left wine and beer still freely available. There are those who believe that was, and still is, workable and desirable. Whether it is strong liquor, or just too much of it, that is the problem today probably needs more study. Many people who are in favour of preventing public drunkenness and alcoholism are not necessarily in favour of banning all or any alcohol. I personally am of the opinion that the government, and the law, should by involved only to the extent necessary to solve a publicly recognised problem, but not to the extent of enforcing any morality.
Polygamy is now illegal, and if the nation changes its idea about bigamy, then possibly it could be up for vote as same sex marriage, so perhaps we should limit the conversation to today, not what might occur sometime in the future (it's called worrying about what might possibly happen).
States now license marriage, so the sex of the partners are also decided by the states which are now numbering around 10. The sky has not yet fallen, so perhaps we must wait before studies can be made about the disastrous results that some are convinced will be seen.
Kendra,
Again, a thoughtful discussion of the topic that I thoroughly enjoyed.
A little history may explain a lot regarding the First Amendment and the "establishment" or religion. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed Massachussetts had a state church and legal barriers were in-place to discourage other churches. Getting the state to cede on that point was an issue that had to be persuaded before they accepted the Bill of Rights. Given the history of religious persecution that led to many people coming to this country (including some of my ancestors), a history that was very recent in the minds of the Founding Fathers, religion was included in First Amendment was written to prevent such persecution from happening here.
It seems to me that all the discussions and arguments about same-sex realtionships ignore or overlook a basic issue that will put all the other points into a different perspective: Do we each know the saving grace of God in our experience so that we are confident of presenting the Gospel to those in a same-sex realtionship and leading them to salvation?
Thanks for sharing the historical background! I had not realized that Massachusetts had a state religion as late as that. Of course, the Salem Witch Trials occurred under that government, so even in the relatively short amount of time the colony existed here, persecution brought on as a result of the union of church and state was apparent.
I love your second point about each believer's relationship with God. I think an important corollary question is: do we, or could we, have a comfortable enough friendship with anyone in a same-sex relationship to get to the point of sharing the good news of God's grace with them? If not, what is standing in the way?
State religions continued for some decades after the First Amendment was passed. It did not prevent states doing so for state offices, it only prevented the federal government from doing so for federal offices. It took a while before it was generally accepted that state laws should conform to the Constitution.
Can someone explain how legalization of same sex marriage is a violation of someone's beliefs and concepts of marriage? Why should they be imposed on the rest of society? Hw are heterosexual marriages harmfully affected by same sex marriages? Unless harm can be demonstrated, the fact that some may not approve is insufficient justification for forbidding it.
Why is there such an interest by heterosexual people against same sex marriage? How can they have legal standing in a potential court case regarding legalization of same sex marriages? What are their arguments?
These are great questions. Can anyone help us out with understanding the perspective here?
How are heterosexual marriages harmfully affected by same sex marriages? Male and female created He them. Gen. 5:2. (for a reason) Why are faith based adoption agencies having to get out of business after years of service…. because they don't want to place kids in same sex homes? So you can tell me that it has no effects on the choices that these children will make in their own marriages? It seems the farther you slide down a hill more gravity takes controll.
http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/05/24/citizenlink-report-speak-up-for-marriage-2/
Male and female created He them. Gen. 5:2. (for a reason)
yes, there does seem to be an obvious reason why God created males and females, but this doesn't demonstrate how gay marriage harms heterosexual people. It may imply that the homosexual lifestyle isn't God's ideal, but that wasn't the question. There are and have been gays in homosexual relationships throughout history, how does allowing them to get married hurt heterosexuals. Further virtually none of the gay people who are seeking to get married grew up in a home with gay parents, so what effect would growing up with legalize gay married have on the choices kids make in their own marriage?
A few questions, Kendra:
1) Can you tell me how to determine whether my conscientious belief is simply moral, and therefore okay to impose on my fellow citizens, or religious, and therefore banned from the arena of public policy? Who will determine if my moral views can be sufficiently grounded in a non-religious foundation to gain entre into the sacrosanct sphere of secular morality where political coercion is de riguere? Your statement, that you can't think of any non-religious reasons to be against gay marriage, is funny. It reminds me of the hermetically liberal quote attributed to New Yorker film critic, Pauline Kael, after Richard Nixon soundly defeated Geroge McGovern for the presidency in 1972: "I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know of anyone who voted for him." If I were you, I probably wouldn't admit – at least not to an audience of diverse, independent thinkers – that I can't think of any non-religious reasons to be against gay marriage. Can you appreciate how arrogant such a statement sounds to those who believe there are many rational, non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage?
2) I don't quite follow how isolated extremes of the Inquisition hundreds of years ago, when the entire world was ruled by different moral standards, is seen by you as a unique and necessary byproduct of a democratic republic with laws grounded in religion-based moral values. Would you look at the barbarism of Israel's Jahwehist theocracy to urge that it favor the secularist morals of surrounding nations as a basis for political policy?
I am not in favor of religious states. But the reality of modern history is that many religious states in both Latin America and Europe, not to mention Israel, have done a fine job of legally protecting rights of religious minorities, while still maintaining a political structure which incorporates religion based values. Constitutional separation of church from state appears to be far less vital to religious freedom than protection of free expression and private proerty rights.
3) Why would incest be a problem unless the couple is planning to bear children? Are the health risks of incest greater than any number of health risks that you are willing to accept for the sexual liberation that you believe is inherent in religious liberty? How about forced sterilization for brothers and sisters who want to marry, or for parents who want to marry their children? Do you really believe, as your response to issue "2" seems to suggest, that marriage is primarily about consenting adults living together for sex and companionship?
4) Why do you conflate religious beliefs with conscientiously held beliefs? Don't you understand that there is a great difference between the two? I am not aware that marriage in general,or gay marriage in particular, is a religious belief of any faith group. Nor am I aware of religious groups that hold homosexual activity to be a religious ritual. Do you really belief that every conscientiously held belief is a right? If prostitution or controlled substances were part of religious ceremonies for a given religion would you, on conscience grounds, oppose laws against prostitution or drugs?
5) Can you avoid presuming, as you do in issue "6", that LGBT status and behavior are fundamental rights? The most common, deliberate fallacy indulged by political advocates for gay marriage is assuming, without actually defending the assumption, that homosexual marriage is a fundamental RIGHT entitled to the equal legal status and protection of heterosexual marriage.
6) Do you really want to use The Golden Rule as kryptonite against Christians who oppose gay marriage? Aren't you doing precisely what you condemn in others – using religious arguments to advance a public policy position?
Nathan said, "1) Can you tell me how to determine whether my conscientious belief is simply moral, and therefore okay to impose on my fellow citizens, or religious, and therefore banned from the arena of public policy? Who will determine if my moral views can be sufficiently grounded in a non-religious foundation to gain entre into the sacrosanct sphere of secular morality where political coercion is de riguere? "
A reader on Facebook posted this helpful article from Liberty Magazine: http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1570 which I think handles the issue of religious liberty vs. social advocacy very nicely.
Your statement, that you can't think of any non-religious reasons to be against gay marriage, is funny. It reminds me of the hermetically liberal quote attributed to New Yorker film critic, Pauline Kael, after Richard Nixon soundly defeated Geroge McGovern for the presidency in 1972: "I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know of anyone who voted for him." If I were you, I probably wouldn't admit – at least not to an audience of diverse, independent thinkers – that I can't think of any non-religious reasons to be against gay marriage. Can you appreciate how arrogant such a statement sounds to those who believe there are many rational, non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage?
I certainly can appreciate how this may sound either arrogant or ignorant. I only wish that such people would explain to me WHAT THEIR NON-RELIGIOUS REASONS ARE in a way that I can understand. So far, the only non-religious answer I have gotten involves research-but-you-have-to-disregard-the-other-research about how two-parent families are best for children.
Nathan said, "2) I don't quite follow how isolated extremes of the Inquisition hundreds of years ago, when the entire world was ruled by different moral standards, is seen by you as a unique and necessary byproduct of a democratic republic with laws grounded in religion-based moral values. Would you look at the barbarism of Israel's Jahwehist theocracy to urge that it favor the secularist morals of surrounding nations as a basis for political policy?
I am not in favor of religious states. But the reality of modern history is that many religious states in both Latin America and Europe, not to mention Israel, have done a fine job of legally protecting rights of religious minorities, while still maintaining a political structure which incorporates religion based values. Constitutional separation of church from state appears to be far less vital to religious freedom than protection of free expression and private proerty rights."
This may be true AT THE MOMENT. No doubt under some religious monarchies, there was also great freedom of religion. The trouble is that if constitutional separation of church and state is not enacted and protected, whatever freedom exists at the moment may disappear when the regime or majority changes to a less tolerant one. If the principles of anti-establishment and free exercise are enacted and respected in many ways through not only the Constitution but legal precedent, policies, etc., then the religious liberty rights of individuals and institutions are much better protected no matter what the whim of the current ruling faction.
Israel's theocracy in the Old Testament seems like a special case to me since God spoke visibly and audibly to the entire nation.
Nathan said, "Do you really believe, as your response to issue "2" seems to suggest, that marriage is primarily about consenting adults living together for sex and companionship?"
LEGALLY, yes I do. Of course as a Bible-believing Christian there is a SEPARATE issue of my theological view of marriage. Whether or not same-sex unions are legal, I am always free to advocate for and try to persuade others of the benefits of my view. LEGALLY, however, I think it is best to allow people to make their own choices.
As I stated in a comment to someone else above, I do plan to address marriage and sexuality in an upcoming follow-up. This really is a many-faceted issue.
Nathan said, "4) Why do you conflate religious beliefs with conscientiously held beliefs? Don't you understand that there is a great difference between the two? I am not aware that marriage in general,or gay marriage in particular, is a religious belief of any faith group. Nor am I aware of religious groups that hold homosexual activity to be a religious ritual. Do you really belief that every conscientiously held belief is a right? If prostitution or controlled substances were part of religious ceremonies for a given religion would you, on conscience grounds, oppose laws against prostitution or drugs?"
Religious beliefs are those that one holds as a result of belonging to a specific religious group. Conscientiously held beliefs are those that one holds as a result of listening to the still small voice within. There is often a large overlap between the two, but I do realize that they are separate issues. Certainly a great number of people, today an ever-increasing number, have conscientious beliefs that they do not associate with any recognized religious movement.
I am not quite sure what you mean about marriage not being a religious belief. As far as I understand, it is a sacrament in at least the Catholic church. The Seventh-day Adventist church also has a Fundamental Belief statement (#23) on "Marriage and the Family." Same-sex marriage equality is high on the priority list of the Metropolitan Community Church, a denomination focused on ministering to LGBT Christians: http://mccchurch.org/overview/
Fertility rituals are indeed part of many religious traditions, particularly those that revolve around respect for the earth. Provided that all participants are adults and consenting, they should be free to practice whatever rituals they wish to observe.
The religious liberty office of the Adventist church HAS actually advocated for adherents of Native American religions to be able to use peyote (a controlled substance) as part of their religious rituals.
In general, I believe that anyone with a sincerely held conscientious or religious belief should be allowed to live in accordance with it, to the extent that it does not infringe on the rights of others. Through legal precedent, there are a number of well-established tests that help determine when and if this is so.
When I speak about individuals being called to commit their lives to each other, I am speaking loosely of a conscientious belief. Some same-sex couples believe that they should live in a committed, monogamous relationship. They may have as the foundation for their belief religious principles, or simply the leadings of their own conscience. In either case, in THEIR understanding of God/Scripture/right and wrong, making a life-long commitment to each other is the right thing to do. That certainly seems like a matter of conscience to me, and insofar as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights, it seems to me that they should be able to do so.
Nathan said, "5) Can you avoid presuming, as you do in issue "6", that LGBT status and behavior are fundamental rights? The most common, deliberate fallacy indulged by political advocates for gay marriage is assuming, without actually defending the assumption, that homosexual marriage is a fundamental RIGHT entitled to the equal legal status and protection of heterosexual marriage."
First, I thank you for separating LGBT status and behavior. Many people conflate the two under the term "homosexuality." I appreciate that you recognize the distinction between having an attraction for the same sex and acting on that attraction.
I DO assume that LGBT status is a basic human right. The Declaration of Independence states that we are all created equally and have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. If someone states that they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered, they have the right to exist and be alive and have that status. What reason would you have for denying someone with this status the same rights you would give to any other human being?
Legally speaking, in the United States, LGBT behavior (presumably you mean sexual behavior here, rather than something like eating cereal in the mornings) is a protected right since the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas, which invalidated all state sodomy laws that still remained in effect at that time.
The question then remaining is, since any two eligible heterosexuals have the right to create a legally recognized union (regardless of premeditation, suitability, or intent to remain monogamous and/or life-long), what reason is there for NOT allowing homosexuals to do the same? The arguments that are marshalled about potential damage to society clearly are not applied LEGALLY to heterosexual marriage, so what LEGAL reason is there to deny the same benefits to same-sex couples?
Are you aware, Kendra, that sexual orientation is not a protected category under the U.S. Constitution? I believe, though I wouldn't swear to it, that the Lawrence case was decided on privacy grounds. If recollection serves me, it invalidated a Texas law declaring sodomy to be a crime. You are confusing basic natural rights, that the Declaration declared should pertain to all humanity, with the notion that particular political rights and privileges should be equally accessible to all. The framers did not see what seems obvious to you, which does not mean you are wrong. It only should make you a bit more humble about assuming that something is a basic human right, which the Supreme Court has not even declared to be a right, much less a fundamental right. What's next – obesity as a basic human right; unattractiveness as a basic human right?
Many intelligent people believe there are fundamental differences between men and women, recognized throughout history, across all societies, that justify continuing to define the rite of marriage as it has been defined throughout millenia. These arguments go far beyond "damage to society." I have no idea what you mean by putting the words LEGAL and LEGALLY in upper case letters. Are you familiar with the LEGAL arguments that are being made? The LEGAL reason to deny marriage to same sex couples is quite simple – the law doesn't allow it. Whether it should is more a question of values than a questions of law.
Whether the arguments favoring state recognition of heterosexual marriage only are persuasive is a matter of opinion. Courts and legislatures have gone different directions. But is it not remarkable that after thousands of years of human experience, you have reached a blessed state of enlightenment that you can proclaim with moral certainty that something which was unthinkable 30 years ago is now a fundamental right? The moral certainty with which the Left flaunts its self-righteousness is truly breathtaking.
It's unclear to me what rights you want gay people, obese people, and unattractive people NOT to have?
Nathan said, "6) Do you really want to use The Golden Rule as kryptonite against Christians who oppose gay marriage? Aren't you doing precisely what you condemn in others – using religious arguments to advance a public policy position?"
What I am doing is stating the biblical reasoning for MY PERSONAL BELIEF which is guiding MY PERSONAL VOTE. Yes, I am publicly expressing my view and hoping that others will see the merit in it; thanks to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, I am able to do that (as are you). HOWEVER, I am not attempting to LEGISLATE that everyone love their neighbor as themselves. I am, as I stated, SUGGESTING.
Numbers?….Percentages?….humm Out of the millions that were here on the earth only 8 went got in the Ark.
As it was in the days of Noah. Matthew 24:37
But how many did God love and WANT on the ark?
All….yet how many thought God would not send a flood? God was too loving to destroy all who would not listen. That why we are given the words of Revelation1:3; and why it states "him that overcometh" seven times in the next two chapters.
It seems that conflating religion with civic government is a too common problem with true believers. What is their religious belief should also be the civil government's position for everyone else. What about equality of rights and separation of religion and government is too hard to understand?
For those who feel that their beliefs should direct governmental actions, I ask:
Whose religion? Baptists? Mormons? Seventh-day Adventists? Unitarian?
Your questions makes no sense, Elaine. First of all, of course beliefs form the basis for governmental action. Do you equate that with someone's religion directing government action? Aren't those two different issues? Religious people have been voting their beliefs in this country for over 200 years. So what religion would you say has been directing governmental action? Is it reasonable for the beliefs of a religious person to be a reason for voting for or against public policy? Or would you recommend that religious believers be disenfranchised when it comes to things like Proposition 8?
Nathan, of course, beliefs form the basis for government action, but how do you interpret the meaning of the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no low respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?
If marriage is a religious rite, as is often expressed, how can laws respecting marriage, which is now controlled and licensed by the state, be subject to the religious beliefs about a government law? Presently, religion in the U.S. is largely unexamined and given more freedom to practice than most any nation in the world and neither has interfered in either community.
But with the recent inroads by the Catholic church in protesting the prospective national health care law, it would seem more prudent and cautious for believers who enjoy the greatest religious freedom in the world, to stick to their commission to saving souls rather than attempting to influence government regulations that have never threatened them in the practice of their ceremonies, including marriage. There is absolutely no threat to the church's continuing to offer its marriage rites; they have actually been given a privilege that can be performed by the state. There is no reason for the church to protest the rules of civil marriage as they are completely out of the picture for all non-church ceremonies, and there are no plans to request the church to make a single change in their present marriage requirements for the principals. Where has any church been threatened to change their definition of marriage?
I suspect at the fundamental level of why things happen, this issue is not just over who can marry – in or out of church – but over who gets to make important decisions and on what basis. In Western countries, until the 1960s, all decisions, whether made by believers or unbelievers, were made on a basis of Christian morality and world view. That is no longer the case. But many conservative Christians not only believe that that should be changed back, they believe it has to change if society is not to face God's wrath. So it is not only about what the church can/must do, it is about what should and should not be done by anybody, and on what basis. Most conservative Christians do not want to necessarily make Biblical law into state law, they just want state law to be based on what they consider are non-negotiable biblical prinicples. That may not be logically defensible in the context of a secular state that separates state and religion, but most people don't think logically until after they have reached a conclusion.
Elaine – You suggested that the Catholic Church has protested the National Health Care Law. That is inaccurate. The Church has protested interpretations of that law by unelected bureacrats. In particular, the Law provides for preventative health care. The HHS Secretary has opined that the Catholic Church is required by that provision to offer its employees with health care coverage that includes contraceptives and abortifacients. It is quite a stretch to suggest that contraceptives and abortifacients constitute preventative health care. What if Sebellius says free fitness club memberships, bicycles, running shoes, food, infant car seats, etc. constiotute preventative health care, and must therefore be provided as part of the employee insurance package?
As to the topic in question, I think everyone must agree that there are good religious reasons to be opposed to both same sex "unions" and same sex marriage. Is it not inevitable that, when either is legalized, religious employers and service providers will be forced by courts and bureacrats like Sebellius to protect the "rights" that pertain to such statuses and behaviors, regardless of the employer's or service provider's religious beliefs?
Nathan,
I didn't enumerate the various provisions of the healthcare law protested by the Catholic church. But it was for reproductive health issues, not all of which are used for contraceptive reasons as Sandra Fluke explained two months ago. My granddaughter was prescribed birth control pills to institute regular menstrual cycles, something frequently prescribed for various ovarian problems that have nothing to do with contraception; something Sibellius also tried to explain. Physicians are the best decision makers on when and for what condition medications should be prescribed, not the Catholic church and not for its non-Catholic employees.
Even after this law was ameneded specifically to satisfy the Catholic church's requirements by the insurer with the church not paying those parts of the premiums, the church still fought it–they do not want their employees using contraceptives! They will not be placated but seemingly wish to control all of their non-Catholic employees, preventing them from exercising their freedom of religion and substituting the church's conscience for others.
The old "slipppery slope" fallacy always pops up in these arguments. First: no health insurance provider or employer offer fitness club memberships, running shoes, etc. coverage in its premiums. She has never ever suggested such a preposterous idea. Costs would absolutely prevent such a move as they are gradually removing former coverage to make a leaner medical package, not a larger one. Did you ever hear such a suggestion by her or another official in healthcare?
Again, you are using the same argument on same sex marriage: "it is inevitable that religious employers" must protect the "rights" of these employers. This is not a possibility: it has been provided for in anti-discrimination laws for a number of years. Employers cannot discriminate against an employee regarding his sex, religion, age, and race. Is this something you disagree with? Why speak up now, it's been the law for a decade or longer.
SDA hospitals, like other religious ones, are obligated by these laws against discriminating for those reasons give above because they receive federal funds. The California courts have just decreed that CALPERS, the largest pension fund in the world, must honor same-sex partners with all the rights given to married partners. There is no turning back to former discriminating laws ruling the equal rights of all U.S. citizens. What rights are you willing to give up? What rights do you wish to deny your fellow citizens that you enjoy?
The New York Times has an interesting opinon piece on the meaning of same-sex marriage: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/marriage-meaning-and-equality/?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20120525
I have tried to work out whether the NYT is a liberal or conservative paper. It often seems to me to be conservative, but I am not sure an Australian view on that subject is likely to be accurate.
Sorry, Matey. The NYT doesn't even pretend to be conservative. It infamously and unskeptically published, in the early 1930's, a series of glowing reports about the Soviet Union by Walter Duranty, including knowing denial of the Holodomor, in which millions of Ukranians were deliberately starved to death. Duranty won a Pulitzer prize for his service to the Left. And then of course there was Herbert Matthews, the NYT reporter who invented and romanticized Fidel Castro. It is safe to say that without Herbert Matthews and the New York Times, the world would never have been "blessed" Fidel Castro's Cuba. These are but two nototrious examples of the types of reporting the NYT has enabled over decades. It is the probably the most reliably illiberal, Left wing mainstream outlet in the U.S. For a point of comparison you might be able to appreciate, the NYT is about as conservative as The Guardian.
I was just going on personal response. It does seem to publish articles and letters that support a position to the right of what many Australians would support.
I believe that what passes for "liberal" in the United States is, indeed, considered relatively "conservative" in many other parts of the world.
How many does the Lord want not to perish? All
How many rooms are in Heaven? ….. Enough
"If the evil-doers repented not, they were to be swept from the face of the earth by a flood of waters. Noah and his helpers were constantly at work preparing an immense boat.…" MR Vol. 21 page 65
Just as God spared Nineveh, I'm sure there would have been a way for all who repented from the 120years of sermons by Noe…..
Big enough for a infinte God to save all who would accept the final boarding call…. Though there was no room for any standby passengers.
Kendra, I have read through both of your columns regarding the Sabbath and same sex marriage, and it sounds to me, that you are saying the following:
Because we as Seventh-Day Adventist believe and support the seperation of church and state allowing us to observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday to Sundown Saturday without persecution, then we should also stand with the homosexual agenda to propogate gay marriage because it is a matter of conscience and we by nature of our doctrines support freedom of conscience.
I will be brief but I am not sure why you are even using these two arguments as synonymous with each other. The first doctrine, the Sabbath, was ordained by God Himself and sanctified and made holy. The other doctrine, same sex marriage, is an ABOMINATION to God and therefore can not stand in the same line of thinking.
As Seventh-Day Adventists our commission is to call people out of Babylon. That would include the forms/services/rituals/etc that are contrary to God's will. I hear a lot of back and forth and opinions, etc, but the wages of sin is death. Should we not be calling all people to repentance by standing with Jesus Christ and calling sin by it's right name?
Now of course we don't force because God does not force, but it is our duty to present the truth of salvation and then let the Holy Spirit do the convicting. From that point on each individual must decide for themself what course of action to take.
But I don't hear any of that in your message. I only read that we should support all issues of conscience, but if the issue of conscience is opposed to God's will, then we as Seventh-Day Adventists are duty bound to stand against it.
I actually agree that we should not support legislation that blurs the line of seperation between church and state, but to use the Sabbath as the argument for your case is disappointing to me.
I have to agree with the statement that the issue of Sabbath worship is not the same as the issue of having the freedom to marry the same gender. We are called in the Bible to respect man's law until it conflicts with God's law. For example, Romans 13:1-2 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 says to honor man's laws and fear God. But when it comes to man's law telling us to trample God's law, we should choose to follow God's law (Acts 5) , since His trumps man's law.
Homosexuality conflicts very obviously with God's law. I don't think we should in any way support homosexuality, including fighting for their right to marry. I will not support any legislation legalizing same sex marriage.
That being said, I do believe we should treat them with the love of Jesus. Jesus taught, preached, and healed many who had lifestyles contrary to His laws. He ministered to them and bid them "sin no more."
I agree we should be calling people out of Babylon, not supporting a rights movement that would entrench them deeper into Babylon, thus possibly pushing them so deep that they may never come out.
Can you see no difference in obeying what we believe is God;s will and forcing others who do not so believe to follow our understanding? Would you also vote to legislate Sabbath observance? In a country that is officially not Christian, how do you justify enforcing a particular Christian understanding of the Bbile on everyone? And what should we enforce if Christians disagree?
Would you also vote to legislate Sabbath observance?
No! You cannot legislate righteousness. The moment you do, it ceases to be righteousness.
Craig said it, "God does not force", neither should we.
Kevin, I don't see anyone saying that we force people to believe what we know to be true. I would stand against legislation that was going in to force Sabbath observance (even though I love the Sabbath) because I know that is not how God operates. If I presented anything that conveyed the element of forcing anyone to believe what I believe that was not my intent. It is our job to share the truth in love to all people but only God gives the increase, and He does not force anyone.
Gabriel Taylor wrote:
"That being said, I do believe we should treat them with the love of Jesus."
And treating them with love is to deny them the equal rights that we enjoy?
Just like the love we showed the blacks when we gave them "separate but equal" schools? Or the same love and equality we showed women until we enacted women's suffrage?
That's a strange love to say: "Brother, sister, I love you, but you cannot enjoy the benefits of marriage that I enjoy. Simply be content with a lesser designation that will not give you what I, a heterosexual, am able to enjoy.
When did love mean inequality?
You keep talking about equal rights. What right does a heterosexual man have that a homosexual man does not have?
This is not a new argument, and it's as fallacious now as it was when it was first introduced. It's actually somewhat embarrassing to see it used — it's a smug way of dismissing the difficulties and discrimination that homosexuals face in our society. It's sad, frankly, to see a grown man use it.
Since you may lack the capacity to see why it's absurd, an easy way to figure it out is to do a little role reversal. Suppose, for a moment, that you're a homosexual, and I'm a perfectly wonderful god-fearing heterosexual upon whom the countenance of the Lord God shines or whatever. Now, contrary to your ardent agnosticism on the topic, your sexuality in this scenario is not a choice — that is, you feel no attraction to women, sexually or romantically/emotionally, and you are unable to change that. You -do-, however, feel sexual and emotional attraction to another man — let's call him Carl — with whom you find yourself in a committed relationship that you'd both like to continue in perpetuity.
Imagine me, the heterosexual, dismissing your desire to enter into the same legal bond with the person you love by simply waving my hand and suggesting that, "whatever, you've got the exact same rights that we do."
If you -still- can't see the absurdity of such a thing, then I'm not sure anybody can help you.
…and this is the part where you'll go into legalistic, literalist defense mode and -completely- ignore the point I'm making, but.. as always, have at it.
Scorn is a poor substitute for reason.
Desire does not justify an action; nor does it create a right.
First of all Kendra has mentioned our duty to present the truth of Salvation and allow the Holy Spirit to convict and change lives. She's also mentioned the importance of treating gays with dignity so that they are respective to hearing what you have to say. But the focus of her argument has been the legality of same sex marriage debate which is taking place in statehouses across the country. And here, I think the Sabbath is a fair comparison. Yes, to Adventists there's a huge difference between keeping the Sabbath and the homosexual lifestyle, but the point is that to others there may not be. To others the 7th day Sabbath, for example, may be against God's law, and the way to ensure that we are allowed the right to keep it, is for others to support our right to do so even though they may not understand or flatly disagree with our understanding that it's a commandment from God. I absolutely agree that Adventists are duty bound to stand against things that are against God's will, the question is how? Do we call people out of Babylon legislatively or by reaching out to people and preaching the Gospel to them and allowing the Holy Spirity to convict them and change their lives?
Chuck, I appreciate your thoughts, however I still don't believe we lower our standard because someone else may not accept what we know to be true. If we start supporting all causes because we need or want backing for our cause then what have we done? Where is our faith to belive that if we honor God, He will honor us? We know how this will end and we will have our liberties taken away, but until that time comes we do stand and fight for freedoms and liberty. However to lower our standard and support causes that are contrary to what the Bible teaches, therefore contrary to God's will in essence places us on which side? That is my issue with utilizing the comparison of the Sabbath and homosexual marriage one puts you on Gods side the other puts you on Satans. Having many people disagree with that fact, does not make it less of a fact.
A larger question is how do we decide which of God's laws we should lobby for the state to enforce and which we should not. Why do we fight so hard against same-sex marriage, but not against easy divorces? Why do so many SDAs believe that homosexual behaviour should be illegal, but won't support making adultery or fornication illegal? Why do we believe it would be wrong to impose our beliefs by voting for a Sabbath keeping law, but see no problem with outlawing same-sex marriage? Is not fighting against divorce laws really any less on Satan's side than not fighting same-sex marriage laws?
"Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." (NIV) Matthew 19:8.
Is there anywhere in the Bible about Moses or anyone permitting same sex marriages?
So it is better to accept something God condemns than something he says nothing about? You still have not attempted to answer the question of how we decide which of God's laws we should fight for and which we shouldn't.
Are you infering the Bible says nothing on same sex relations? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. You also infer many SDA's do not support making adultery or fornication illegal? True moral change is from the heart not the pen.
You asked about same-sex marriages in the Bible. They are not mentioned. Most SDAs I know do not support legislating morality – except for abortion and same-sex marriages. No one can explain why those two are so different to all others.
Kevin, I belive we stand for all of God's laws, but I don't believe I said that we push for government enforcement to force God's will on the people. In my opinion, this whole discussion is really mixing the point of freedom, because not one of us alive are actually free. We are either serving God or Satan! Matthew 6:24 (there is no Switzerland in the Great Controversy) Matthew12:30. This whole column is taking the two sides and trying to merge them into a understanding that we have moral obligation to stand for all issues of personal freedoms because we as Seventh-Day Adventists being a minority enjoy personal freedoms. This is a misleading and deceptive teaching that on the surface seems to have merit, but in actuality undercuts and contests our allegence to God in Heaven. To simply state it this is as basic as the contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mt Carmel. 1Kings 18:21
I support everyones right to choose whatever they want, if that means marrying someone of the same sex or their pet dog, goat or whatever. That being said, it is also our duty as God's people to present to all people that although everyone is free to make their own choices, there is a consequence that is based upon the choice made. We can go through many biblical examples if needed.
Regarding your point on divorce, now there is an element that Christ does allow for divorce. Matthew 19:9. And the root of most all divorces probably hangs on the issue of adultery, especially if we understand what Jesus teaches on adultery. Matthew 5:27-28
To wrap up, I believe we only fight politically when the government is pushing to force us to do anything that would dishonor God! The issue of gay marriage should be renounced as an abomination from the pulpit, along with all sinful practices. But to legislate or force God's will on people I do not agree with. And in reality if we undstand the typology with scripture (Sodom/Gomorrah) before Jesus comes again the nation will be given over to homosexual activities. This is the utmost abomination because of what marriage represents (Christ and His church).
Craig, as I hear you explaining your position, it seems that we are saying many of the same things. The church should call sin what it sees as sin; however, we should not legally attempt to force our views on others. That is exactly my point.
Perhaps I've been missing something. Those of you who are proponents of same-sex marriage. Do you consider the decline of marriage to be a positive thing? That would explain a lot.
I don't consider the decline of marriage to be a good thing. But I don't believe same-sex marriage will in itself cause the decline of marriage to increase or decrease. When 90% of the population considers marriage to be an agreement that is broken when 'it doesn't make me happy anymore', then what 1-2% of the population does will have negligible impact. I would rather we put our effort into teaching people what marriage is, and supporting those who are having problems, rather than opposing changes in current laws.
I am actually ambivalent about the changes in the definition of marriage over the last few centuries. It is good that people are no longer forced into unwanted marriages, but the emphasis on individual happiness does not seem to have delivered what it promised.
If I can answer a question with a question: outside of opposing same sex marriage where is the policy fight to prevent the decline of marraige?
We have reached a point in society where proposals to strengthen marriage are seen as extreme. Many of the so-called 'entitlements' have made it more profitable for a woman to have a live-in than a husband. Any attempt to remedy that is decried as 'cruel.' There are a host of policies that weaken or remove incentives to marry and stay married. Anyone who is informed on this subject knows of many such policies and regulations.
For example, in 1950 the tax exemption was $600/child. In 1986, it was $1080. According to the U.S. inflation calculator, $1080 in 1986 dollars was equal to $237.48 in 1950 dollars (you can do it for yourself http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/). In other words, it had declined by more than half. After several hikes, this year it was $3700.00, which would equal $408.93 in 1950 dollars. These are tax increases on families with children.
This makes it more expensive to raised children, and drives more and more women into the workplace (please, don't anyone blather about liberating women, repeated studies indicate many women work because they believe the have to–some of them because they're single, and would rather be married). It puts stress on marriages. But any efforts to index the exemption for inflation are met with cries that we are 'taking money from the poor.' (We hear this all the time, taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, when of course, we're actually talking about not giving quite as much to the poor).
At the same time, we give tax credits for child daycare, which subsidizes women leaving the home and caring for their own children.
So we tax people for caring for their own children, and subsidize them have someone else do it.
I'm not going to do all of everyone's homework for them. If you really care about marriage, there's plenty of information about many such issues.
If anyone thinks there have not been policy initiatives to strengthen marriage, then they don't have an informed opinion. The problem is that every effort to strengthen families is dubbed 'mean-spirited,' 'hurting the poor,' or 'anti-woman.'
You really think that public policy is the driving force behind the divorce rate in the US?
*cocks head 90 degrees*
…really?
And if you choose to respond, this is the part where you'll do so by starting off with "I never said…" as though the rest of us are too dull to read between the lines. But.. you know, have at it if you'd like. I'm used to it by now.
Before one reads between the lines, they need to read the lines accurately. That seems to be a chronic problem here. People cannot reason closely; they jump to false conclusions and make unfounded arguments.
But you're right, I never said that, nor did anything I wrote imply that. Of course public policy is not the driving force. There are plenty of reasons in the human heart. But public policy can encourage or discourage behaviors which are beneficial or detrimental. Since the 1970' public policy in the US has made divorce easier in many ways. And then people are surprised that divorce rates increase. We make single motherhood a little easier, and, again are surprised that single motherhood increases.
I can't stop people from erroneously reading between the lines. All I can do is be careful with the lines themselves. But go ahead and misinterpret what I write. I'm used to it by now.
In Australia we have 'no fault' divorce. After 2 years of separation, either party can file for divorce and the other cannot contest. The interesting thing is that divorce rates went up initially, but have since fallen. Of course, many people who would have divorced in the past simply don't get married to start with now, but easing of divorce laws since the original round in the 1970s has not seen a rise in the divorce rate. Government policy does not seem to lead to more single parents either, as a change of govenrment here often leads to tightening or losening restrictions, but not a change in rate. If it did, the rate should go up under liberal governements and down under conservative governments. I haven't seen any support for that, and I am sure the conservatives (who are not now in governement) would have pointed it out if there was any evidence. Perhaps it is possible to draw conclusions from the failure of conservative moves to limit unemployment, single parent, etc benefits to have any effect on reducing the numbers who actually need such help. Australia has also had very generous tax breaks for families, even providing a 'baby bonus' for those who produce offspring. It has had little effect on increasing the number of babies born, or the number of people marrying. I doubt government policies have much effect on changing public behaviour, but are usually a belated response to changes in behaviour. If our governments were more authoritarian and more 'robust' in promoting their policies, then we might notice more of a difference. I'm not sure we want that, though.
Of course not, but governmental laws and policies are hardly the most effective way to reverse the damage.
Again, it sure seems that this difficult subject need not be quite so difficult.
For SDAs who believe that our freedom to worship as—and when—we please, and to not worship or observe when we please, will be threatened and abolished by law, to abstain from this issue or to not actively oppose same sex marriage/civil unions on the grounds that our religious opposition to it—or any religious opposition to it—is generally threatening to civil and/or religious liberty seems eminently reasonable.
It also seems eminently reasonable for SDAs to actively or proactively preach and teach that all homosexual lifestyle/practice is against God’s will according to our reading of scripture.
Separating church and state is something that is easily done in theory, but difficult for most to put into actual practice.
In many instances the reason is that once church and state are in partnership it is practically impossible to separate them. Such is obviously the case with marriage.
The issue of "freedom of conscience" is a distraction.
Whether same-sex marriage is good for society is not a religious or freedom of conscience issue.
How anyone can confuse the two is amazing to me. It also makes me tend to agree that education is overrated.
But when many are arguing that same-sex marriage must be opposed because it is against God's will, is that not making the isssue an argument over religion? The public argument should be over social harm and social benefits, but it seems often to be over religious beliefs and whose beliefs should be more important. Freedom of conscience is a good principle on which to conduct our interaction with government and the public on any issue. I am not sure it is the best argument to use in public, but it is an issue for church members to consider in this case. Publicly we should be arguing harm and benefit, not freedom of conscience or God's will. It seems some people do have a problem with both believing and living by what they believe is God's will while still allowing others to do differently.
So, I agree that we should not be actively opposing same-sex marriage on the grounds that we believe it is against God's will, but I also don't believe that that means we should support it merely on the basis of freedom of consience. Having decide that we won't be doing something because it is against God's will, but we will not force others to accept our beliefs and act on them, there is still room for asking whether an activity will be a benefit or harm to society. We can oppose any law or practice on that grounds without imposing our religious beliefs on anyone. We can oppose lowering the drinking age to 7 on the grounds it will cause great harm with few if any benefits. We don't need to mention God or our religious beliefs. We can and should do the same with same-sex marriage. If we can't demonstrate harm, or real potential for harm, then we should keep quiet.
"But when many are arguing that same-sex marriage must be opposed because it is against God's will, is that not making the isssue an argument over religion?"
People can argue that bad language pollutes the atmosphere; that doesn't make it a matter for the EPA. People can claim it affects cosmic radiation. I can argue that not letting me use any photograph I find on the web for any purpose I want is a violation of my freedom of expression, but it will still be a matter of copyright.
No, irrelevant arguments do not change the legal status of the issue in question.
That’s a good one Ed; I’m chuckling as I type this. That’s pretty funny!.
Of course, you may not have read my blog, because the title was meant to be intriguingly misleading; like Adventist Today🙂
The reason it's become a freedom of conscience issue is because most (or at least the most vocal) opponents of same sex marriage simply say 'it's wrong' and have failed to lay out a cogent argument about why it's harmful to society. This leads to the oft heard response, if you feel gay marriage is wrong don't engage in it, or follow your conscience and allow me to follow mine. Now if it was understood what the reasons for the opposition were (besides religious ones and unspecified concern for the children) we would hopefully be having a policy debate and not a discussing freedom conscience/religious liberty.
The reason it has become a freedom of conscience issue to when third graders say "guess what we learned in school today, mommy"…… The in your face and down your throat force feeding of the liberal agenda is what is bringing a lot of resistance. I like that Chuck put "allow me to follow mine" in his statement. The "why it's wrong" is shown by the degration of family structure in society.
What about those parents who are not conservative and do not want their children 'force fed' a conservative view of the family? I have never understood why conservatives seem to believe the best response to pluralism is that all views except their own should be excluded so there will be no arguments. It is like the argument that we will only sing hymns in church because other songs offend the 'hymns-only' brigade. It is just assumed that the conservative option is the only 'fair' and 'unbiased' option, and therefore no reasonable person will be offended by it.
I have taught in a public school. The alleged "force feeding" of values consists entirely of making children aware that people EXIST who are different than they are (be they gay, Muslim, atheist, Seventh-day Adventist, what have you) and that one should be respectful when interacting with others who are different.
I still fail to understand why this is so threatening.
Because the fact of recognising existence provides legitimation. Why do you think governments work so hard to prevent the United Nations or other countries from recognising break-away areas? Once you say 'X exists and needs to be treated with respect', you are in effect saying 'X has rights and may, possibly, be right'. When all our books show white families – one mother, one father, two children, all posed 'appropriately' to demonstrate status, etc – it lets everyone know what a 'real' family should look like. Replace the mother with another father and you have implicitly said 'this is also what a 'real' family can look like. Why else is the whole issue of race in advertising important? It is one area that shows up underlying fears and phobias. Advertisers in Australia know that Australia is a multi-cultural country, but they also know that, in general, Asians don't sell products as well as Anglo-Celts. What we show publicly is not just a refelction of reality, but a model of what should be aspired to. Every publisher knows that a book about two mothers, or two fathers, is going to be controversial and, what is worse, will not sell as well. Acknowledging existence is far from a neutral act, and so is equallising difference by claiming equal resepct. Most people know that instictively and react against it.
One would think, though, that members of a church whose mission involves taking a message to every "nation, kindred, tongue, and people" might tend to be at least a BIT less frightened of diversity than the general population?
No – we are exactly what is expected of a millenarian sect. We fear diversity almost as much as disorder, and our public evangelism attracts such people and our church programs generally reinforce that. You cannot claim that there is only one Truth and you have it, only one right interpretation of any Bible test and you know it, only one True church and you are it, without people getting the message that in any case of difference, only one form will be 'right'. I think you will find that for many SDAs being RIGHT takes precedence over any nebulous mission to 'them'.
Kevin,
You've dared to speak the truth that a church that makes such claims results in those doctrines and always being "right" is more important than loving those "outside Sunday-keepers." The last, is the most divisive belief in all Christianity and sets Adventism apart from the entire Christian church, so why shouldn't it be labeled as such?
Elaine
One can agree with a doctrine and disagree with how it is put into practice. I am personally comfortable with offical teaching on the Second Coming and the Remnant. I am not particularly coincerned that we claim to have truth that no one else has. I am not comfortable with how many SDAs move from reading the FBs to living as a community. To claim to be the Remnant is a claim – as I understand the Bible – to a priestly role. What I object to is the practice of living/teaching as if we were chosen instead of others rather than on behalf of others. The worst effect of the latter belief is that it actually motivates us not to act as a prophetic remnant. There is not a great deal of profit in having the truth if you misunderstand it, and so it doesn't lead to you fulfilling your role.
Perhaps it would be helpful to reflect that at least a significant percentage of nubile gays PREFER to solemnize an ethical and permanent relationship akin to (and in some cases including) a religious service in which they see themselves as announcing to the universe that theirs is now a sacred and serious commitment that intends to stand the test of time and eternity. Some dear Christians suppose that gays are by definition agnostic or non-believing. This is by no means true. Where there is freedom of religion, there is freedom to believe that God knew what he was doing when he created certain souls with the orientation they possess, and that this orientation was meant to be expressed, insofar as it does not impinge on the freedoms of others.
I believe that fundamentally many Christians today, especially in the U.S., quietly subscribe to the theocratic view of our nation, in which the act of simply permitting another person to engage in supposedly sinful behavior reflects sin on everyone in the nation (see Achan in Jericho, who apparently appropriated garments and bullion associated with heathern fertility cults, and in consequence God was unable to bless the armies of Israel in their next outing). Within a theocracy, the "whole" is responsible for the behavior of the individual, and informancy and vigilanteism can become rampant (leading in the case of Israel to establishment of cities of refuge to assuage at least in part the abuse of theocratic-style revanchism). Perhaps in some of the political populism of our day there is more than a smidgen of desire to carry our nation in the direction of a Christian theocracy, where I am not only my brother or sister's keeper, but also am responsible for policing my brother or sister's behavior. Should I as an Adventist feel contaminated by the stubborn disposition of Sunday-keepers to adhere to their non-biblical practices? I don't because I see them as individually answerable to God. Should I feel any differently about those who marry the "wrong gender" as I feel about those who keep the "wrong day"? I'm not so sure I should. Human society has advanced far beyond those early days of theocracy, and Christ clearly tells us that his kingdom is not of this world, is not in any way connected to secular government, and that his followers have no call to raise up arms and voices to impose their peculiar convictions on the rest in His name. Who among us would REALLY prefer to live back in the days of the judges and kings of Israel—especially if our religious beliefs differed from those of the majority of that time. The story is told of one such man, from Nazareth….
Well said Edwin! Your eloquence is appreciated.
As SDA Christians we often preach and teach against things that are not beneficial to individuals or to society as a whole, and against things that we believe are contrary to the perfect will of God. By the same token we do not actively campaign for the outlawing of tobacco sales or use; or for the outlawing of the sale and/or consumption of pork and shell seafood products, for example.
Why not? Because we realize that we are not in an Adventist Christian theocracy; though with tobacco, our view is empirically and demonstrably correct—and the majority view.
Edwin, I very much agree with you. I think the theocratic view is quite prevalent, particularly in evangelical circles and is, in fact, the driving force between public policy debates such as marriage and abortion. Some Adventists seem to have somehow gotten sucked into this without being aware of the theological underpinnings.
Perhaps we are doing the same thing with this issue as we have done with the ordination of women: arguing for years without first defining what we are arguing over. When we talk of the 'traditional' definition of marriage, whose definition are we referring to, and from when? Every culture seems to have a different definition, and only some of the elements overlap with the definition used by other cultures. There seems to be nothing that is found in every culture as necessary to the definition of marriage. That it will involve one man and one woman may be the only thing, but even that depends on ho we define 'marraiage' to start with. But there are plenty of examples where marriage is not restricted to only one man and one woman. Perhaps we do need to agree on what we mean by 'mariage' before we try to decide who can take part.
Read "The Abolition of Man" by C. S. Lewis (which, by the way, is NOT a Christian apologetic in any form). You will find that there are not so many definitions of marriage as we like to pretend.
Read a few ethnographies and you will find that there is not as much agreement as we like to pretend. And reading European histories of the family may show that we are not entirely comfortable with the similarities either. The basic assumption in many places that licit marriages (much like licit sexual arrangements) must involve a difference in status and power comes to be less beneath the surface and more explicit as you go back in time. Perhaps that bit of redefinition also explains the breakdown of the 'traditional' marriage and family. But do we want to say it was wrong?
Even if there were only two or three definitions of marriage, the discussion would still go better if we knew which definition people are arguing we should keep or change. As a social scientist, I also would argue we should keep in mind the difference between prescriptive accounts of marriage and descriptive accounts. It seems everyone 'knows' a man should not marry his 'sister', but how 'sister' is defined, and the ways in which it can be redefined, can vary. What people say a 'marriage' must be, and what in fact it is, are often not the same thing. Otherwise we would not define marriage as 'a life-long union' and then provide so many reasons to legitimately end it.
I find it interesting that the Bible does not define the purpose of marriage, apart from the initial observation that 'it is not good for the human to be alone'. That does seem to be one thing that is generally agreed upon.
"It is not good for the human to be alone," LOL
That's one place you don't want to go.
The definition of marriage in question is, and has been since before the founding of the US, "one man and one woman."
Would that be a church definition or a state definition; or did the church and state get together on a definition?
(Speaking of “the founding of the US,” is this somewhere in the U.S. Constitution?)
I agree with you that this (same sex marriage) would not be beneficial for society; just like easy divorce, and premarital sex, and cars that can go 90 miles per hour, and greasy food—none of which are good for society either.
Our view that same sex marriage would not be good for society is based on our religious view of Biblical/sexual morality/immorality. The marriage “definition” that you cite, Ed, is derived from a westernized Christian concept.
You certainly can run from this reality; but you really can’t hide from it.
"Our view that same sex marriage would not be good for society is based on our religious view of Biblical/sexual morality/immorality. The marriage “definition” that you cite, Ed, is derived from a westernized Christian concept."
Well, no. As I mentioned in another post, monogamy was practiced in Ancient Greece and Rome before Christ.
There's lots of evidence for this. Here's one: http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/060807.pdf
I neither need to run nor hide, since your assertion is not reality; it is false.
There is considerable conjecture in this paper though it makes for interesting reading. Thanks.
Since the author of this paper acknowledges that his position would come as a surprise to most historians; needless to say his position is unknown to most citizens.
Even if true, and the Greeks and Romans influenced western Christianity/culture to this extent, the fact remains that our concept of marriage in this culture, and sexual morality within marriage (and our culture), is religious; and our objection to same sex (and polygamous) marriage is religious, i.e. cultural, too.
Are you denying that this aspect of our social culture, the marriage institution, is religiously based; and that public opposition to changing it is also based in religion?
You speak for yourself and I speak for myself. You indicate that your objection is sociological. I admit that my objection is theological (thus cultural)—and therefore isn’t a logical/legitimate civic position. I am also saying that public objection is cultural, based on religion. Is this where we disagree?
Whether it is known to most citizens or not is irrelevant.Those historical facts mean that Kendra's basic thesis, that heterosexual monogamy is derived from religion, and therefore objections to same-sex marriage are solely matters of conscience, is false.
I repeat, Kendra's basic thesis is false.
It is perfectly possible to make arguments against same-sex marriage without relying on religion at all.
For the purposes of our discussion here, that's all we need to know. No forum such as this is sufficient for making the case for or against. If Kendra's thesis was correct, then there would be no secular case for or against.
The argument that it's solely a religious issue is essentially an effort to pre-empt serious debate. It also allows Christians to feel themselves compassionate without explicitly endorsing homosexual acts. In a way, I wish it were true. If it were true, it would provide an easy choice.
I am not sure you have correctly stated Kendra's 'basic thesis' at all, and I will leave her to answer that, but Greco-Roman monogamy and its influence on Christianity is well known. The author does not say his position would 'come as a surprise to most historians' but rather that the exceptional position of Greco-Roman marriage has not been recognised, and therefore not elicited surprise among historians is a result of their lack of understanding how unusual it is. Of all the sexual mores among western Christians, monogamy may be the only one that is not directly traceable to the OT. Both the institution of marriage and its basic form owes more to Greco-Roman law than to the Bible. Marriage is not inherently a religious institution but rather a social one – but one nevertheless governed by religious beliefs, as were all things in former times. Marriage as a life-long union is a religious belief, but monogamy is not.
The article raises numerous other issues – including how 'marriage' and 'monogamy' should be defined, but perhaps it is better not to follow those here in order to allow the basic point – marriage is not historically a religious institution – to be appreciated.
Kevin,
Why is it that you continue to state that marriage "is not inherently a religous institution"…"not directly traceable to the OT?" What was meant in Genesis 2:24 where it says that the man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh?
IMV, monogamy is according to God's order knowing what's best for mankind. It didn't take long to illustrate the concept and why… Abraham & Sarah / Hagar, Jacob & Rachel / Leah (along with the handmaids)… and it goes on an on… David, Solomon…
True enough, marriage might not have become a "legal" institution recognized by the ruling authority until the Greco-Roman goverance. We must also take into account, that the OT was basically framed under the idea that God was the ruling authority of His chosen / governed people. Therefore, marriage in God's eyes was an institution in which He created / blessed from the beginning.
We point to the polygamous marriages and their problems as proof that polygamy doesn't work. It doesn't appear that monogamous marriages – eg Isaac and Rachel – work any better. The OT and NT presents marriage as a social institution – no involvement of temple or priests, just the family/clan. That is the way it is in most cultures. The invovlement of priests in marriage is relatively recent in European tradition, and was an historical accident, and as late as the C19th most marriages were conducted at home, not in church. I don't dispute that Charistians believe marriage is something God ordained, but that doesn't make it religious. God allowed divorce, but it wasn't a religious matter, but was handled by the family. Child-bearing is also God-ordained, but it isn't religious. There was a time when religious beliefs governed all action – directly or indirectly – but that didn't make everything religious. The fact that a religious ceremony was not and is not necessary for a marriage to be valid points to the fact that marraige is not a religious institution. The practice of having a priest/pastor bless a new house is no different to the blessing on a wedding. But house owning is not a religious institution either. Both are simply an acknowledgement that some people want God involved in everything they do. Religious institutions (baptisms, ordinations, communion, etc) require a relgious setting and performer to be valid, marriages do not.
I continue to say that marriage is not historically a religious institution because, despite most historians and theologians (and lawyers) acknowledging that, many people cointinue to argue that marriage is a religious institution and the state should have no say.
Actually, Isaac married Rebekah, and it worked quite well. Secondly, Jacob's marriage to Rachel was a love match, and worked quite well. The deception and scheming of Laban and Leah did not bring either of them what they hoped it would. I spent a lot of time on that topic. http://www.amazon.com/Torn-Jacobs-Story-Ed-Dickerson/dp/0816323631
http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/mOSA2595EJQCG/ref=cm_ciu_vr_moTPIEPL05E4O5
Did Iasaac and Rebekah's marriage really work well? It seems that they caused a bit of trouble for their sons. When you end up with one son deceiving his father with his mother's connivance, and the second son then deciding to kill his brother, all is not well in the family. Maybe Isaac and Rachel had a good marriage, but then you have to explain what motivates their support of different sons. What I was arguing primarily was that a dysfunctional family is not merely the result of polygamy as we often assume. Monogamy can be as dysfunctional as any other type of marriage.
Yes, I feel sorry for Jacob, but he didn't really learn much from his parent's mistake when it comes to favouring one son over another/all the rest. And we should not forget that when it came time to die, Jacob reminded his sons to bury him with Leah, not Rachel.
Timo,
If they all wanted to go. . . .
there would have been no need of the ark.
Here is some additional information that some of you may find interesting and credible.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm) “…the progress of the race toward monogamy, as well as toward a purer monogamy, during the last two thousand years, owes more to the influence of Christianity than to all other forces combined. Christianity has not only abolished or diminished polyandry and polygamy among the savage and barbarous peoples which it has converted, but it has preserved Europe from the polygamous civilization of Mohammedanism, has kept before the eyes of the more enlightened peoples the ideal of an unadulterated monogamy, and has given to the world its highest conception of the equality that should exist between the two parties in the marriage relation. And its influence on behalf of monogamy has extended, and continues to extend, far beyond the confines of those countries that call themselves Christian.”
So, it appears that the self-evident is also taken for granted the largest denomination.
That does not mean that Christianity did not get the idea from Greco-Roman civilisation. The church worked hard to influence Europe – and imposed its will when it could – but many RC theologians were aware that they also owed much to the Greco-Roman influence on early Christianity. Monogamy may be a Christian ideal, but its roots are in a pagan culture at least as much as in the OT where polygamy is never put forward as being evil or sinful.
You notice that it also talks about the concept of equality – something that was absent from Christian marriage for most of its history. You still have marriages where the celebbrant asks 'who gives this woman?' Is the one 'given' really equal to the one who receives? Why does no one ask who 'gives' the man to the woman? It is easy to read the present back into the past and say 'this is where we always were'. It would be interesting to know what the current edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia says, as this edition is 100 years old.
HI Kendra
Would you support the rights of consenting adult siblings to be married as long as they agreed to adopt children and not concieve?
Hi, Tapiwa,
I don't think "agreeing to adopt" would be sufficient. Sterilization would have to occur in order for me to support something like this.
As mentioned with Ed, the extent to which Greco-Roman culture influenced western civilization and cultural mores is incidental to the reality that religion has co-opted and eclipsed all other influences insofar as marriage is concerned.
This obviously inconvenient reality serves as a validation of Kendra’s point in my opinion.
"religion has co-opted and eclipsed all other influences insofar as marriage is concerned"
AT least three problems with that statement.
1. It is naked assertion. No evidence is offered to support it.
2 There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. The simple fact that Greco-Roman monogamy preceded Christianity is evidence. And, if religion had "co-opted all other influences," then why do civil services exist? How is it that atheists can marry at all, and do so without 'aid of clergy?' Obviously, religion has not co-opted and eclipsed all other influences. Finding a single contradictory instance is sufficient to invalidate a universal ("all other") statement.
3. As long as strictly secular reasons can be adduced for marriage, it is not a matter of religion or conscience, but of public policy.
Whether it is wise public policy is a separate debate. But there's no point in moving on to that until basic facts are recognized.
I have to admit that I’m somewhat surprised that the Catholic Encyclopedic opinion of the church’s progressive influence over marriage in western culture was not probative for you.
Let us try a more secular source. If you read http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html, particularly focusing on the sections entitled “Marriage in Ancient Greece and Rome,” “Marriage in Ancient Israel,” “Marriage in Medieval Europe,” and “Marriage in Modern Europe and America” it chronicles (and you will note) the progression of institutional religious and theological influence over marriage which has resulted in the church’s dominant affect and influence over public policy in this regard.
(It is also revealing that apparently, had Martin Luther and John Calvin had their way, the authority of the church and the state would have been completely separate and distinct insofar as marriage is concerned; with it legally/officially being a secular matter.)
Denying that the church, writ large, determines how marriage is currently defined in western society is a denial of western history.
Stephen,
first of all, let me say I am impressed that you know of the Hirshfeld Archive 🙂
Think of two separate realms: 1) the legal/constitutional realm where marriage is a secular institution and 2) the popular realm where (particularly in the US) marriage is viewed by many people as a religious institution. All western countries (even France and the US where state/church separation is enshrined in the constitution) have in reality a mixture of those two. The church's dominance over the popular realm is much greater than over the legal realm. In the case of same-sex marriage, religious and social conservatives find themselves in agreement. The religious voice is louder in the US than elsewhere, but that is a peculiarity of US history, not a result of church dominance per se. Elsewhere (England, Australia, Scandinavia, etc) at least some of the churches have been part of the movement to legalise same-sex marriage. The Anglican church in GB was also instrumental in having homosexuality decriminalised. The real world is rarely as simple as we would like. What you are seeing in the US is actually an assertion of lost power by the conservative Christians. Marriage has been legally a secular institution there for a long time. What is underway is a move to re-define it as religious, but I am not sure that is working.
Unfortunately, there's no discussion here, yet. Stephen keeps posting irrelevant information, I point out why it is either mistaken or irrelevant, and Stephen simply posts it again, ignoring the contrary evidence.
For example, a charge:
"a denial of western history."
IF anyone's denying history, it would have to be the one who, well, ignores the historical fact that monogamy preceded the church, by several centuries.
With that fact established, a careful thinker would wonder whether Greece and Rome –the state–defined marriage for the church, instead of the other way aroud.
The fact that the state licenses ministers to perform marriages, and also provides for civil ceremonies, that atheists can be married, all demonstrate that marriage is a secular institution.
The fact that the Muslim and fundamentalist Mormon religions approve of polygamy, but those marriages are not recognized by the state, demonstrates that it is secular law that determines who is married and who is not.
Simply reiterating what the Catholic Encyclopedia states does not change the facts of what exists. Until those are dealt with, there will be no progress. Rather than deny history, I cite history as counter evidence. So far, rather than dealing with the current situation, Stephen cites history.
It's obvious where the disconnect is.
Nice try Brother Ed, but I have no trouble accepting that heterosexual monogamy was established in Greco-Roman culture prior to Christianity. On the other hand, you are having considerable difficulty in accepting that in medieval Europe, modern Europe, the United States and elsewhere where Christianity has been propagated and taken root, the church has increasingly since influenced, defined, and determined what the state accepts and sanctions as a marriage. It’s really that simple.
No one questions the fact that marriage is, for legal purposes in the U.S, a civil arrangement or institution, Brother Ed. That is the point! It is a civil arrangement which is undeniably considered a religious sacrament and/or institution as well; hence the cultural and political opposition to changes.
Kevin, you are right in that in the U.S. “the religious voice is louder than elsewhere.” What you have missed is that any move re-defining marriage as religious is a fait accompli.
"the church has increasingly since influenced, defined, and determined what the state accepts and sanctions as a marriage."
Influenced, yes. As have many things. Defined and determined? Sorry, no. No state laws that I am aware of reference canon law of any religious body. Instead, legislatures passed statutes with secular language defining marriage. So, no it's not "really that simple." Rather, your assertion about 'determining and defining' is simply wrong.
It's not that I have difficulty accepting your assertions as assertions. but I keep demonstrating that factually they're simply mistaken. It would be folly to proceed as if they were true.
"undeniably considered a religious sacrament"
And yet, it is easily demonstrated not to be. Atheist couples are married by civil servants. Such marriages are just as legal as one made in a church with a minister presiding. The atheists themselves certainly do not consider it a sacrament.
Even if it were true, what people 'consider' something to be and what it legally is can be quite different, and people's 'consideration' has no bearing on its legal status.
Some people consider cohabitation to be immoral and think it should be illegal, but considering and thinking such things has no effect on the legal status of cohabitants. There are still (lamentably) some people who consider people who look different to be inferior. Thank God that consideration does not change the law.
Underlining and bolding is no substitute for simple logic. So far, we haven't reached the stage where the interchange can be described as a difference of opinion. The law says what it says. Claiming that it says something entirely different is just error.
While the state licenses marriage celebrants, and anyone who is married by a licensed celebrant without regard to the religious status of the celebrant is legally married, marriage is not a religious institution. That seems to be recognised by the simple fact that it is the state that makes the rules concerning marriage. You should have read on in the archive you reference above where it talks about the decreasing influence of religion when it comes to marriage since the Reformation. Among conservative Christians marriage may be treated, and argued for, as a religious institution, but that means no more than the fact that some of the same Christians believe and act as if Sunday were the Sabbath. Belief does not change legal reality.
You keep purposely missing the point that marriage is considered a civil and religious institution. But of course you must continue to deny that marriage is considered (by those who will) to be a religious institution because to do otherwise clearly threatens violence to your argument against changing it; since you claim your opposition is secular.
The fact remains that marriage, in the United States at least, is a hybrid civil and religious institution; which is part and parcel of Kendra’s original blog point. (Notwithstanding the fact that atheists or non-religious people need not acknowledge the religious aspects or significance of marriage—while others may.)
On this aspect of this blog’s discussion—whether, in American society, marriage is considered a secular institution, a religious institution, or (as I maintain) both—I am, again, quite satisfied to allow what we both have written/provided to stand; as others evaluate. I have no need to denigrate your thinking or ability to reason, Brother Ed.
For the record, once again, I personally believe all homosexual activity to be sinful. This is admittedly a totally theological opinion.
Thanks Kevin for helping to clarify this. Your point about how people consider Sunday the Sabbath helps me articulate the point this way: de jure versus de facto.
Marriage is a de jure civil institution for all in America. It is a de facto religious institution for many, if not most. Thus for many, if not most, it is considered to be both.
The opposition to changing marriage is based largely on the de facto perception of marriage in our culture; thus the problem.
And that is why same-sex marriage will be approved. Conservative Christians who insist on making it a religious issue will alienate social conservatives who are not religious. Conservative Christians do not have now, and are less likely to have in the future, the numbers to win enough votes in a referendum in many states. Even in North (or was ir South) Carolina where all but legal marraiges were 'outlawed', quite a few people who fought to get the amendment through expect it to be repealed within 20 years, probably sooner. There are no good results for religious or social conservatives coming from recent research or polls. Their positions will hold only while those now over 60 remain both alive and in the majority among voters. I think we all know what time will do …
If religious conservatives could unite with social conservatives and agree to use secular language in the debate, things may turn out differently. I can't see that happening unless we get a couple of excellent religious leaders who can make religious people see the need to win this debate as a policy debate and not a moral/religious debate.
It's amusing to see the suggestion of a political 'marriage' between conservative christians (i.e. believers) and secular social conservatives (i.e. non-believers) for the express purpose of keeping two grown men or women who love one another from pissing off an imaginary space giant. Are you suggesting that unholy unions are kosher so long as they're formed for the purposes of… uh, forbidding unholy unions? Nice work, folks. I ain't judging though — heck, I never really cared for 2 Corinthians 6:14 myself.
I just wanted to chime in for a moment to say that it would have been so encouraging to see a real, honest debate here concerning legal / Constitutional implications for equality, but that notion went south faster than a duck in winter thanks in large part to Ed's awe-inspiringly disingenuous argument, "oh hogwash, y'all gots the same rights to marry a lady that we do, what's y'alls problem exactly?" At the end of the day, your true positions are precisely what each of you are working so diligently to convince yourselves that they're not: -religious- positions girded with secular arguments and terminology. It's very entertaining to watch you try and convince yourselves otherwise. At least Kevin has the schnutz to admit the fact plainly. I'm not passing judgment on the thing — I understand why you're doing it and why you feel it's necessary. We are at spiritual war, after all, aren't we? If that necessitates adding a little Sun Tzu to the Good Book's be-as-wise-as-serpents bit, hey… do what you've gotta do. You can praise the Lord privately together once the ballots have been cast, right?
But I'm not aware of any secular arguments that stand up to scrutiny (the ones that have been suggested in these threads are laughable), and it's very curious to see you all looking down that road for victory. Ironically, you'd be more successful taking the old-fashioned fire and brimstone approach, because that position requires no justification — "Ham-a-sexuhl's marrin' is a say-in!" is not only unfalsifiable, but it carries inherent weight as the [paraphrased] Holy Word of the Lord God Almighty. If you don't think that's going to get you the mileage you need out there, you haven't been paying attention. Like yourselves, the majority of those you see making secular arguments are only doing so to conceal their spiritual positions. Publicly, they talk about tradition, some nebulous harm to society, men eventually marrying cape buffalo, et al, but like yourselves, they believe first and foremost that it's a sin, and they're just doing their duty as spiritual warriors under orders from General Jesus.
This is not merely my own conjecture — you can actually see this in a very recent study that was released (I'll see if I can dig it up and come on back with a link) in which there's a curious disparity between the polls and the votes cast on this topic. It's always skewed in the same direction — in every case, many more people vote to deny [rights / priviliges / whatever] to homosexuals than are reflected in the polling, and the number is significantly greater than can be explained by margins of error.
The secular route — or as I like to call it, the reality-based route — isn't going to win you your war. But of course, here's to hoping you don't win this war no matter what tack you take on your approach. 🙂
The extreme position taken by several southern preachers has been widely shown on TV. One, corpulent suit has recommended the perfect cure: Put all the lesbians on one side of a 100 ft. fence; put all the "queers" on another enclosure; drop food in and within a few years they would all die out. Voila! the end of homosexuality! What an innovative suggestion. It seems there are not a few Christians who would relish such a solution.
Tim, you have illustrated the disengenuous and illogical arguments that continue to be expressed on this subject. It is doubtful that cool and rational discussions can take place when there is so much emotional attachments to one's convictions. There are those who continually invoke ancient laws; but we are not living under the Judaic, Greco-Roman, or Islamic law but the U.S. Constitution which expressly institutes equal rights for all. Equal rights for marriage do not mean that a white man has equal rights to marry a white woman, but that he can marry anyone he, and not the state choose. Marriage, the most intimate of all human relationships, should, in today's world, be chosen by the two individuals only; not by the state, the parents or any other entity to approve or deny a choice.
There seems to be a deficit of rational thinking in the minds of many believers. Emotional and "spiritual" reasoning colors most such choices and behaviors; sex being the one that engenders the strongest reactions. The Puritans have never left us.
It's a really bad habit to keep begging the question, rather than addressing it. Airy declarations about what equal rights mean for today are simply naked assertions, however stirring the rhetoric.
Exactly what marriage means, what is should mean, is the question to be addressed. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, it's not a matter of rights, since all possess precisely the same right.
OK, I have learnt a new word: schnutz 🙂 Just to make it clear in case it was missed: I actually support same-sex marriages, with the proviso that no religious group will be required to perform them – which is what most countries do. I also believe that most people who support it do frame it in terms of rights – and the right they reference is the right to marry someone on the basis of love and commitment. I doubt that the authors of the US constitution actually had that definition in mind, given that that definition of marriage did not become popular for about another century. The same argument is used everywhere in the western world, so I suspect the source of this right is thought to lie in human nature, not in the US constitution.
If this were a debate between lawyers or legislators, then we could hold it as a legal/political debate and just talk about law. But as it is, at least in the US, often a matter of referendum, how the general public frames the debate is relevant. Most people who voted for the referendum in NC were voting against gay marriage on religious grounds. It seems to have surprised many – maybe most – that it also outlawed any form of marraige except legal marriage for everyone. If most people who voted saw it as a religious issue, then we can argue that religion should have been an irrelevant issue, but we cannot argue it was an irrelevant issue.
I would argue it is a matter of rights. Yes, at the moment everyone has the right to marry an appropriate person of the opposite sex. The argument is over whether that small issue of 'opposite sex' should be there. Most people arguing for same-sex marriage are arguing that the right should be extended without regard to sex or sexuality [gender being irrelevant]. In that sense, it is analogous to inter-racial marriage. It is merely broadening the group to whom the right applies. After all, before that law was repealed, everyone also had exactly the same right to marry an appropriate person of the opposite sex and same race. Removing all reference to race solved the problem then, removing all reference to sex will do so now.
Stephen, are you paying attention? I addressed your contention directly:"Even if it were true, what people 'consider' something to be and what it legally is can be quite different, and people's 'consideration' has no bearing on its legal status."
Kevin backed me up on this: "Belief does not change legal reality."
What other people 'consider' has no bearing on my arguments whatsoever. I do not merely 'claim' my arguments are secular, they are. Nowhere have I cited scipture or religion as a reason for opposition.
You can 'consider' my arguments to be based upon the Koran, but that doesn't change what I've said. My arguments are based upon experience in the field and statistics and studies of societies where this has already happened.
Finally, I haven't denigrated your ability to reason. I'm relying on it. But when you say I miss the very point I have addressed and refuted repeatedly, it begins to shake my faith.
This colloquy brings to mind this scene from "A Man For All Seasons."
Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?
Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.
The world must consider according to its wits; this court must consider according to the law.
Kevin and Tim,
Your assessments insofar as the trend and motivations of public opinion on this are concerned are spot on!
Ed,
If you would attempt to process my point about de facto versus de jure, you might begin to understand what I have been attempting to communicate—maybe.
I understand, as you clearly do, that opposition to same sex marriage must be made with secular arguments; since religious arguments would be problematic in a pluralistic society. The problem is, as Tim points out, that secular arguments on this issue are not strong at all; hence referenda are the tool du jour, because majority rules.
Opposing arguments most offered are therefore on the basis of traditional family values; appealing to the religious sentiments of most voters.
I understand your point about de facto vs. de jure. It's simply irrelevant.
"secular arguments on this issue are not strong at all"
Only to those who are not knowledgable or experienced in the field.
"Opposing arguments most offered are therefore on the basis of traditional family values; appealing to the religious sentiments of most voters."
Perhaps the arguments you have encountered. Such a sweeping statement suggests you aren not familiar with the field.
Well then "the field" had better significantly step up its PR and start expressing itself in places and terms that the average American is going to see and understand. You have said NOTHING in this space that remotely convinces me of your point.
My mistake. I did not realize that PR was a reliable source on, well, on any subject. All the time I thought something else mattered. I will not trouble you further.
While marriage laws are determined by referenda, the issue of how the public perceives the issue, and the basis on which they vote, is far from irrelevant.
If it weren't so damaging to society, it would be humorous. Many of the professionals in the field recognize that this will only make the situations we deal with worse, but they won't say a word about it, because it isn't politically correct. Academics fear they will lose funding, or worse. Professionals fear they will be denied tenure or advancement, or even placement. So many simply echo the party line, and decide to let future generations pay the cost.
It isn't surprising there are not a flood of studies exposing the dangers and damage of same-sex marriage. Given the political climate, and punitive attitudes of funders and others towards those daring to tell the truth, it's surprising there are any at all.
If it weren't so damaging to society, it would be humorous. Many of the professionals in the field recognize that this will only make the situations we deal with worse, but they won't say a word about it, because it isn't politically correct. Academics fear they will lose funding, or worse. Professionals fear they will be denied tenure or advancement, or even placement. So many simply echo the party line, and decide to let future generations pay the cost.
It isn't surprising there are not a flood of studies exposing the dangers and damage of same-sex marriage. Given the political climate, and punitive attitudes of funders and others towards those daring to tell the truth, it's surprising there are any at all.
This is nothing more than anecdotal tripe, from beginning to end, which is surprising given your otherwise consistent demands for what you at least seem to perceive as accuracy and precision. I'm not sure to whom you're referring when you use the word "professionals," nor is it clear to what "field" you're referring. Unless I'm mistaken, you have a masters in divinity, not clinical psychology, sociology or applied economics. Are you referencing your fellow theologians? And how many is "many" professionals? Your buddies?
You do realize that the statements you're making here have been used before throughout US history, and not by the victors, right? Swap out the phrase "same-sex marriage," for anything you'd like: interracial marriage, granting women the right to vote, bringing about an end to slavery, you name it. Go ahead. Swap out "same-sex marriage" for something else and re-read your post. I'll wait.
🙂
Until you've got something better than "trust me," this is nothing but the worst kind of fear-mongering. It wouldn't fly in a high school debate club, and it won't fly here.
If it weren't so damaging to society, it would be humorous. Many of the professionals in the field recognize that this will only make the situations we deal with worse, but they won't say a word about it, because it isn't politically correct. Academics fear they will lose funding, or worse. Professionals fear they will be denied tenure or advancement, or even placement. So many simply echo the party line, and decide to let future generations pay the cost.
It isn't surprising there are not a flood of studies exposing the dangers and damage of same-sex marriage. Given the political climate, and punitive attitudes of funders and others towards those daring to tell the truth, it's surprising there are any at all.
This is nothing more than anecdotal tripe, from beginning to end, which is surprising given your otherwise consistent demands for what you at least seem to perceive as accuracy and precision. I'm not sure to whom you're referring when you use the word "professionals," nor is it clear to what "field" you're referring. Unless I'm mistaken, you have a masters in divinity, not clinical psychology, sociology or applied economics. Are you referencing your fellow theologians? And how many is "many" professionals? Your buddies?
You do realize that the statements you're making here have been used before throughout US history, and not by the victors, right? Swap out the phrase "same-sex marriage," for anything you'd like: interracial marriage, granting women the right to vote, bringing about an end to slavery, you name it. Go ahead. Swap out "same-sex marriage" for something else and re-read your post. I'll wait.
🙂
Until you've got something better than "trust me," this is nothing but the worst kind of fear-mongering. It wouldn't fly in a high school debate club, and it won't fly here.
For some this has now reverted to a conspiratorial theory: "invisible forces" are restraining studies that are not politically correct; academics are also fearful of telling the "truth" which might impair their professional reputations.
All this is claimed to be widely known by professionals, but withheld for fear. This is the same excuse that all conspiracy fanataics play: "If you only knew what I know, you would be forced to agree with my theory."
This is is the opposite of true academics who wish to present their findings for peer review. But, a MDiv. has no standing in psychology circles, so attempts to impress smaller audiences is the only publicity available.
But all the "scientific, unpublished studies" does not have any affect on the constitutionality of same sex marriage, and is only a red herring thrown out to see where it lands.
Err, apparently I clicked post twice. Marvelous. Any moderators around? 0:)
Ed
I am curious about who you would class as an expert in the field? Being the product of secular education in social science I am willing to admit there is political, social, and economic pressure put on academics, but I would not say that large amounts of research are being 'hidden'. Who would you suggest people read on marriage in general and same-sex marraige in particular in order to be in a position to hold an informed discussion? I read a fair bit – in fact it seemed excessive at the time – as an undergraduate in these areas, but found little to support conservative conclusions. It isn't an area I have pursued since, so my question is genuine.
I have nothing to add to this conversation, but I love that it is taking place!! Keep going, you two 🙂
Perhaps we should step back and discuss [not necessarily in this space] this issue under two headings:
1) How and what should Christians think about marriage? The Bible would seem to be the obvious place to start, although I would hope we would move to include a whole lot more (including Ellen White).
2) What sort of society do we want to build, and how does marriage fit into that? In a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-faith society, that discussion is not going to be easy, and any Christian who believes it will, should be, or can be based on the Bible as an authoritative text is just not living in reality.
The discussion within the SDA church on our response to same-sex marriage should include both issues – and I don't believe Kendra's blog is out of place in that context. Our discussion with the wider community, while based to a degree on what we conclude in our first part of the discussion, has to be based solely on our second part of the discussion. We can, and should, live our marriages based on what we believe God has revealed to us. But our taking part in discussing what legal rules should govern everyone's marriages has to be based on secular reasoning and secular concerns, and based in secular terms of harm and benefit, not religious terms of sin and righteousness. While we confuse the two, we will just continue to confuse ourselves and others.
Well, trying to do my part for #1 in a few weeks with another follow-up on marriage and sexuality in the church… stay tuned!
Kendra, I appreciate your attempts at understanding U.S. Constitutional history and law. As someone who wrote his 402-page graduate thesis/dissertation on "Sandra Day O'Connor's Judicial Philosophy on the Role of Religion in Public Life," and as someone whose specialty is specifically in understanding the Constitutional Founders' intentions (which is nearly impossible to nail down in every respect), I take exception to a few things in the overall tenor of your article(s).
The first has to do with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To be accurate and not naively simplistic, the Establishment Clause was intended by the Founders to do far more than just prevent the establishment of a national church or denomination. You are right to suggest that there is an inherent check and balance in the very language of the religion clauses of the First Amendment — namely with the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. However, as Seventh-day Adventists we would be opposed to government sponsorship of prayer in public schools, as well as direct funding of private and religious institutions in which principles of governmental neutrality are overtly violated. That may seem like a small oversight, but it is actually a huge one when understood in the following light of the way they understood church-state separation.
The more important and related point I wanted to address is your idea that the church is supposed to refrain from influencing the government to act according to its morals. Force and influence are two different things, two different actions based on two different concepts and accompanied behaviors. In the Catholic model of understanding government's role, both tables of the Moral Decalogue are to be enforced by the civil magistrate. This includes the first table that involve acts of sacred worship and vows of loyalty and devotion to God. In the Protestant theological paradigm, as well as a legal construct for legal guidance only (and not necessarily literally applied in Talibanic or Puritanic measures), the first table is not the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate, but the second table is. This is the very model that Roger Williams, Isaac Backus, John Leland, and later Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, as well as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and the like understood in their legal and constitutional framework of formulating the emergent principle of church-state separation.
The second table cannot be literally applied in every sense. For example, it is not the role of the civil government to "Gustapo-like" investigate everyone's marriage to see if any hanky panky is going on in order to determine whether adultery is taking place, or to determine if someone is coveting, or not honoring their father and mother, etc. No, of course not.
However, the last six commandments explicitly lay out a framework in which we are to love one another — man's relationship with man, which if not governed by the civil magistrate with certain laws in civil society, chaos would ensue and envelop mankind. This includes legal punishments for murder and stealing/theft, and lying if it involves being an accessory to the crime, etc. In addition, the government has certain regulatory and referee powers when it comes to the commandments involving covetousness, adultery and marriage. Think Enron, banking scandals, etc. Think divorce court, child custody disputes and rulings. Think marriage licensing, etc.
When it comes to the fifth commandment, it does not say "Honor thy father and thy father, that thy days may be long in the land the Lord thy God giveth thee." Or "Honor thy mother and thy mother…" And for a very good reason. The family is the foundation of all civil society and it is described in terms of one man and one woman, male and female, "father and mother," dating back to the creation and God's intent for civil society — a universal principle or natural law, if you will.
When it comes to the second table, Thomas Jefferson specifically implored in a letter to a James Fishback in 1809 that this second table is what sustains the morals of all healthy societies and was ordained by God to be this way. It was also the understanding of early American Baptists such as Roger Williams that this second table of the law of God represented the legitimate demands of the people on the civil magistrate — to exercise such civil-moral restraints on society for the good of society. This was also the expressed sentiments of Jefferson, who also went on to deplore those governments present, and throughout history, who sought to use the first table to force the doctrines of the most powerful denominations or churches on civil society. And unfortunately, this often included every aspect of the second table in the Catholic Church's notorious Holy Roman Empire era.
So to argue that the Founders' did not intend religious peoples, or religious institutions, to be involved in questions involving morality, and soliciting their fellow man and the government(s) they were under, or to have a voice, politically or otherwise, is simply false. That would be undemocratic. Everyone has influence and should have influence. Even the IRS does not punish pastors or parishioners for speaking out on particular political "issues" from the pulpit, morally based or not. When they have, they have been systematically and consistently overruled by judges and courts. They only go after them when they advocate for a specific candidate by name in opposition to another, which is appropriate to regulate and punish.
It is true that it is not the role of the church to insist that their doctrines become the law of the land and that the state follow the dictates of the church. But when the citizenry as a whole, in a democratic process, put forward their wishes in the ballot boxes with their votes, then anything can happen, unless of course the Establishment Clause is violated when acts of worship, loyalty and devotion involving the first table are involved. The Courts have been quite careful to turn back the will of the masses in such instances, which are becoming frightingly more frequent.
You need to read my article in the Gleaner to understand more simply, and yet more fully, what I am writing here in response: http://www.gleaneronline.org/106/5/42186.html. Blessings to you.
Thank you very much, Greg, for this most enlightening comment. As John Adams reminded us, "facts are stubborn things." And the temptation to seek a foundation for contemporary secular political and jurisprudential philosophy in our nation's founding values and beliefs is strewn with factual and logical land mines which are of no concern to those who sentiments are too pure and righteous to be informed by history or the law of unintended consequences. Would that there truly had been an honest attempt, by enablers of those who would confine religion-based morality in churches and synagogues, to understand the history of U.S. Constitutional formation and jurisprudence!
Hi, Greg, Thanks so much for stopping by to comment. I very much appreciate reading your thoughts and also the Gleaner article you posted. It's great to have a perspective from someone who works in the religious liberty department of the organized church!
Greg said, "However, as Seventh-day Adventists we would be opposed to government sponsorship of prayer in public schools, as well as direct funding of private and religious institutions in which principles of governmental neutrality are overtly violated."
I did address this point (briefly) in my original article, but perhaps you came directly to this article and did not read that one: https://atoday.org/article/1173/columns/perry-kendra/the-sabbath-and-same-sex-marriage
I'm very interested in the "two table" model. I have not heard of this before.
My model for this article rises largely from the Federalist Papers, No. 51 in particular, which notes that one of the best means of protecting minority rights against abuse by the majority is "by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable." I had rather assumed that this was part of the Adventist church's understanding as well and one of the reasons it supported religious liberty so strongly even for those with beliefs that seem directly contrary to ours.
I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this.
Typing from my smart phone. Yes, Federalist 51 by Madison regarding “factions” is prescient to the issue you bring up. In fact, it was also Madison who argued in 1789 during the First Congress that it was not Congress that he feared so much, or the Executive and Court branches of federal and state governments, but rather the fickle will of the people acting as a majority against minorities. If you need his exact speech during his oral argument for a Bill of Rights, I can supply it.
The problem comes when you understand the cultural and civil-religious balancing standards that Madison and the Constitutional Founders brought to bear in their understanding of social mores and the correlating application to constitutional law. They fused both their newly adopted enlightened deist leanings with their Christian cultural upbringing and all the good modular values that that implies, including a basic framework of the “Two Tables” principle for understanding and applying the proper roles (Protestant roles) of church and state. They sought with the Free Exercise clause to guard against the slippery slope toward licentiousness and godlessness (i.e., immorality as a licensed right to overtly or benignly or unwittingly harming others — their neighbor). This modeled the second table. The Establishment clause checked the slippery slope toward a return to the Dark Ages and church dominance over the state by forcing acts of worship and doctrinal matters involving the first table.
The Catholic model employs both tables and employs the state to literally enforce both. The Protestant model only vaguely uses the second table in a non-literal sense for constitution-making and for understanding and applying proper church-state roles in governing civil society. The strictly secular-humanist and atheist model does away with any governing moral standard altogether.
Greg said, "The Protestant model only vaguely uses the second table in a non-literal sense for constitution-making and for understanding and applying proper church-state roles in governing civil society."
I think this is a very important point. There are no civil penalties for adultery, children born out of wedlock, and divorce is not illegal (neither is there a very high burden of proof for anyone who wants to get a divorce). So while the second table may have originally formed the basic foundation for this, it is only very very loosely. The primary deciding factor still seems to be infringement on the rights of another.
I tend to agree with Kevin that these laws can also be justified without ANY appeal to religion at all, based only on infringement on the rights of another person. I question somewhat the assertion that the secular-humanist view eliminates any governing moral standard. And, if the primary deciding factor is infrigement on the rights of another, what rights of another are infringed if same-sex couples marry?
Greg also said, "When it comes to the fifth commandment, it does not say 'Honor thy father and thy father, that thy days may be long in the land the Lord thy God giveth thee.' Or 'Honor thy mother and thy mother…' And for a very good reason. The family is the foundation of all civil society and it is described in terms of one man and one woman, male and female, "father and mother," dating back to the creation and God's intent for civil society — a universal principle or natural law, if you will."
Even assuming the second table model is correct, this seems like a VERY tangential reading of the fifth commandment — sort of like saying that the fourth commandment is "about" owning livestock.
"Politics and Religion: A Discussion of Realities and Dangers" by Gregory W. Hamilton: http://www.gleaneronline.org/106/5/42186.html
Is it not possible to defend laws based on the second table without any appeal to religion at all? Whether as laws or as guiding prinicpals, they seem to be pretty common to most societies. As a non-American I do not understand the veneration of the US constituion or the appeal to what its authors intended. Most of us outside the US view our constituions as practical documents, to be interpreted in the light of current views and kept or changed as they prove useful or not. I also don't understand why literalism is so important in interpretign the US constitution or the Bible. It seems to one of those American oddities that the rest of us just don't get.
Kevin, I can't speak for many others, but I see many revisionist historians using the Founding Fathers in very disturbing ways to promote unity of church and state and the US as a Christian nation. This is one reason I am interested in being clear on the actual intent of the FF.
For example, many people want to attribute the phrase "In God We Trust" on our coins or the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to the FF when in fact they were added in the mid-20th century.
I think it's similar to the way I, as an Adventist, am interested in understanding what the Bible actually says about Sabbath-keeping. Many people who don't look at what it actually says misbelieve that it contains a command to keep Sunday.
Kendra,
Your essay ties same sex marriage with sabbath, yet marriage has dominated the conversation as a very controversial topic. Your comment:
"I, as an Adventist, am interested in understanding what the Bible actually says about Sabbath-keeping. Many people who don't look at what it actually says misbelieve that it contains a command to keep Sunday."
Could you explain how many people misbelieve that it is a command to keep Sunday? You preface your remark, speaking as an Adventist. Do you know many Adventists who feel it is a command to observe Sunday? Or are you speaking of the rest of the Christian world?
Actually, most Adventists have never fully investigated the reason that Sabbath observance is the most important and distinctive belief in Adventism: they simply believe the proof texts taught by teachers and preachers; accompanied with the interpretation that not keeping "all the commandments" (read-fourth), will send them to a final barbecue.
We should probably spend more time investigating "why" of sabbath than same sex marriage, as it is not in the Decalogue, nor in the FBs, but a recent phenomenon for which the church was unprepared to answer.
Hi, Elaine,
Yes, I was referring to the way many other Christians misbelieve that the New Testament contains a command to venerate Sunday in place of the seventh day. In my experience, many of them have not actually looked at the biblical evidence for their belief.
In contrast, I have spent quite a bit of time and personal effort studying the Sabbath and Sabbath observance throughout the Bible. I believe that it is one of the two institutions established by God in a perfect world before sin (marriage, in fact, is the other), and is therefore a foundational practice in our walk with God.
I have written about the reasons I keep the Sabbath in a previous column: https://atoday.org/article/319/columns/perry-kendra/2010/why-i-keep-the-sabbath
In brief, it embodies to me the relationship that God wishes to have with his Creation. Sin has disrupted that relationship. Properly understood and practiced, the Sabbath helps to restore our right relationships to God, ourselves, each other, and the rest of Creation.
A book I have recently started reading which seems to capture Sabbath in a similar light to the way I understand it (though I haven't finished it yet) is The Lost Meaning of the Seventh Day by Sigve Tonstad.
Sabbath is another one of those areas where I would prefer God to have been more explicit. There is not a single verse in the NT about gentile Christians keeping Sabbath, and not a single clear verse to say that they should or shouldn't. The earliest writings after the NT seem to be anti-Sabbath (although I wonder if we are reading them correctly), yet the silence of both the NT and the earlier Fathers on any controversy over the Sabbath is incomprehensible given the outcry over giving up circumcision. Sometimes I wonder if we have been as prone to seeing what we want to see as our 'opponents' are.
If you want a good book to read after Tonstad (also on my list of books to read) I would recommend one by Dan Allender with the creative title of "sabbath". He does a good job of putting the focus on keeping the Sabbath withotu fussing over the day.
I find it interesting putting together gay marriage and Sabbath-keeping. Whether the laws are changed or not on same-sex marriage won't affect me personally, as I am happy with the marriage I have – or, more specifically, the person I am married to. I have never given any thought to marrying another woman or man, and I think I would choose not to seek another one if my wife died or finally ran out of patience with me completely. Whether the Sabbath command is still binding on all, or merely an option won't change my Sabbath-keeping. I find it too valuable to give it up simply because I discovered it wasn't required. I sometimes wonder whether we would find Sabbath-keeping (and tithing, and a few other things) more fulfilling if we looked at them as spiritual disciplines that we do because they bring a richness to our lives rather than as something we must do to earn salvation or approval from others. I can see similarities with marriage there. To me, being required to worship on Sunday would not be a bad thing, as long as I can keep Sabbath. I do not see allowing others to worship on Sunday and not keeping the Sabbath detracts from my Sabbath keeping. I see same-sex marriage in the same way. It will not take anything from my marriage. The 'success' of my Sabbath-keeping does not depend on others keeping the Sabbath but on what I do with and on the Sabbath. The 'success' of my marriage seems (mainly from a process of trial and error on my part) to depend on what I do with and in my marriage, not what others do or who they do it with. If others can find God and enjoy him by owrshipping on Sunday, I have no intention of stopping them. If others can find happiness in marriage to someone of the same sex, or opposite sex, why should I stop them? I don't have to approve of all their choices, nor make the same choices, but I can choose to allow them to make the same attempt I do to find some degree of happiness.
Kendra,
I have also spent many hours studying the Bible and the history of sabbath, and read many books on Christianity. I have read Tonstad's book; I have a very thick folder of historical documents on Sabbath and several SDA theologians. Currently, I am reading The Sabbath Complete and the Ascendancy of First-Day Worship, the most thoroughly documented of any of the previous books. In addition, my M.A. thesis was a history of the early Christian church through the fourth century.
This has all compelled me to recognize that sabbath was the major identifying mark of Judaism, along with circumcision as no non-Jew was allowed to observe the Law given to the Israelites unless they had first been circumcised (Ex.l2:48) and it was part of the covenant God made with the Israelites, not with their forefathers. The two signs of the covenant were circumcision (given to Abraham) and sabbath which was given at Sinai and the Law, including sabbath was not given until then. There is no record of God giving sabbath to Adam nor is there any account of it being observed until Sinai. The Fourth Commandment recalls Creation, but also of delivery from Egypt.
Its "proper observance and practice" is only outlined in the OT and no Christian today is able to obey those: not lighting a fire; not walking more "than a day's journey"; rest and staying in one's tent and not working; only some of the multiple rules given about sabbath.
There is no doubt that individuals gain a blessing from its observance; millions of Christians through the centuries have also gained blessing from observing the first day of the week which they often called "sabbath." But Christians were never given the seventh, or any day to observe as holy: there is no Christian Sabbath, Sabbath is a uniquely Jewish law given to them exclusively. None of the pagan cultures around the Israelites were ever given the sabbath; had they wanted to be adopted into the Jewish family circumcision was required and then introduction into all the many cleanness and dietary laws and more.
The first day gradually became a day of celebration for Christians; not as a replacement for sabbath but in celebration of the Resurrection–without that one event there would be no Christians and no Christianity, period. That is indisputable. Along with Pentecost, it was the birthday of Christianity. The Jews rejected the Messiah; the Jews and pagans who accepted became a new religious movement, no longer Judaism.
Strangely, for most of SDA history, Easter was essentially ignored–for fear of being too "Catholic" and giving recognition of the major event on the first day!
Sabbath has a special history for Jews: it is THEIR day for practicing and Orthodox Jews. Sabbath fades from Christian history until it was revived by a few small and scattered groups and Seventh-day Baptists where Adventists accepted it.
Should Christians base their doctrines on Judaic Law or the NT where Christianity began with Paul and the apostles?
I don't really buy the whole notion that God did things one way for the patriarchs and another way for the Israelites and a third way for the Christians.
I see God's law (LOVE) as the foundation of his government and the universe — sort of like the law of gravity. He set up the world to work that way. We chose to try to do things a different way, and immediately God put the plan of salvation into effect. But God still told his people the way to live that would keep them in harmony with his great law of love. He promised them a Savior that would live and die to restore the relationship of love that sin had disrupted.
Although these laws are not explicitly stated until the Israelites (because they had been so lost and degraded in slavery that they needed explicit instruction — sort of Remedial Love 101), we see throughout Genesis and the first part of Exodus prior to the giving of the Mosaic law that God's principles of love (love God; love your neighbor) were known and followed by his people, as were practices that pointed forward to the coming Messiah.
The story of salvation is one. The Bible is one. The law of love is one. And Sabbath was, is, and will always be, a beautiful embodiment of that.
One of the difficulties that plagues this discussion is the insistence on assuming, without argument, that because LGBTs are human beings with basic natural rights, their private behaviors and preferences are basic human rights. Of course if that is a valid assumption, there is no point in further discussion. Invoking the biological, teleological, anthropological, and sociological factors embedded in cross-cultural taboos, preserved by institutions of family, religion, and state over thousands of years, is derided, in the rhetorical klieg lights of human rights, as religious bigotry and ignorance.
But the truth is that it is only in the past couple of decades that these so-called rights have been discovered and forced on society. Only forty years ago, the Bible of psychotherapy – DSM – defined homosexuality as a mental disorder. It is the repudiation of cultural norms and traditional moral authority, not increased knowledge that has led "alternative sexual lifestyle" militants to force normalization of their values on the legal and institutional frameworks of society.
The reality is that public policy in a democratic society is inextricably intertwined with how that society perceives the nature of its members as humans, and how it views ultimate reality. And these perceptions are determined by one's most deeply held values- i.e., religion. Schizophrenically pretending that there is some pristine secular realm in which these questions related to sexuality, preocreation, family, and extended family can be raised and resolved is self-delusional, and cannot be honestly entertained by those who wish to live in Realville.
But wouldn't you also agree that having this discussion in a multi-faith culture (which I realise the US is to a lesser extent than some other places) makes basing an argument on what a particular text says somewhat difficult? If the majority of citizens give the Bible no credence as an authority – which is true in most of Western Europe and Australasia – then what is the point of appealing to what it says ? Even including Jews and Muslims and accepting what their Scriptures have in common still runs into the problem that they are a minority and there are often large groups within those religions who do not read the scriptures in traditional ways. When the majority of the population is secular (although often claiming some sort of nebulous 'spirituality') how do you introduce religious arguments without being offensive? And most people do find 'you have to listen to the Bible because it is the TRUTH' somewhat offensive. I am not opposed to religious ideas being part of the public discourse – I would like to see it – but it needs to be done in a way that does not make Christians look like fools even to ohher Christians, and does not leave those who follow other religions or none feeling under threat. The way that religious ideas are introduced now is divisive rather than helpful.
Kevin, I very much appreciate your style of dialogue. You seem to acknowledge that convictions grounded in religious beliefs and sacred texts play not only a legitimate, but a necessary, role in the formulation and enforcement of public policies where "We The People" includes people of faith. But you question whether sacred texts which the majority of citizens do not hold to be authoritative should be used by minorities to influence the public debate. I happen to think that the vast majority of Americans, and probably the majority of the Western world, would agree that the Bible has much material that is of authoritative value. So I have a hard time with an all or nothing approach to the Bible as authority.
I agree that it is counterproductive to use sacred texts as fundamentalist hammers in any context. But if the goal of conservative Christians is to avoid the appearance of foolishness in the political arena, we might as well stay out altogether. And even that won't help, as long as we are a force resisting the current of popular culture pulling us towards the falls. I do not think there is much that Christians can do about having their values ridiculed and made to appear foolish by the culture presided over by the entertainment industry, mainstream media, and academia.
Were it not for the threat that the LGBT legislative agenda poses to freedom of religion, I would be opposed to the Adventist Church, qua institution, taking a position on those political issues. However, I think it is not only probable, but inevitable, that as the LGBT agenda advances as a militant, in-your-face assault on cultural norms, freedom of conscience will be forced to yield to the shrill moral hectoring of the "new order." So if SDAs really want to be on the side of religious freedom, the handwriting on the wall would favor opposing same sex marriage.
As a religious individual, with political values proudly and inextricably intertwined with my faith, I am deeply offended by the notion that my society should not be permitted to legally impose limitations and incentives on behaviors which flow from choices that it believes are inimical to, or in furtherance of, the public interest. The marketplace of ideas may include Marxist dogmas, Koranic verse, or Biblical injunctions. It is up to the polis, hopefully guided by reason, experience, and loyalty to the political community, to peacefully advocate for whatever policies are deemed best. And as a person of faith, I find it highly ironic that Kendra, also a person of faith, seems to be arguing, on the basis of religion, that religiously based moral values contrary to her own should not be used to define a term in a way that, by her own admission, is of great consequence to the moral fabric of society.
Were it not for the threat that the LGBT legislative agenda poses to freedom of religion, I would be opposed to the Adventist Church, qua institution, taking a position on those political issues. However, I think it is not only probable, but inevitable, that as the LGBT agenda advances as a militant, in-your-face assault on cultural norms, freedom of conscience will be forced to yield to the shrill moral hectoring of the "new order." So if SDAs really want to be on the side of religious freedom, the handwriting on the wall would favor opposing same sex marriage.
Ah, the old gay-newlyweds-will-form-mobs-and-burn-down-our-churches argument. We've been down that road… oh gosh, how many times now in just this thread alone?
If gays are allowed to marry, precisely in what way will, quote, "freedom of conscience. . .be forced to yield. . ."? Adventist pastors could still decline to officiate marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples, just as they do today, right now, as I type this. How is our quest for equality a "militant, in-your-face assault" on your culture and values?
Hint: Your stated position is absurd. Even as a profoundly gay man, I wouldn't be caught dead in the almost imperceptibly ethereal veil adorning your bigotry.
As a religious individual, with political values proudly and inextricably intertwined with my faith, I am deeply offended by the notion that my society should not be permitted to legally impose limitations and incentives on behaviors which flow from choices that it believes are inimical to, or in furtherance of, the public interest.
As an atheist individual, with political values proudly and inextricably intertwined with my lack of faith, I am deeply offended by the notion that my society should not be permitted to legally limit the imposition of religious doctrine on that portion of society which does not believe in it.
Also, if you'd be so kind, I'd like you to read the following sentence aloud several times to yourself, slowly and as accurately as possible: Sexual orientation is not a choice.
The issue here, Tim, isn't whether sexual orientation is a choice. The conclusion that it is not a choice does not yield a particular moral imperative regarding the homosexual lifestyle, any more than the reality that men are by nature promiscuous yields a moral imperative to normalize promiscuity and adultery.
You ask how the LGBT agenda is a miltant in-your-face assault on culture and values. Under California law, physicians who perform in vitro fertilization cannot practice medicine in that subspecialty unless they offer that service to homosexual couples, notwithstanding the physician's religious beliefs. A landlord with religious objections to homosexual behavior cannot refuse to rent to a homosexual couple under California law. Massachusetts law drove Catholic Charities out of the adoption business in that state because the organization refused, on relgious grounds, to place children with same sex partners. Religious hospitals are being forced, as a conditon of licensing, to write policies require extensive training of all staff, and giving special consideration to LGBT issues.
Why are you so confident that clergy will be allowed, with the advance of the LGBT agenda, to refuse the same rites to same sex couples that they provide to others? If, as Elaine says, Constitutional rights trump religious freedom in the courts, rest assured that clergy will not be able to discriminate against homosexuality in providing their services, any more than physicians or landlords can now discriminate. Thirty years ago you would have said it was preposterous to suggest that, in 2012, homosexuals would be labeling, as religious bigots, those of us who believe that religious liberty considerations do not weigh in favor of legalization of same sex marriage.
Nothing is truly equal in this world! If inequality equals injustice, then surely our Creator is the most unjust tyrant in the cosmos. Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are not, never have been, and never will be "equal" any more than incestuous relationships can be "equal" or single parent homes can be "equal." The quest for normalization of what culture regards as abnormal is most certainly an assault on cultural norms and values. The quest for equality is not necessarily bad; nor is it per se good. Some kinds of inequality are in fact unjust. Sometimes culture does need to be confronted. But denying that same sex marriage is an assault on cultural norms and values makes its advocates appear dishonest, and ignores the reality of the culture wars that have been waged in over 30 states which define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.
Nathan,
First, I appreciate your willingness to engage — that seems to be spotty around here, and to see it is refreshing. I'm going to cite most of your post below, and while I usually reserve that level of attention for my seek-and-destroy sorties, that's not my intent here — rather, I think you make several good points (many of which, naturally, I'm going to disagree with in part or in whole) and I don't want them to be lost.
The issue here, Tim, isn't whether sexual orientation is a choice. The conclusion that it is not a choice does not yield a particular moral imperative regarding the homosexual lifestyle, any more than the reality that men are by nature promiscuous yields a moral imperative to normalize promiscuity and adultery.
I recognize that I seem to be the odd man out with respect to the importance of the choice argument. Your point is noted, but only insofar as you're reducing the "homosexual lifestyle" to nothing more complicated than a variation on normative human behaviors, as though it were merely equitable to, as you put forth as an example, promiscuity or adultery (a character trait and an active behavioral choice respectively). When one views homosexuals and their sexuality in this casual light, it dismisses our very fundamental desire for companionship, love (both physical and emotional) and the deep, long-lasting human relationships in which these things are experienced and expressed. Our fundamenal needs are precisely the same as that of any heterosexual, and understanding that we have no choice but to seek them in members of the same sex is, as I've previously asserted, critical to framing the issue properly. If we conclude that it's not a choice — that is, that we *could* choose to meet these needs, if we so desired, with members of the opposite sex just like anybody else, then denying homosexuals the same validity and consecration to their relationships becomes no more inequitable than, say, denying the sale of alcohol to those under 21, and it reduces our cries for equality to nothing more meaningful than the cries of those under 18 who desire to lower the drinking age. I'm no genius with analogies, but I hope that at least sheds some light on my position. If we need to simply agree to disagree, I won't harp on it further.
You ask how the LGBT agenda is a miltant in-your-face assault on culture and values. Under California law, physicians who perform in vitro fertilization cannot practice medicine in that subspecialty unless they offer that service to homosexual couples, notwithstanding the physician's religious beliefs. A landlord with religious objections to homosexual behavior cannot refuse to rent to a homosexual couple under California law. Massachusetts law drove Catholic Charities out of the adoption business in that state because the organization refused, on relgious grounds, to place children with same sex partners. Religious hospitals are being forced, as a conditon of licensing, to write policies require extensive training of all staff, and giving special consideration to LGBT issues.
As an ardent Adventist through my mid-20's (I'm 32 now), let me be very clear in saying that I have absolutely no desire to infringe one iota on the rights of the religious, no matter the denomination and no matter how utterly absurd I consider the belief system to be. Further, although many of us will be the first to tell you loudly and clearly how much we detest conservative organized religion, I'm not aware of single soul who'd genuinely like to see the Constitution kicked in the sand by way of legislating away freedom of religious expression.
However, fundamental to the Constitution is the protection it affords the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Let's say I owned a store and had religious reasons to believe, for the sake of argument, that women shouldn't be making purchases without a man present, and my single female customer leaves. She goes to the store across the street, where she finds that the owner doesn't believe it's correct to sell to women at all, so she calls her husband and goes to yet a third store. There, she finds that the owner has moral objections to men to shave their facial hair, in violation of Leviticus, and he simply ejects them outright. I need not go on, as I'm sure the slippery slope is obvious. We have protected classes for a reason, and I believe as time goes on, this issue will be increasingly resolved by way of recognition of an LGBT class. Consider for a moment that you may take issue with the examples you provide in large part because they're beliefs that you yourself hold (I assume).
Why are you so confident that clergy will be allowed, with the advance of the LGBT agenda, to refuse the same rites to same sex couples that they provide to others? If, as Elaine says, Constitutional rights trump religious freedom in the courts, rest assured that clergy will not be able to discriminate against homosexuality in providing their services, any more than physicians or landlords can now discriminate.
I'm not necessarily confident of that, and I share your concern though I disagree with your conclusion that clergy would somehow be suddenly unable to decide for themselves which marriages they choose to officiate and on what grounds, as they do freely at present. In order to protect against that possibility, in the event that same-sex marriage becomes recognized at the federal level (or even in additional states), I'm in favor of the inclusion of an explicit clause exempting clergy from any mandate to officiate same-sex weddings. To be frank, though, while your concern is noted and certainly valid, I see this as a relative non-issue, since my understanding is that clergy at present have complete freedom to decline to officiate a wedding for any reason whatsoever at their discretion. I don't expect that to change and I see little reason to fear that it would.
Thirty years ago you would have said it was preposterous to suggest that, in 2012, homosexuals would be labeling, as religious bigots, those of us who believe that religious liberty considerations do not weigh in favor of legalization of same sex marriage.
No, 30 years ago I probably wouldn't have, but now that push has come to shove, please don't take it personally when I say we have a lot of very good reasons for labeling people as religious bigots. In the span of four short weeks, we've had a Christian pastor advocate that parents beat their effeminate children, a pastor in North Carolina suggest we be rounded up and put behind electrified fences until we die off, and just a few days ago, a pastor in Kansas who boldly suggested that the United States government should conduct mass executions of homosexuals. In each of these cases — I say again for emphasis, in each and every one of these cases without exception whatsoever — their rationale has been purely "because the Bible says so." I'm not sure what your definition of bigotry is, but I suspect it's in line with mine.
Why has the Adventist church been silent in the face of these very public hatred? Why the silence? When I see no support coming from the church that I once loved, what am I to conclude? The reasonable person would consider that perhaps those beliefs are shared, in part or in whole, by more Christians than are comfortable speaking out. So you'll have to excuse us if you occasionally get lumped, whether inappropriately or otherwise, into the pen with the overt, outspoken bigots. If it doesn't apply, either say something or try in silence not to take it personally. Despite the emotions running high on all sides, most of us are reasonable enough to differentiate between religious bigots and the rational and reasonable, gentle people who hold religious beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.
Nothing is truly equal in this world! If inequality equals injustice, then surely our Creator is the most unjust tyrant in the cosmos.
Hey, you said it, not me. *grin*
Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are not, never have been, and never will be "equal" any more than incestuous relationships can be "equal" or single parent homes can be "equal." The quest for normalization of what culture regards as abnormal is most certainly an assault on cultural norms and values. The quest for equality is not necessarily bad; nor is it per se good. Some kinds of inequality are in fact unjust. Sometimes culture does need to be confronted. But denying that same sex marriage is an assault on cultural norms and values makes its advocates appear dishonest, and ignores the reality of the culture wars that have been waged in over 30 states which define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.
I recognize that possibility, and your point is well-taken. Taking your example of single-parent homes (I'm dismissing your example of incestuous relationships, since that's an entirely different animal in which I see no relation to the rest of your argument), I think the right to enter into same-sex marriages and the notion of same-sex couples raising children are two distinct issues with their own distinct sets of questions and answers. I don't claim to have those answers or even necessarily know which questions are the most appropriate to be asking, but since you brought it up, let me share with you what I *do* know.
When interracial marriage was the hot topic, the same arguments were made that we're seeing today: children will grow up confused, they'll identify with one parent but not the other, they'll be mocked by their peers for belonging to any one particular racial identity, et cetera ad nauseum. What we found, of course, was that none of these assertions had legs. So while "different," and even not necessarily "equal" in the most basic sense, children raised in interracial homes suffered no developmental or social detriment or deficiency, and notions of equality and detriment/deficiency are two very different things. Likewise, while there have been some legitimate concerns raised about methodology in the conduct of studying children raised by same-sex couples, there have been no studies that I'm aware of (and for what it's worth, I do keep up on these things) that have concluded any detriment whatsoever to the personal or social development of these children. Further, while it's commonly asserted by the laity that children in same-sex homes are more likely to end up non-heterosexual themselves, this is not the case — in fact, the differences in the numbers of children who come to identify as non-heterosexual are not significantly different than those raised by heterosexual couples. The only difference that has been noted in the literature is that while only ~17-20% of children raised by heterosexual couples self-report having entertained thoughts that they may be homosexual, roughly 60% of children self-report the same when raised by same-sex couples. It's important to note that this has no apparent statistically significant correlation with their eventual self-reported sexual orientation.
But to circle back to your broader points about inherent inequality, I largely agree with the latter half of your paragraph with the notable exception of your characterization of our push for equality — or something more closely resembling equality insofar as such a thing is possible — as an "assault" is curious to me. By your logic, then, the push for granting women the right to vote was an "assault" on cultural norms and values. Ending slavery was an "assault" on cultural norms and values, as was the push for racial equality, women's rights, etc throughout American history. Your use of the word isn't wrong by definition, but I think you'd agree that use of that word in lieu of dozens of more neutrally charged words implies a value judgment — one that I'd consider to be a mischaracterization of the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish.
Tim,
I can appreciate your candidness it terms of how you see / address Nathan's stated points and concerns, but my question to you is this… can you speak for the LGBT community in terms of the issues outlined by Nathan? You may not be able to see, nor believe that the stated scenarios will ever come to light / reality? If same sex marriage becomes a legal right under Federal law by the ruling of the judiciary, what makes you think that the march / fight to have the govenment force any and all decenters of the LGBT lifestyle / agenda to consede their conscious / moral / religous framework and yield to the wishes of the LGBT community? Again, this may not be your or anybody you know, but how can you say that it will not happen?
Laffal,
Your questions either indicate fear or some conspiracy of the LGBT to force you and your conscience to yield to their wishes. And no, no one will say that anything is impossible in the future. But to even verbalize (in seriousness?) that your moral framework will be the state's to change is really off the chart. When has that ever happened in the U.S. history? Actions, not thoughts can be ruled by law.
Yesterday, with the courts ruling on DOMA this is fast becoming a moot point. Plus, laws have been written to prevent a church or clergy from performing marriages of the same sex if they choose not to. Whose rights are being ignored? The right to believe has never been a function of law in the U.S. One can believe in the Spaghetti Monster and the government has no interest. The government also, has not the least interest in persuading anyone's belief on marriage; but they do have a duty to give all citizens equal rights of actions before the law.
Elaine,
It's not about fear or conspiracy. I was only asking questions specifically addressing the issues brought out by Nathan. But to your point, it doesn't matter whether or not these kind of things have happened before here in the US. What matters is will the LGBT agenda be satisfied with the simple right to marriage? Or will they continue to march on…
I know the world as we know it has changed more in your lifetime then how many generations before yours. I would dare say that many of those changes would have never been expected, especially in the last 20 years or so.
We will just have to wait and see…
fal" alluding to detailed knowledge of Project LGBT AGENDA in a public forum — possible Program leak. Conversation is waning and visibility is low; consequent risk to Program assessed to be low. Concern remains about possibility of Program leak — recommend coordinating with SOF technical surveillance team in an effort to identify user for further determination. Will continue to engage in an effort to draw out personal details and steer conversation away from LGBT AGENDA. Nothing follows. 201206012144Z
@Tim – CANNOT. STOP. LAUGHING. This is hilarious. 🙂
Oh boy… please disregard!!!! I had intended my last comment for a different window. Is there a way to delete comments?????????? Thank you!
laffal,
What LGBT "agenda" are you referring to? The one that I am familiar with, in fact the only one that could be called their agenda, is for their rights to choose a marriage partner of the same sex. Is there more you have in mind?
With recent pronouncements from Christian pulpits of the evils of homosexuality; and the suggestion that they be placed behind barricades so as not to pollute the rest of the "good" U.S. citizens, it may not be a proud moment for those who profess Christian values to be categorized in the same group, as it inevitably will be.
Do your Christian values include "squashing like a cockroach" a four-yr.-old boy who may seem effeminate-a "good punch to the gut"? This has been preached from Christian pulpits as was the above remarks. Hatred oozes from the pores of these "Christian" preachers, and how can you avoid being cast with them?
Also, there are millions of Christians who do not agree that same sex marriage is evil; in fact they are in favor of legalizing it. Now, what side of "Christian" are you on?
What are the bases for objecting to same-sex marriage? Fear? Because the Bible calls it sin? If someone holds positions very strongly, whether in opposition are in agreement, they should have good reasons that can be articulated. This is the thread for that to be done.
What sort of "threat" does the LGBT legislation pose to freedom of religion? There are now 10 nations that have legal same-sex marriages, and a number of U.S. states. How has that affected freedom of religion in those U.S. states? Evidence, rather than emotional fear should be given.
"I am deeply offended by the notion that my society should not be permitted to legally impose limitations on behaviors which flow from choices that it believes are inimical to, or in furtherance of the public interest."
Obviously these are deeply held, so you should be able to show what "behaviors" are inimical to the public interest. This is the proper forum to list them. However, there are many, perhaps even more deeply held beliefs of those of the Islamic faith. Is it not possible that religious beliefs may collide with constitutional rights? Consitutional rights will trump religion when presented to the courts.
BTW, those most vocal opponents of same sex marriage, are assuredly "in-your-face" too often.
Come on, Elaine! Of course hatred oozes from the pores of some Christian preachers. Hatred also oozes from the pores of non-Christian advocates of the LGBT agenda. Boycotts, intimidation, enemies lists, grafitti, J-Listing, and publishing of personal information is par for the course in the hate-filled Alinskyite world of many who side with the LGBT agenda.
You ask, "How can I avoid being cast with [kook extremists]?". Well, the truth is, if you find that distinction difficult, it is a reflection on your intelligence that is there for all to see. By the way, beware – all vegetarian SDAs. I understand Adolf Hitler advocated a vegetarian diet. How can you avoid being cast with Der Fuhrer – especially if "bright" folks like Elaine plant the idea that you should be so cast?.
I have no problem with millions of Christians who advocate same sex marriage. I do not believe they are cruel, immoral, stupid or bigoted. I simply think they are wrong, especially when they inflate their political opinions with the gas of righteousness. Do you have the same respect and tolerance for those with contrarian views? The irony is that most of those millions invoke religious principles in doing so, but argue that those who use the same moral authorities to argue the opposite are trying to establish a theocracy.
Not so! We simply feel that our voices and our conscientious beliefs should not be censored from the public debate. Conflicting opinions about the kind of society we want to encourage are healthy and characteristic of representative democracy. If we lose, we continue to work within the system to create and maintain what we believe is the best possible society on earth. If you lose…Katie bar the door.
What is divisive and destructive of freedom is the elevation of one's policy preferences to the level of absolute human rights or moral imperatives. At that point politics and religion become indistinguishable, and the seeds of hatred begin to be watered by the rhetoric of justice, human rights, or divine will, depending on your ultimate authority.
"We simply feel that our voices and our conscientious beliefs should not be censored from the public debate."
Where is that occurring? Those voices have been both loud and strident; as has the other side. Where is censorship being used? The media has certainly given either side time.
Human rights do not always equate with what is called "moral imperatives." If you are referring to Kant's Categorical Imperative there would be acceptance for either position to have equal time at both presenting the case and same sex marriage should be equally accepted as opposite sex marriage. If you respect other's wishes and desires that in no way affects yours, there should be no problem. This would remove most, but not all of the hatred, as that may not be attainable. My neighbors' married state does not affect me in any way so I feel free to give him the privilege to choose. Do you give your neighbor equal privilege to choose his marital partner? Or do you feel you have a right on some basis to object if it doesn't meet with your approval?
Elaine, you ask, "Where is consorship being used?" Are you serious? Censorship does not need to be government sponsored. Do you need specific instances of boycotts, intimidation, enemies lists, J-Listing, grafitti, etc., to persuade you that there is a concerted effort by those on the Left to shame opponents of same sex marriage into silence? If I sought to identify your anti-military position with the conduct of the Westboro Baptist Church, you would rightly feel offended, no? Could I reasonably protest that I had no intent to shame you by a pejorative comparison or to denigrate the legitimacy of your viewpoint? I don't think so.
Your embrace of the libertarian perspective is tempting, since I tend toward libertarianism more than conservatism in my politics. But I cannot let ideology trump experience in a complex society. Just as surely as individual home loans affect the shared risk pools of the financial industry, so private conduct and relationships have a ripple effect in the larger society where they are lived and conceptualized. What those ripple effects might be is largely unforeseeable. Progressives assured us that no-fault divorce would be good for parents, kids, and society; progressives assured us that free access to abortion would reduce teen pregnancies and unwanted children; progressives assured us that spending 15 trillion dollars to fight poverty would have a significant positive impact on poverty, with no negative trade-offs for the intended beneficiaries.
You, Elaine, would be the first to argue that many liberties do not rise to a Constitutionally protected status, particularly economic freedom and property rights. What we do with our lives does in fact impact not only the world around us, but succeeding generations in ways that we cannot possibly predict. Refusal to acknowledge that is naive. Once we are honest about that reality, and we recognize that all of us do in fact believe that society should have a limited right to control the behavior and privileges of its members, then we can have a mature discussion about how competing principles should be prioritized, rather than hurling empty slogans at one another as Kryptonite to disempower and nullify the sincerely held convictions of others.
It is difficult to reply when there are so many issues mentioned, like throwing dirt on the wall and then choosing which spots to clean.
We probably agree on many ideas, but saying that "all of us do in fact believe that society should have a limited right to control the behavior and privileges of its members" and THEN a mature discussion can begin is not defined. It's in the details of how much control and what behavior and privileges that some citizens want to control for others. Either be specific or there can be no discussion, as such a general observation cannot be addressed.
My position is that all behavior that is harmful to other should be limited; what privileges should be limited is far too ambiguous. Which ones are people really to give to the state? What privileges should the state limit?
Thank you, Elaine. "It is difficult…" That's all I'm really looking for – an acknowledgement that it is not easy to know in advance what the negative trade-offs will be for a given public policy. Neither you nor I can predict how same sex marriage would impact society. I see reason for grave concern. You see it as a moral imperative.
To the extent that one sees their public policy preferences in absolutist moral terms – as RIGHTS – there is no possibility of negotiation, compromise, or rational discussion. The Constitution puts religion and speech into these categories. They are sacrosanct. Ironically, when we try to put things like same sex marriage into such a category, we end up being more divisive, not less, and same sex marriage advocacy becomes de facto a religious belief. I say, let's have the discussion – by all means. But let's make the discussion possible by resisting the temptation to make same sex marriage a religious rite.
Hi, not responding in detail to the religious liberty issues regarding what the church may or may not be forced to do here, but I did want to note that it is covered in my NEXT follow-up on gays and the church (part 3!). I think it may go live next week?
You crack me up Ed. Though I sincerely appreciate your willingness to continue to engage in this discussion. I agree that the question should be what does marriage mean, and what should marriage mean. The pro same sex marriage crowd (I'm of course generalizing and speculating) likely defines marriage as a legally recognized union between two consenting adults that confers certain benefits (such as inheritance rights, tax status, hospital visitation, etc) and a relationship that implies love and commitment. They would probably answer the what marriage should mean question in the same fashion seeing, no compelling reason to limit it to people of opposite genders. You have not said how precisely you define marriage but you've mentioned it should be limited to being between men and women because you have compelling reasons to believe that this is in societies best interest. However, you refuse to share those reasons in any meaningful way beyond mentioning your personal and professional experience and saying that the research is out there but we need to find it on our own. Hardly persuave, which I believe you've acknowledged. Your other point is that throughout most of history and in most cultures marriage always involves a man and at least one woman. I find this point to be interesting, but on it's own "well, we've always done it this way" isn't the greatest reason to continue to do something. When it comes to limiting rights in this country, I think the burden of proof should be on those who seek to limit them. And yes, I've read your argument about everyone currently having the same right to marry, and while technically true, it practice it's obviously not. For instance, if inter-racial marriage was illegal, everyone would still have the exactly the same rights, anybody could marry anyone they wanted as long as they were of the same race. But this would obviously prevent a segment of people from marrying who they wished. Without a good reason for such restriction (though they had defenders at the time) such laws were unnecessarily restrictive and infringed on people's right to persue happiness.
Formal – even ritualised – same-sex unions are not as rare as some people seem to assume. But they were not marriage as we know it – lifelong exclusively monogamous commitment. But they are there, along with common law marriages, limited-time marriages, concubinage, group marriages and good old-fashioned 'shacking up' with either opposite or same sex partner/s, etc, as additions to rather than alternatives to heterosexual marriage. I don't know that as a society or as a religious group that we would want to seriously consider making any of those alternatives 'kosher' (although who knows what the future may bring), but it seems pointless to deny their existence when 10 minutes spent with Google can reveal their existence.
A couple of days and access to a good univerity electronic database to access journal articles, or even a few days spent in the ethnography section of a decent university library, would forever banish the notion there is something 'natural' or 'normal' about the 'traditional' western marriage as found in the mid-C20th. It may (or may not) be 'God-given', but it seems not to have been the form of marriage that most people have practices, nor the rationale on which most people entered marriage – not even in the Bible, surprisingly enough.
What is seemingly a new development is considering other forms of relationships as viable alternatives to heterosexual marriage rather than as something indulged in before/after/as well as heterosexual marriage. The usual reason for insisting on heterosexual marraige for everyone (whatever their person desires or what they did elsewhere) was continuation of the family/clan/nation. In today's world, that argument rings a little hollow for many.
I'm glad you're amused, Chuck.
I had hoped the obvious error of this statement would be picked up. Apparently not.
"For instance, if inter-racial marriage was illegal, everyone would still have the exactly the same rights, anybody could marry anyone they wanted as long as they were of the same race."
No, they wouldn't because the definition is "any eligible member of the opposite sex," and eligibility is defined as "majority age, currently single, mentally competent." Skin color, ethnicity, or national origin have no effect on sex, age, singleness, or mental competence.
Those so scornful of the Declaration of Independence might contemplate where we would be without its declaration that all men are created equal.
But then, given the level of debate here, we'd have people objecting that some are taller than others, some are richer than others, and other irrelevancies, as if they were gems of philosophy. Of course, the Declaration meant equal before God, and equal before the law. But I'm sure someone will pour scorn on that idea as well.
So no, I'm not going to take the time to cite and defend research in such an environment.
I think you missed my point. You're arguing that using the definition of marriage as (among other things) something between any eligible member of the opposite sex, opposing interracial marriage is wrong because race/ethnicity etc does not and should not have anything to do with eligibility to get married. I completely agree. I was simply making the point that IF interracial marriage was illegal, everyone would still have the same rights (the point you've raised several times in discussing same-sex marriage). There would be no one with more or less rights than anyone else. Though under this hypothetical, the definition of a legal marriage would be restricted to 'any eligible memeber of the opposite sex of the same race'. I think we both agree that that would be an unnecessary and unfair restriction. In opposing same sex marriage, you are arguing that the restriction limiting marriage to opposite sex individuals is necessary and fair. However you have not and apparently will not lay out a convincing argument as to why that is. And though you've invested some amount of time in this discussion (as have I, and others) you continue to come up with reasons for why you will not so much as name drop an article or book or study or website that contain the evidence that you say you're familiar with and that might actually bring people around to your point of view. I find that funny.
No, I did not miss your point.
No, making interracial marriage illegal would not be the same, for several reasons. The simplest one is that race has no bearing on the ability to form a bonded mating pair, which is the basis of monogamy. No one need bother to contest that point. Feel free to make up whatever criteria pleases you.
In the previous discussion thread I alluded to a study readily available to anyone who knows the meaning of google. It's implications are clear. But my experience here teaches me not to invest further effort. In a highly politicized field such as this one, a person looking for support for their viewpoint will find what they're looking for. No matter that some distort their underlying data, or emphasize irrelevant material. And since training and experience in the field are of no account, then one study is as good as another.
So people will simply rely on the studies that bolster their opinion, and dismiss those that don't. That is a pointless exercise.
People are so heavily emotionally invested in this topic that direct logic eludes them, making it impossible to distinguish between lightning and a lightning bug. Honest seekers will find plenty of information. In either case, my involvement with this discussion is not necessary.
Are you referring to your very vague allusion the Dutch marriage study in the comments on the previous article? Because the Google search for that turns up one result showing promiscuous behavior and TWO subsequent links showing how "statistics lie" and the research is biased.
Well, if it's two to one, obviously the two are right and the one is wrong.
Actually, on a subject like this, I'm surprised you didn't find twenty.
Well, there you go, wrong again. Just like that nuclear winter thing years ago.
My point is merely that the research you cite as authoritative (while advising us to ignore the other, biased, research) is in fact seen as biased and flawed by others. Can you explain why, in your view, the methodological flaws pointed out by critics of the Dutch marriage study are worthy of being overlooked while the flaws in theirs are not?
Additionally, is there other research you would like to mention?
If we think back to the days of the "separate but equal" doctrine, I think we could probably find any number of whites making the same argument you are making here, Ed.
"Blacks have exactly the same rights I have. I can go into restaurants; so can they. My children can go to public schools; so can theirs. I don't understand what all the uproar is about, since we all already have exactly the same rights."
No, Kendra, this argument is a canard. I lived through that time, and those arguments were not made, neither would they have been taken seriously. In fact, the arguments made for segregation are much closer to the argument for same-sex marriage.
The arguments that were made were, "They have theor own schools, their own restaurants, their own motels," and, tellingly, "they should marry their own kind." But of course there were towns where there were no motels or restaurants which would accept blacks.
And they needed and deserved, and as citizens had a right to the same restaurants, the same motels, and had exactly the same ability to form a bonded mating pair with any person of the opposite sex.
Ed,
I don’t know how old you are, but Brown v. Board of Education was decided 58 years ago; so for you to have lived through that preceding period of “separate but equal” (i.e. in the 1896-1954 time frame) is saying something.
Even if the arguments you recite had been made, how are those arguments similar to any regarding same sex marriage now?
I dispute your claim that the arguments Kendra recited were not made back then; but I agree that were not serious. Such arguments were certainly made during the struggle for equal access to public accommodations.
Actually Kendra’s paralleling of those silly arguments with yours (regarding “they have the same rights as I do”) is regretfully appropriate.
"Even if the arguments you recite had been made, how are those arguments similar to any regarding same sex marriage now?"
Well, this is interesting. Now I'm being told what I heard and what I did not. How are they similar? They are not. That's why I started the post with "No." And if you cannot tell the difference between "I can marry," and "They can marry their own kind," I cannot help you.
As I demonstrated, people did not have equal rights to the same restaurants, etc.
In this case, people have exactly the same rights to marriage. They are free to marry anyone eligible and willing person of the opposite sex and form a bonded mating pair. But they don't want to do that. That they want a new arrangement between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, but want it declared to be exactly the same. The separate-but-equal description more closely describes what same-sex marriage advocates want. They want a different arrangement with the same name.
We can debate the wisdom of such a policy. But we cannot have a coherent policy if we don't even know what it is we're doing. I'm not even saying re-defining marriage is wrong. I'm saying that if we want to do that, we should recognize that's what we're doing.
To quote Orwell one more time, "The slovenliness of our language makes it easier to think foolish thoughts." To call it "extending a right" when it is "redefining an institution" will inevitably lead to misguided policy.
Ed,
It was you, was it not, who said that “the arguments that were made [for segregation] were, ‘They have their own schools, their own restaurants, their own motels’ and, tellingly ‘they should marry their own kind,” “[were] much closer to the argument for same-sex marriage”?
But when I asked you “even if [these] arguments [that] you recite had been made, how are [they]…similar to any regarding same sex marriage now?” you then say “They are not.”
In the interests of clarity, would you please explain how they are at once “much closer to the argument for same-sex marriage,” yet not at all “similar to [the] arguments regarding same sex marriage now?”
In a highly politicized field such as this one, a person looking for support for their viewpoint will find what they're looking for. No matter that some distort their underlying data, or emphasize irrelevant material. And since training and experience in the field are of no account, then one study is as good as another.
So people will simply rely on the studies that bolster their opinion, and dismiss those that don't. That is a pointless exercise.
People are so heavily emotionally invested in this topic that direct logic eludes them, making it impossible to distinguish between lightning and a lightning bug. Honest seekers will find plenty of information. In either case, my involvement with this discussion is not necessary.
You're not incorrect about this and your point is noted, but you seem to be misunderstanding the phenomenon you describe and unnecessarily conclude that reasoned debate is therefore impossible here. That's not true.
The cognitive and attentional biases you generally describe apply universally — to you, to me, and to each and every last person here — whether somebody is a high school dropout or a respected academic and without regard to "experience in the field" (a phrase you keep using but stubbornly refuse to define more precisely). We're hard-wired to be vulnerable to confirmation biases — in this sense, there are no "honest seekers," to borrow your words. Not only do we tend to pay more attention to information that supports our beliefs and desires, but there's an inverse tendency to dismiss and ignore contradictory information. Critical to understanding this is that it's an entirely unconscious process — that is, it occurs automatically and without ever reaching the threshold of conscious awareness (subjects will almost universally self-report having reached their conclusions objectively and logically). Even more alarming, as you state, is that you can provide exactly the same information to two subjects who hold opposing beliefs only to find that each subject will conclude that the information reinforces his/her position, something that should not occur if we were truly logical creatures. The illustration often used by psychology researchers in an effort to explain these things is that of an iceberg suspended in the ocean — the visible tip of the iceberg is representative of conscious processing, and that which lies beneath the surface, by far the bulk of the iceberg, is representative of all the unconscious input and cognitive processes that actively influence our conscious cognition but about which we have no explicit awareness and therefore to which we have no access.
We are hard-wired to process information this way, and neither training, experience nor academic credentials can make that iceberg more buoyant. One of the best ways to get at these individual biases is to come together as a group in an effort to reason, to lay the ideas and arguments down in front of us, and hold each other accountable to support our contributions to the group effort (issues with groupthink phenomena notwithstanding, but I'm not going to go there).
So while nobody has a gun to your head to keep you here and you can pack your bags if you'd like, you'd be wrong to walk away assuming that you possess some inherent ability to reason that we do not. That is not correct, and if I'm to be honest, it smacks a bit of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It's hard not to have that cross one's mind when presented with the broad conclusion that "you're all incapable of reasoning like I am, so this is pointless," to paraphrase.
And I'm truly not trying to harp on you here, Ed, but in terms of emotions running high, you'll note that -you're- the one bowing out while the rest of us are still discussing despite the occasional jab or even left hook. Which is more suggestive of emotional compromise?
It'd be to everyone's benefit if you'd jump back in — even if it takes a few rounds of head-butting to make any progress, and even if we ultimately end up in disagreement.
Yes, and there are no truths, only linguistic constructs designed to impose the will of those in power. Therefore all debates are really just contending parties putting forth competing linguistic constructs to impose their will on the other. Whereas, if we embrace the otherness of others, we will stimulate our empathetic responses, and find the richness of diversity empowering our own differences.
In this process we will emulate the loving Jesus, who embraced diversity, and swallowed up contention in grace. As we do so, we will experience our own authenticity in a new way, and find in the receptiveness to the other true acceptance for ourselves. As more and more of us experience this emerging consciousness of delight, we will remember that we are all God's children, and learn to be truly loving to all our brothers and sisters, and realize that their conception of reality is just as valid as our own.
Once we recognize that extending the rite of blessing to every person prohibits us from judgmentalism toward any behaviors whatsoever, for, as God allows absolute free will, so must we recognize that every act, no matter how it offends our cultural norms, is approved by the universe. Thus again our permission to others, though not required or neccesry for them, truly liberates ourselves, and realize the timeless wisdom of Humpty Dumpty, who admonished us, "Whenever I use a word, it means exactly whatever I say it means." So far ahead of his time.
Okay, let's look at the meaning of words in the Declaration of Independence. At the time it was written, "all men are created equal" meant exactly men: males. White freeborn males, to be more precise.
The Constitution codified that, clarifying that women were not included in those who had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Slaves were worth only 3/5 of a human being for counting population and did not hold any other rights of citizenship.
We have substantially redefined the institutions of slavery, womanhood, and even adulthood since those times, revised the constitution via the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments to provide voting rights to various groups.
Now the phrase "all men are created equal" is understood to include "humanity" of all races, nationalities, religions, ethnic backgrounds, and both sexes.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Language changes over time. Sometimes it just happens organically, and sometimes we deliberately make it happen.
All those changes had significant impacts on the way society functioned. In all cases, people argued that these changes would have detrimental effects on society because they threatened the status quo. In all cases, they did ultimately affect the dominant classes (such as white males) negatively because they had to cede power, status, or money to those who had previously had less.
But I think that we would argue that ultimately they were favorable changes IN TERMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY.
so many errors, so little time.
No, it did not mean white freeborn males. At first, it meant only males who owned property.
"The Constitution codified that, clarifying that women were not included"
Throughout the Constitution, both the original text and the subsequent amendments known as the Bill of Rights, there are numerous references to “persons” and “citizens.” But no sex distinctions are drawn. Women, like men, have rights to due process, jury trials, freedom of religion, and so on. And if you think the Constitution “denied” women the right to vote, think again. It didn’t grant anyone a right to vote; it merely referred the question of voting rights to the states.
"Now the phrase "all men are created equal" is understood to include "humanity" of all races, nationalities, religions, ethnic backgrounds, and both sexes."
AS it was at the time. That's why Fredeick Douglass's question "Am I a man?" resonated, and why Alexander Stephens felt the need to refute it in the "Cornerstone" speech.
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Language changes over time."
Which is why exegesis is required. Oh, and, uh, historical records.
"they did ultimately affect the dominant classes (such as white males) negatively because they had to cede power, status, or money to those who had previously had less"
That's a pretty standard quasi-Marxist view. But so is the notion that "income equality is worse than it's ever been." Somehow the powerful gave up power and ended up with more than ever. Interesting math 2- 2 = 22.
I can't seem to ever quite get that straight. Somehow, things get better and better, but we peons are all worse off than before.
But I'm still pretty sure PUTTING A STATEMENT IN ALL CAPS DOESN'T AFFECT IT'S VERACITY.
Wow, I really would expect someone who thinks scorn is a poor substitute for reason to attempt at least a LITTLE more courtesy with his responses. It would be much easier to read and respond to your comments in a timely manner if I didn't have to go away and calm myself in order to sort out your point from the sarcasm and personal attacks.
I am genuinely sorry you feel attacked, and I apologize.
When people start throwing around Ellen White to impugn the motives of others, I do not react at all well. My bad.
As a friend of mine says, "Sometimes your syllogisms are a little too tight." It's a flaw I struggle with.
And I do think I will bust out an Ellen White quote here:
"The inhumanity of man toward man is our greatest sin. Many think that they are representing the justice of God while they wholly fail of representing his tenderness and His great love. Often the ones whom they meet with sternness and severity are under the stress of temptation. Satan is wrestling with these souls, and harsh, unsympathetic words discourage them and cause them to fall a prey to the tempter's power.
"It is a delicate matter to deal with minds. Only He who reads the heart knows how to bring men to repentance. Only His wisdom can give us success in reaching the lost. You may stand up stiffly, feeling, 'I am holier than thou,' and it matters not how correct your reasoning or how true your words; they will never touch hearts. The love of Christ, manifested in word and act, will win its way to the soul, when the reiteration of precept or argument would accomplish nothing.
"We need more of Christlike sympathy; not merely sympathy for those who appear to us to be faultless, but sympathy for poor, suffering, struggling souls, who are often overtaken in fault, sinning and repenting, tempted and discouraged. We are to go to our fellow men, touched, like our merciful High Priest, with the feeling of their infirmities.
"It was the outcast, the publican and sinner, the despised of the nations, that Christ called and by his loving kindness compelled to come unto Him. The one class that He would never countenance was those who stood apart in their self-esteem and looked down upon others."
–EG White, Ministry of Healing, pp. 163-164 (I think… looking at an ebook and I'm never quite 100% sure of pagination)
very stirring. not relevant.
one does not need to consider homosexuality a sin to oppose same-sex marriage.
Attributing evil motives to those with whom one disagrees also comes under Ellen White's censure.
Maybe we should just not go that way at all.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.(Genesis 2:24, KJV).
The "one flesh" would be the design of marriage for reproduction of the race. It seems some disreguard this because the inability for some to procreate. Gods design was pure though.
Impurity is today widespread, even among the professed followers of Christ. Passion is unrestrained; the animal propensities are gaining strength by indulgence, while the moral powers are constantly becoming weaker…. The sins that destroyed the antediluvians and the cities of the plain exist today—not merely in heathen lands, not only among popular professors of Christianity, but with some who profess to be looking for the coming of the Son of man. If God should present these sins before you as they appear in His sight, you would be filled with shame and terror.—Testimonies for the Church 5:218.
I fail to see how 'one flesh' necessitates procreation. A husband and wife become 'one flesh' with or without children. God never allowed divorce for lack of children.
Kevin, I know it is simple speaking, but it's part Gods wonderful design.
All4Him, what, then, do you suggest homosexuals do about their situation? I'm genuinely curious.
I don't dispute that there are sinful behaviors in the world or in the church. I do dispute that haranguing people about them is the Christ-like way to call them to repentance.
I have no stone to cast and will make no futher comments for a long while….
In the mean time the Our Saviour looks into hearts and speaks in love…."Your forgiven….go and sin no more"
Men and husbands….(myself included the chief of sinners)…..have failed to stand up and take the lead of the roles God has given for us in our families and in the church. The answer may lie in Malachi 4:6 and Luke 1:17, hopefully the day will come soon.
Yeah, no, I'm not accusing you of casting stones or anything else. I appreciate your sensitivity. Let me put my question another way.
Say I'm a homosexual who still believes in God, but my prayerful efforts since my late childhood until now have proven unsuccessful. I approach you, a Christian, for advice.
What would your advice be? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but throwing Biblical verses at me doesn't really help because I've already read them all, again and again and again and again. I remain gay, and God remains, as far as I can tell, unable or unwilling to help me.
Without throwing text at me that I've already not only read, but studied and understood, what do -you-, the Christian, have to offer me?
As a Christian and a friend to point a light in the direction of Christ….. not in your face.
…..as long as there is a breath there is hope ….. for Christ will be standing at your hearts door knocking with a tears in His eyes and Love in His heart.
There is no other person created like ___Tim Webster____ , or ______________, and it will be an eternal loss for our Saviour who loves him dearly and wants to spend eternity together with all his creation. For it is a eternal loss not only for you but also for Our Loving Lord who gave His life to continue to give you a choice and a chance….
So, your position is that as long as a person has feelings of attraction for the same sex, they cannot possibly be saved, whether or not they act on those feelings?
There is no other person created like ___Tim Webster____
I should hope not… for everyone else's sake. 🙂
…..as long as there is a breath there is hope ….. for Christ will be standing at your hearts door knocking with a tears in His eyes and Love in His heart.
Well, you know, the door was wide open for years and years. I eventually shut it (it was letting all the heat out), but it's not like I ever locked the damn thing. If in the end he wants to give me some sob story about not answering his knock, I'll politely remind him that he just never came by, light a cigarette and wait for the bus to oblivion.
Another post that breaks my heart…
Can I ask what you mean by "he never came by?"
Sorry, but how is struggling with the 'sin of homosexuality' (to assume All4Him's point) any different from any other sin we struggle with us? We all have sins we struggle with our whole lives. If you don't think you are in the same boat as say Tim, then you may be in the most danger of hell fire of all of us, because the sin of pride and arrogance were the causes of Lucifer's and Adam's falls, and Jesus apparent pet hate.
Tim's honesty is the thing that touches me the most. I am not sure if I or anyone else has anything really to offer, but James 2 comes to mind. Simply saying 'Go away and be filled' by quoting Bible texts is not much practical help.
The only honest thing I can do is not to judge others.
All4Him, when the Church starts cracking down on divorcees (I suspect not a few commentators here are in that boat, even conservative ones), despite the clear injunctions in scriptures (and a whole chapter in the Church Manual), then perhaps other sexual issues like homosexuality and de facto relationships could be addressed.
Apologies to divorcees – I was not intending to be judging. I am just trying to illustrate some probable hypocrisy, including by many in Church leadership. As a 'young person', the double standards on issues of sexuality (where the ruling middle-age generation glosses over its own issues) annoys me a little.
My parents were divorced back in the era when the church "cracked down" on divorce. My mother, even as the party who was officially declared "innocent" by the church, faced a lot of stigma.
Divorce, like homosexuality, both stems from and leads to many situations that are far from God's ideal. Nonetheless, it involves people who are precious to God and with whom he deeply desires to have a relationship. Many of them, deeply wounded, also desire a relationship with him. The church can either help or hinder that relationship. I think, in the case of divorce, we are finally learning to help. I hope that we will also learn to help in the case of homosexuality.
Again, not at all saying you (or anybody) can't disagree, just please do it lovingly and with sympathy.
Chuck wrote: When it comes to limiting rights in this country, I think the burden of proof should be on those who seek to limit them. And yes, I've read your argument about everyone currently having the same right to marry, and while technically true, it practice it's obviously not. For instance, if inter-racial marriage was illegal, everyone would still have the exactly the same rights, anybody could marry anyone they wanted as long as they were of the same race. But this would obviously prevent a segment of people from marrying who they wished. Without a good reason for such restriction (though they had defenders at the time) such laws were unnecessarily restrictive and infringed on people's right to persue happiness.
Ed replied: No, they wouldn't because the definition is "any eligible member of the opposite sex," and eligibility is defined as "majority age, currently single, mentally competent." Skin color, ethnicity, or national origin have no effect on sex, age, singleness, or mental competence.
I quoted more of Chuck's post than you did, Ed, because I'm so tired of watching this selective knitpickery at the expense of very meaningful points. You appear to be willfully obstinate with respect to each and every last analogy put forth in an effort to illustrate why homosexuals are pursuing the ability to marry one another. In Chuck's illustration using the hypothetical illegality of interracial marriage, he used the word IF. IF interracial marriages were illegal, then the definition of marital eligibility, both de facto and de jure, would include, to use your words, something concerning skin color, ethnicity and/or national origin. The word "IF" indicates that while Chuck is likely aware that this is not the case, he's proposing an analogous hypothetical in an effort to make a point. I sit here in awe of what is either your olympian inability or unwillingness to entertain them even for the sake of argument. He makes a cogent, succinct and from where I'm sitting, very important point that got right to the heart of the matter but that you chose to ignore outright on a bizarre technicality stemming from an inability to consider a perspective other than your own. This seems to be a pattern with you, and to be generous, it's not constructive.
Secondly, the disingenuity of your invokation of the Declaration strikes me as pretty bold. I could just as easily wield it to say that if all men are indeed created equal, then in the name of equality, homosexuals should be afforded the same Rights with a capital R to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Now pay attention, because this is where your dogmatic literalism fails you. As was pointed out, while homosexuals do technically have the same legal rights on paper, fundamental to marriage is the happiness brought about by marrying somebody to whom you're physically and emotionally attracted and, one hopes, somebody with whom you're in love. Homosexuals are attracted physically and emotionally to members of the same sex and they fall in love with one another in precisely the same way that heterosexuals do but are unable to marry; ergo, we do not have the same right to pursue happiness as laid out in the very Declaration that you invoked. In this way, though equal in the eyes of our Creator, we are not equal under the laws of the land.
Finally, striving for objectivity demands that I remain open to the possibility, even as a homosexual myself, that the legalization of same-sex marriage would ulimately be detrimental to our society (with a handful of caveats that I won't go into here). I'm actually fairly well educated on that topic, having a psychology background myself and a voracious appetite for academic journals and current research, and I've yet to encounter any evidence for your sweeping claims — specifically, that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be "damaging and dangerous" to society. Thus, I'd be exceptionally eager, as others have stated they'd be as well, to have you cite your sources. Pity that you don't feel any of us are worthy of them; is that a nod to Matthew 7:6, or a petulant reaction to our scorn?
Much as most of us here like to have an intellectual discussion of civil laws and social mores, we have found it impossible to do so when there are some who are so disengenuous, lacking in understanding logic and how to actively debate, that it is simply a waste of time. Only those who are willing to honestly and openly engage instead of hiding behind "research" that is alluded to; subjective beliefs shrouded as "many" studies, deserve the time. When some infer that "my research, knowledge, experience is superior, therefore, yours is unworthy of attention, they should be given none.
Elaine, you are right. Those with proven academic creds regarding this discussion should, by all means, be ignored. Good strategy. I like it. Makes a lot of sense — to ignore those who truly do have many years of experience and writing in this area of constitutional law and history.
I truly do have many years of experience being a homosexual — why aren't you giving great weight to my positions on homosexuality and same-sex marriage?
Appeals to authority aren't very appealing.
Greg, you seem to feel that I was referring to your comment in the area of constitutional law and history. I didn't mention your name or that evidence, but my comment was directed, to the comment of another who made claims "sweeping claims — specifically, that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be "damaging and dangerous" to society."
Unless that was your statement, it is pointless to address me that I am ignoring those with many years of experience in constitutional law. I don't believe your comments were addressing that point. If I am mistaken, you can correct me.
Tim, that is quite an introduction. You don't know me and I don't know you. How in the world could I NOT be giving you great weight to your positions when I have never even heard of you until now? Does that make any sense? That sounds very defensive and out of place based on my post above. To assuage your hurt feelings, I am happy to to read what you have to say, if you have posted above. I am assuming by your defensive response that you have posted something. Thanks for your diplomatic and kind introduction. That is most helpful.
Greg,
No offense intended — I was trying to highlight how ridiculous I found the appeal to authority (that is, that somebody's ideas have merit by virtue of their credentials alone). I don't care who has what credentials, whether a masters in religious education, a doctorate in clinical psychology, et al — a person's arguments and positions either stand up on their own or they don't. That's one of the few real benefits to the use of this medium — it's serves as a great equalizer.
I apologize for being short. As you read my posts, you'll quickly see that I'm a bit rough around the edges — I do strive for diplomacy, but to be frank, it's not really in my nature… you know, like attraction to members of the opposite sex. 😉
I think part of the problem is that not everyone is willing to state what research they are appealing to. Any of us who spend time reading a lot of research know that for every issue there are usually multiple positions supported by research. Perhaps this issue is more difficult than some as it draws on a great variety of disciplines. It would not surprise me at all if a study of legal history leads to a different conclusion than a study of social science or psychology. Not being an American, I have to confess that what the framers of the US cosntitution intended is, well, to be blunt, irrelevant except as a historical question. I also have grave doubts that that many politicians were actually agreed on anything beyond broad principles, if that.
Hi, everybody!
Thank you very much for your continued thoughtful contributions to this conversation. We are doing a fairly good job of keeping things civil and productive, but a couple of tweaks will help keep things on track and create an atmosphere of positive, respectful communication.
Please take a moment to review my commenting ethos posted at the top of the comment section.
Please try to begin your comment with a positive statement about the person you are responding to in which you sincerely identify common ground, agreement, or appreciation. Please try to refrain from sarcasm as much as possible.
Thanks again!
Kendra
As president of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association (www.nrla.com), I believe in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion or freedom to enforce religion on others based on my beliefs, particularly acts of worship. This means upholding both the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment to a high constitutional standard against powerful forces. Using this standard, government neutrality means that religion and religious institutions must be allowed to thrive freely, but without its official endorsement.
The First Amendment, in part, states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Today, some seek to reinterpret the no Establishment provision separating Church and State in ways that would require government to financially support their institutions and enforce their dogmas so as to solve the moral ills of the nation.
Others seek to marginalize the Free Exercise of Religion in favor of placing a higher level of protection on lifestyles destructive to universal moral principles sustaining all societies. Both are harmful to our constitutional health. I believe the Nation’s Founders anticipated this tension. That is why they created an internal check and balance within the very wording of the First Amendment in order to prevent the Country from being overrun by either extreme in the great church-state debate (a puritanical vs. godless society). Remove this balancing safeguard and our nation’s constitutional guarantees will be lost, and with it our civil and religious freedoms.
As former Associate Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, put it in a speech at the University of Ireland, “The religious zealot and the theocrat frighten us in part because we understand only too well their basic impulse. No less frightening is the totalitarian atheist who aspires to a society in which the exercise of religion has no place.”
Dear Mr. Hamilton, I appreciate very much your knowledge and expertise. You clearly have some kind of understanding of what is happening based on what you have read and whatnot. You do make it very clear that you are the expert and the rest of those responding do not share your level of expertise. On this forum this may come across somewhat harshly and you would be well served if you were to show a little humility in how your present yourself.
Exactly. Strong separation of church and state benefits the church, which retains freedom of conscience; and also protects others from the whims of the church.
It’s more than just separation, Kendra. It’s a balancing act with Free Exercise case law and the legal test and application of “substantial burden” that’s at play here.
Yes. Thanks for that clarification.
It’s more than just separation, Kendra. It’s a balancing act with Free Exercise case law and the legal test and application of “substantial burden” that’s at play here.
History has many examples of religious zealots and theodcrats who who subverted religious freedom for their own desires. Where have totalitarian atheists been active in eliminating the free exercise of religion in society? There is much more to fear from the former than the latter, if history is an example. In fact, today, we see the religious zealotry active in the Roman Catholic church's attempt to prevent non-Catholics to bow to Catholic doctrines.
That’s easy: the French Revolution and the Third Reich during WWII, including Catherine the Great’s suppression of the Russian Orthodox Church along with the Communist oppression of Christians in the Soviet Union and China. I am amazed at the question.
Be prepared to be continuously amazed.
I hope you feel better, Ed. I don't think it was anybody's intent to hurt your feelings. We were simply asking for some supporting evidence for your claims. That's all.
In addition, even the "secularist" agenda of modern France has a stifling effect on religious expression in the public sphere. Students in French public schools, for example, are not allowed to wear any symbols of religious faith. This is very different from American public schools, where students may wear crosses, hijabs, and even pray (provided the prayer is student-initiated). None of this is allowed in French schools because religion is restricted to the "private" sphere.
That’s right, Kendra. Thanks. 🙂
It’s the tendency of history — as proven by the historical record throughout world history — to go to either extreme. That’s the point of Justice O’Connor’s statement. But I will yield to your wisdom on this.
Yes, I’m getting that impression seared into me fairly quickly. Lots of arguments but not a whole lot of…
Have fun everyone! I’m bowing out.
"I'm not convinced that homosexual perversions under the guise of marriage can be construed to be a civil right."
Aberrant behavior is not marriage by any means. While I have not read every post I'm convicted that one does not even have to be involved in theology to oppose the state legitimizing same sex cohabitation. There are sociological considerations that are quite persuasive.
"Governments are elected for the very purpose of ensuring that society is run in as healthy a manner as possible.
The fact that they have failed miserably in many aspects does not in any way translate to them not interceding when it is logically necessary. Just because they all too often make wrong decisions doesn't mean they should then stop making decisions altogether. I am stunned that some don't seem to see that this is where their reasoning goes.
Same-sex marriage cheapens the very concept of marriage and family itself which is the foundation stone of any healthy society. Just because many marriages don't live up to the ideal is no reason to further cheapen the institution itself and I am absolutely amazed when I hear that argument being used as though it is legitimate.
Governments exist to protect the citizens over whom they govern. This should always begin with those who are the least able to protect themselves: our children. Same-sex marriage goes beyond a simple argument about "loving" relationships being recognized, it is a political agenda designed to FORCE something utterly unnatural to be accepted THROUGH LEGISLATION! It is NOT just about being legally recognized or having it called a civil union would be good enough. This is also about having the right to adopt children as well as a whole host of other issues and it is primarily POLITICAL!
This whole thing is a social engineering experiment in which we and our children are the guinea pigs and there comes a point where we have to draw the line. NAMBLA is using the same arguments that same-sex proponents used. Do we want to go down that road too? Where does it end? I say it needs to end with protecting heterosexual marriage and upholding it as the ideal despite the fact that we have couples who don't live up to the ideal.
I would laugh at the argument that "you can't legislate morality" if those who make it weren't serious. So you can't legislate morality but you CAN legislate acceptance? Can you not see how ridiculous that is? I would also argue that most laws we have do indeed legislate morality in one way or another, it just depends on whose morality you are considering.
The government has an obligation to do what it can to ensure we have a healthy, well-functioning society and heterosexual marriage is one of the single most important things that can be done in this regard. This has been shown in study after study to be the case (as if we needed studies to prove the obvious!). Protecting marriage should be the first step. Strengthening the marriage covenant should be the next. Eliminating no-fault divorce would be a good start. How much might the divorce rate go down, and countless broken homes prevented, if you actually had to present a compelling reason for divorce and one or the other partner had to be demonstrated to be at fault for the marriage crumbling?"
Truth Seeker,
I appreciate your opinionated stance on… well, what appears to be many sub-issues is the same-sex marriage debate. We've actually gone back and forth at length on several of these topics, and there has been some pretty informative dialogue — I'd encourage you to look back over the thread and see what others have said in an effort to not necessarily influence your position, but to hone your thinking in these areas. That said, you seem to be making several claims here for which you offer no support at all, I'm going to address a few of those points with which I take pointed exception. Your text will be italicized below.
"I'm not convinced that homosexual perversions under the guise of marriage can be construed to be a civil right."
Aberrant behavior is not marriage by any means. While I have not read every post I'm convicted that one does not even have to be involved in theology to oppose the state legitimizing same sex cohabitation. There are sociological considerations that are quite persuasive.
I frequently see the words "perversion" and "abberation" tossed around in these discussions. It seems to be reflective of the strange conservative religious definitions of normative behavior — that is, conservative Christians tend to argue from positions in which people and their behavior fall into neatly delineated categories. Unfortunately, while the Bible may simplistically support such a position, it is not at all reflective of reality.
Take hermaphroditism, for example, which is much more common than the average person assumes. Are they "perversions" of nature, since they don't fall into traditional sex categories? How do we determine whether it's acceptable for a hermaphrodite to marry — is it more important to God that they have the right chromosomal makeup, or that their gender identification is appropriately opposite their partners? There are dozens of other genetic syndromes in which sex and/or gender may be ambiguous — what of those? Should they be prevented from marrying in an effort to maintain the Biblical purity of the marital construct, or for the sake of preserving Western marital tradition? Does their own right to happiness come into play, or is that tertiary to the demands of Biblical doctrine? Should they live in quiet celebacy despite not holding your religious beliefs? In what way might allowing these people to marry be detrimental to society?
What about the fact that homosexuality occurs naturally throughout the animal kingdom? This is not conjecture — it's as well-verified as the accuracy of radio-carbon dating. Your Bible would maintain that this behavior is abberant, but they're simply acting on their natural instincts and it is therefore not abberant with respect to the natural kingdom. Do we hold fast to Biblical doctrine and ignore the realities of the natural world?
You state that there are, quote, "sociological considerations that are quite persuasive."
Name one.
Same-sex marriage cheapens the very concept of marriage and family itself which is the foundation stone of any healthy society. Just because many marriages don't live up to the ideal is no reason to further cheapen the institution itself and I am absolutely amazed when I hear that argument being used as though it is legitimate.
As a homosexual, can you explain to me how my getting married "cheapens the very concept" of marriage and family? I hear that frequently, but I never seem to get any clear explanations. How does my freedom to marry influence your own marriage in any way, shape or form?
Governments exist to protect the citizens over whom they govern. This should always begin with those who are the least able to protect themselves: our children.
Ahhhhhhh, here we go — the "won't somebody, anybody please think of the children!!!!" argument. My favorite. 🙂 Can you please cite a single study in which it has been concluded that allowing gays to marry is somehow detrimental to children?
Same-sex marriage goes beyond a simple argument about "loving" relationships being recognized, it is a political agenda designed to FORCE something utterly unnatural to be accepted THROUGH LEGISLATION! It is NOT just about being legally recognized or having it called a civil union would be good enough. This is also about having the right to adopt children as well as a whole host of other issues and it is primarily POLITICAL!
First, I actually laughed out loud at your choosing to put the word "loving" in quotes, as though homosexuals don't really love one another in the same way that heterosexuals do. That's terribly amusing — just wanted to share my mirth, since there's nothing I can do or say if you truly believe such a thing. Suffice it to say that the notion is absurd.
This whole thing is a social engineering experiment in which we and our children are the guinea pigs and there comes a point where we have to draw the line. NAMBLA is using the same arguments that same-sex proponents used. Do we want to go down that road too? Where does it end? I say it needs to end with protecting heterosexual marriage and upholding it as the ideal despite the fact that we have couples who don't live up to the ideal.
Ok, ahhh… first, I appreciate your sharing what has to be the most curious and entertaining theory I've heard — that this is all some huge social engineering experiment. Are there people in white lab coats somewhere holding clipboards, taking notes as they observe a wall full of monitors? "Sir, we've got what appears to be somebody entertaining homosexual thoughts in sector 6B, suggesting campaign 44-LGBT-A may be having an influence in that area of operation." "Very good, let's continue to monitor the situation and see how he progresses." "Yes sir." My friends and I find the conspiratorial fear amongst the conservative religious to be particularly amusing. 😉
Of course, no discussion like this is complete without some moron invoking NAMBLA. To be clear, even though I really shouldn't even have to say this explicitly, neither I nor any other homosexual I know supports NAMBLA. That's an entirely different topic than the one under discussion here. If you can't recognize that, then I can't help you and, with all due respect, I'd recommend looking into a critical thinking or basic logic course at a nearby community college.
Your final paragraph touches on quite a bit very briefly, so let me go ahead and chop it up in order to briefly address your points in turn.
The government has an obligation to do what it can to ensure we have a healthy, well-functioning society and heterosexual marriage is one of the single most important things that can be done in this regard.
Huh.. really? Are you sure? The United States government has an *obligation* to oversee and regulate personal relationships between consenting adults? I think a few people might disagree with you — myself, a few people here, the Founding Fathers, a couple hundred million other Americans who've lived and died over the past 250-ish years, etc. Just sayin'.
This has been shown in study after study to be the case (as if we needed studies to prove the obvious!).
Can you cite one? To your second point, I'm sure people to whom it was obvious that the world was flat said the same thing about those who suggested otherwise. Much of the world around you is counterintuitive (in psychological studies, for example, self-reporting is the least reliable source of information by an overwhelming margin). This very much includes the realm of human relationships, whether on the individual or societal levels.
Protecting marriage should be the first step. Strengthening the marriage covenant should be the next. Eliminating no-fault divorce would be a good start. How much might the divorce rate go down, and countless broken homes prevented, if you actually had to present a compelling reason for divorce and one or the other partner had to be demonstrated to be at fault for the marriage crumbling?"
I smiled at this paragraph too — no offense. But I imagined the Lord, in flowing white robes and a long, white beard, sitting at a desk working a laptop when an assistant knocks on his office door. "Father, divorce seems to be down almost 19% this month in the United States." Does the Lord just care about numbers? Heh. If we make it more difficult for people to get divorced, does that automagically heal the emotional and/or what you guys would call the "spiritual" bond between a husband and wife? Is the home any less "broken" simply because mommy and daddy are forced to cohabitate despite the fact that they've come to detest one another? It sounds like a tactic and corporation would use so they could have something to report at the next shareholders' meeting, not something the Creator of the universe would give a damn about. But, you know, hey, that's just my perspective. Maybe he -is- a numbers guy. You're the Christians — you tell me.
As a final comment, I'd encourage you to imagine for a moment that you have a homosexual son or daughter, who happens to be in a committed relationship and who wants to marry his/her partner. You all talk so often of your fear of the hypothetical damage such a thing would cause with no regard for the real happiness of real people. If you guys would really advocate to deny your own offspring the right to marry, hey, that's your choice… but when fear of wild hypotheticals unsupported by -any- studies are your exclusive basis for taking such a position, it doesn't sound particularly Christ-like from where I'm sitting. If I've learned anything from my discussions here (and I have, even from those with whom I disagree — it's been very worthwhile), perhaps what I've learned most of all is why I lost my faith in the first place.
Tim said, "If I've learned anything from my discussions here (and I have, even from those with whom I disagree — it's been very worthwhile), perhaps what I've learned most of all is why I lost my faith in the first place."
This ABSOLUTELY breaks my heart.
Tim, please know that the loudest or most strident voices are not necessarily the only ones. I have had many messages on Facebook from Adventists (and other Christians) who have NOT posted here. So many are thanking me for my two columns so far. A number have said that these columns echo their views and put into words something that they have thought or tried to express but have not been able to do so. Quite a few have "come out" in support by liking or sharing the articles.
I absolutely promise to keep urging people in the church to view the LGBT community with empathy and compassion and think beyond their wildly flamboyant, promiscuous stereotypes; please try to give us the same courtesy and not judge us all by the loudest, most argumentative and intolerant voices?
In defense of the church, it does not pick on homosexuals particularly. Many churches are unwelcoming of anyone who does not live up to their standards. I would not presume on being welcome in many churches because of a number of reasons, being gay not being one of them. If I kept quiet, and let my wife direct what I say and do, I would probably be OK in most, but I am just not good at taking directions, even from my wife. And when people ask what I believe/think, I too often make the mistake of responding as if they really wanted to know. I am not saying that SDA members are mean or nasty, or even uncaring – my experience is that most aren't – but many just can't see things from another point of view, and so don't know how to handle someone who is different. It doesn't have to be a 'sinful' sort of different, just different is enough to cause discomfort.
I also learnt long ago that saying 'how can you possibly believe/think that??!! No sane person could ever think/believe that!' is not considered to be judgemental or implying anything about the person's sanity or spirituality to whom it is addressed. It always feels that way to me, but I have been assured by so many people who were horrified that I might have been offended by their words, that I have decided this is just one more case of my not understanding 'normal' people. I have been tempted to respond likewise to see if they really can't see why it is offensive, but everytime I am tempted, I can hear my wife saying "don't do it. You know better than that".
Kendra,
I appreciate your empathy and kind words, but please don't let it break your heart — though it took years, it's not a sad thing for me anymore. I'm finally free of the debilitating fear and self-loathing that consumed me for so long, and I'm happier and healthier than I've ever been. The only real twinge of sadness I feel is for the rest of my family (not my immediate family — they're entirely supportive, but the extended: I come from a long line of Adventists), who, should they ever find out, would go to their graves disappointed and ashamed of me. The same is true of the Adventists friends I've lost along the way. But my trials by fire have made me strong, and I've come through them refined in a sort of backwards, bizarro version of 1 Peter 4:12-14. Life is not without irony, I suppose.
I have many friends who genuinely accept me for who and what I am, people who recognize that our humanity is nothing to fear and nothing about which to be ashamed simply because a book and its readership say so, however full of scattered wisdom that book may be. Why would I go to a church, however welcoming and kind, when beneath the smiles and superficial warmth lies a certainty — the kind of unimpeachable certainty, if you'll forgive me, that only the religious and the insane possess — that by virtue of this one innate aspect of my being that I'm lost in the eyes of the Creator? Why would I put myself amongst people who all tacitly believe that the only reason that I'm still homosexual is that I haven't prayed hard enough, or ever truly "known" God, when I had already spent so long, even to my own great detriment, begging him in prayer to change? To subject myself to that would be the very definition of masochism. We're alive for this brief moment, flashes of light on a tiny blue dot in the vast expanse of the universe. I refuse to spend my life in self-loathing, begging forgiveness from an absent God for that which requires no forgiving. I'm wiser than that now. Healthier than that now.
Though my faith in Adventism eventually waned as I learned to question and think for myself, it goes far beyond that now. If you'll pardon the quick soapbox, I've had a rather diverse adult life so far, having traveled more than most people my age many times over. I've met kind, loving people all over the world (and, of course, people on the less appealing end of that spectrum), from all walks of life and from all manner of disparate belief systems, from Asia to the Middle East. Of all that they have in common, perhaps most interesting is that they're all totally immersed in their beliefs, just as we are here. More than that, these beliefs are not equally distributed; rather, they're more a function of geography than anything else. As a critically thinking adult — or at least an adult to strives to think critically — in the face of this reality, a particular belief system among hundreds (thousands, if we drill down into the particulars) claiming to be the Truth is problematic for me. How is it that an omniscient, omni-benevolent God could allow the very eternal destiny of his creations to be a function of geography above all else? If you're inclined, I'd ask you to watch this 2 minute clip in which Sam Harris makes a point much more eloquently and succinctly than I can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4or90cmyhk
To circle back and wrap up, I certainly recognize that the loudest and most judgmental voices among us aren't necessarily representative of the whole of Adventism any more than the loudest and most hateful voices coming from the Islamic world are representative of truly compassionate, loving Muslims. But like Elaine pointed out, there's a chasm between these compassionate Adventists and Adventism itself, and the latter continues and will continue, as it must, to reject homosexuals in deference to the Holy Word of God. I don't expect that to change any more than I expect to change myself. Be that as it may, I remain incredibly thankful for those here — Kendra and others — whose focus is on compassion and love and not fire and brimstone. We need not wait for some notional afterlife or ultimate judgment to know the good that they've done — their light shines brilliantly here and now.
Tim, Thank you for sharing this as it comes from a real person who speaks from the heart and experience rather than glib pronouncements.
As I read these posts, I keep asking myself, what do these writers know about the causes and reality of homosexuality? Do they really believe these people have chosen their orientation? All research and recorded experience show that the majority have not. If they are not responsible for their birth condition, how can the government deny them their rights? Don't we have rights for physically-disabled persons and antidiscrimination laws.?
Could we find in the judgement that we were wrong all along? Is that possible? It certainly makes more moral sense that homosexuals should be monogomous and in a civil partnership than denied the legal status of marriage. I may not understand such a life, but I can respect those forced to live with it and seek to protect their dignity.
I do not have an answer for all the pronouncements in the Bible (other than the Sodom and Gomorrah incident that had nothing to do with the issue). Comments were also made concerning women and slavery, yet Christians changed their ideas when the time was right.
In the Bible God reveals His truth to poeple where they are. Thus we see social change with Jesus and His treatment of people. After total stagnation during the dark ages, slavery is questioned and its evil brought to light. America allowed the development of women's voting rights, and civil rights for African-Americans; women have now moved into an era of equality. Perhaps God is showing us that we must treat all His people with dignity, including homosexuals. As our world becomes more polarized between good and evil–love and hate, is the test how we treat each other? Those who love and serve others can be led into a love for God when they understand, from His poeple, that He is love.
Ella,
It's nice to see somebody willing to ask the questions and suppose as you do here. The hallmark of a strong mind and a broad thinker isn't certainty, but doubt. I think it was Einstein who said, "the important thing is not to stop questioning," and if we're to be honest, this must include even our most fundamental beliefs. So many people spend their lives only trying to build stronger arguments in defense of premises that they've never truly questioned.
In the words of Galileo, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Kendra,
Regardless that there are many who view the LBGT with empathy and compassion, the official position of the church has not changed. For the individual, he cannot check around to find a "compassionate" SDA church and I dare say that the majority are still far less accepting than you and I and a few others who post here. Unless and until the SDA church makes a change that is publicized, nothing has changed except a few individuals, and we are in the minority, I fear. No one congregation would dare to make such a public statement which is very sad that it is only a few denominations that have openly been accepting.
But they do exist. I personally know of several, and I am sure there are others I do not know of personally.
There is, of course, the risk that a given church or pastor or member may NOT be tolerant or compassionate. But there is a (n increasing) chance that they may be.
And, for what it's worth, the official church statement on homosexuality DOES say, "Seventh-day Adventists endeavor to follow the instruction and example of Jesus. He affirmed the dignity of all human beings and reached out compassionately to persons and families suffering the consequences of sin. He offered caring ministry and words of solace to struggling people, while differentiating His love for sinners from His clear teaching about sinful practices."
And also, "The Seventh-day Adventist Church recognizes that every human being is valuable in the sight of God, and we seek to minister to all men and women in the spirit of Jesus."
Of course they do. But what suggestions would give someone like Tim if he was seeking a welcoming church? How many times must one be rejected to give up the search?
This may be the case where one should not be looking for a church but God; they are not synonymous.
I guess I would advise such a person to find a compassionate individual or group and ask them to recommend a church. That would probably be safest.
Another (less safe) option would be to go "stealth" into a church to case the joint.
There are also a number of parachurch organizations that minister to the LGBT Adventist population and can be helpful in building a supportive community of faith. I highlight them in an upcoming column but can also post them here:
http://gladventist.org
http://knowhislove.com
http://sdakinship.com
But I agree that it is VERY sad that I could not freely recommend any LGBT person to visit an Adventist church and be sure that they would be welcomed. I very much wish I could.
Seeing there has been a general reluctance to post lists of resources, I thought I would, as it may help those who have not had the interest or time to read much on the subject. The first URL I particularly recommend because it places marriage, and the redefinition of marriage, in a historical context. It also points out that if marriage had not already been redefined, gay marriage would be unthinkable. I would agree with a point made many times: if we are serious about strengthening marriage, gay marriage (for or against) is not where our priority should be. We should perhaps start with the fact that marriage is the only legally binding contract that one person can choose to withdraw from for any reason without penalty, and the state will not only allow that, but will enforce it. There is a very effective ad for pay TV running at the moment in Australia that plays on that by using a marriage ceremony where the parties gaze lovingly at each other and promise to marry each other precisely because they are free to end it at any time. A good deal with pay TV (maybe), but is it for marriage? I think it is worth asking "do we really want to spend time fighting for a civil contract that neither the government nor the church is willing to enforce?" Are we (generically, not just 'we' here) arguing to keep something from others that most of us really don't want ourselves? If we really want to fight for 'the family', maybe there are better fights to invest in than one even those fighting hardest against acknowledge probably is lost. I don't know what happened since the paper was written, but in Australia family law courts and social services have the same rights over de facto relationships as over marriage. The point not to be missed is that none of the developments could have occurred if marriage had not already been redefined in popular thought as a relationship solely between two people that centred on companionship and mutual support rather than on procreation or social benefits.
Posting any URL here in no way implies that I accept, believe or support all or any arguments made.
http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia.2005.6.htm#endfn4
http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-right-leaders-return-to-war-room-over-doma-49711/
http://www.fnf.org.uk – a number of issues under Publication and Policy tab
http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=05020&article=00012&type=fulltext The famous Dutch study of 'gay marriages'
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm an article explaining the above study
Anyone who has better resorces that are accessible should feel free to post them.
From June 8 The Week magazine:
Quebec City:
The breakeup of a Canadian billionaire and his companion of 10 years has thrown Quebec's obligation-free common-law marriage into question. More than one third of couples in Quebec choose not to marry, opting instead for a cohabitation agreement that lets either partner walk away at any time, owing nothing. But the mother of the billionaire's three children challenged that law after the couple broke up, and a high-court has now ruled that she should get half the assets, just as a divorcing woman would. That ruling could affect the 1.2 million Quebeckers who thought they were just shacking up but now may find themselves financially responsible to their partners after all. Canada's Supreme Court will settle the matter this summer.
This has been the case in Australia for some time. After 12 months of 'marriage-like' living together, the court will treat the relationship as a marriage. For the purposes of taxation and social security, that applies from the time that the relationship appears to be long-term. Once you share a home and finances, and the presumption is that you share a bed, you are treated as being married. Even if you make a formal agreement to walk away with what you brought, having children basically invalidates it. In general, Australian law does not recognise anyone's right to avoid the consequences of being or acting as if you are married. Some European countries do allow for other arrangements if they are in place before the relationship formally starts.
Freedom to act in the closet, or to have it taught in the classroom are two distinct actions. Gradulalism happens over time. As you model these behaviors to our youth it does affect ones view of marriage.
Tim Webster said….Ahhhhhhh, here we go — the "won't somebody, anybody please think of the children!!!!" argument. My favorite. 🙂 Can you please cite a single study in which it has been concluded that allowing gays to marry is somehow detrimental to children?
(Oct. 17) — Walter Schumm knows what he's about to do is unpopular: publish a study arguing that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents…..
Schumm says he guarded against that by seeking out so many different works. And across all his data — the 10 books he consulted, the anthropological study, the scientific articles — he noticed how lesbians begat more lesbians. In Schumm's study, he quotes from the extant literature the stories of young women, describing how being gay was never frowned upon in their household, and so that "option" was available to them. That said, Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to "try out women." AOL News 10/17
This is the extent of studies? News stories? A high school student would get an "F" for giving this type of documentation for statements. If you expect credibility for a position, either furnish recognized scientific journals or be seen as emotionally involved only.
With a simple Google check on Schumm, these were only a few of the remarks:
"The study itself is betrayed by common sense and reality. If being around gay parents makes a child gay, then how does Schumm explain the inconvenient fact that the vast majority of LGBT adults had heterosexual parents?
This isn't research. This is a man who read a lot of books on gay parenting and then drew conclusions based on the answers collected by a variety of other studies. There is no control group, no methodology for isolating relevant data, or to account for variables because Schumm didn't interview any of the people on whose responses he bases his conclusions."
In the future, save your time and don't insult the intelligence of readers here. If one cannot determine what is true research and propaganda, it reveals the lack of understanding how true research is done: Not with beginning with a conclusion and then asking the right questions to get the answers wanted; and no control groups.
Elaine,
Pretty sure nobody could have said it better. 🙂
I can't help but wonder what a vastly different society we'd have, how efficient the marketplace of ideas would be, if more people understood the necessity of the peer review process, the importance of sound experimental methodology as well as the importance of acknowledging methodological limitations, the importance of replicability and so forth.
Instead, we live in a society where an appreciable percentage of citizens probably believe that an "academic journal" is something a professor keeps next to a pencil on his nightstand. Err… well, that may be the case, actually, but you know what I mean. :>
Today's college English instructors are keenly aware of their students inability to identify legitimate documentation and Wikipedia. We are now seeing the results of this inability to differentiate between "junk science" and legitimate, peer-reviewed studies. People will quote anything found on the web; which is what was very evident when I merely typed in "Walter Schumm" the first thing was a "quack."
Don't dismiss Wikipedia. Even at post-graduate level I was told to read what it has to say to find sources, but not to quote it. Like many things, Wikipedia is a good thing when rightly used. The mistake is in ending where you shold be beginning.
Focus on the families citizen report had some good information on this subject….
http://tiny.cc/marriagereport
Suuuuuuure wish I could get my 13 minutes and 25 seconds back, but I should have known better going in.
Our definitions of "good information" are in conflict, All4Him, and to be perfectly candid, I don't think we'd get anywhere hashing it out. Thank you for your contribution.
I tried to see what it said, but my browser saw it as an 'infected' site. But I have not found Focus on the Family to be a reliable source of information on other subjects.
You didn't miss anything, Kevin. It was an infomercial cleverly disguised as propaganda. In fact, I can probably transliterate the central point:
"Thanks for joining us today, Trish. You know, millions of scientific studies™ suggest that the LGBT agenda is a 500-megaton moral 'super-volcano' threatening to detonate in the face of humanity and blot out the very sun with the jet-black ashes of sin and suffering. Is that true?"
"Thanks for having me, Steve. Yes, that's correct, and it actually gets worse. Studies™ have also shown that children growing up with homosexual parents are almost 9,000 times more likely to become Baphomet-worshiping cannibals by the time they turn 25. There is also some evidence™ that these children are much more prone to developing both scurvy and ricketts."
"That's truly frightening, Trish. Truly frightening. You know, some crazy people have suggested that the LGBT agenda is nothing more than an 'effort' by 'homosexuals' to 'end discrimination' and fight for an 'equal opportunity' to 'pursue happiness' in their 'loving mutual relationships.' Are the crazy people who suggest such a crazy idea crazy? Isn't it true that they're the LGBT agenda may be nothing more than a covert experiment to create an army of bow-legged cannibals, which may or may not destroy us all?"
"Yes Steve, that's correct. In fact, studies™ have shown that homosexuals aren't even capable of feeling 'happiness' like real people are, to say nothing of love. A few thousand fMRI studies have concluded that they're really only capable of feeling hungry or horny. You can almost think of them as zombies, actually, only instead of feeding on human flesh, they feed on human morality."
[both shaking heads in solemn disbelief]
"Gosh, Trish, I've gotta say, this has been as enlightening as it has been frightening. Thank you for joining us here today. May the Lord protect us from the next voter turnout. If not, the Lord has blessed us with room for two families in our bunker."
[quiet laughter as the camera pans away, que the crap synthesizer music, fade to pastel blue]
OK. Thanks for the summary. I may never recover from the disappointment of not seeing that myself. I have put it into the same category as the book that argued that homosexuality is a choice, and all social scientists recognise that when they write that 'gender' is 'constructed'. There seems to be little point in arguing with people who can misunderstand social science to that degree and still write a book that they (I presume sincerely) believe to be a sociological book that makes a real contribution to scholarly debate. I never cited that book in any paper, and after a further 10 years of hanging out – real life (if we can call universities 'real life') and in cyberspace – with social scientists, historians of sex, sexologists and other assorted people with an interest in this area, I still have not seen it cited or had anyone argue against it. I guess we could conclude her argument was 'unanswerable', which is how the speaker who highly recommended it described it. Or maybe it just once again illustrates why social scientists – even those who attend church regularly – tend not to engage with Christian discussion of social science.
See above reply to "Tim" as my response.
I am not out to cast a stone…nor am I out to cast doubt that with God all things are possible. Are job is not to condem yet on the other extreme to normalize a behavior that is not pleasing to God is not right either….
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offendersnor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9-11 NIV
Of course, both terms used are open to question when it comes to translation, and neither can be claimed to refer specifically and exclusively to homosexual behaviour. It is rather odd that we do not have the same response to the greedy, or slanderers (with gossip as the 'national pastime' of the church that would cause problems) or even adulterers. Even swindlers and thieves can be accepted in many cases.
All4Him, heh. You're a good Christian, and for what it's worth, something tells me you needn't worry about that ever changing. 🙂 We all have unique constellations of gifts and talents, and among yours is removing any ambiguity from Matthew 18:3. Thank you for sharing!
http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdf
Ed,
While it wouldn't be fair to categorically dismiss that paper as uninformative or valueless, it's important to note that the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is not a peer-reviewed academic journal; it's a student-edited publication. At my university, I would not be allowed to cite this paper, as it hasn't been subjected to the same rigors of scrutiny required, for good reason, by the scientific/academic community.
At a quick glance, the notably scant citations don't bode well, nor do the several citations of blog posts (blogspot.com) and editorial pieces (The Boston Globe), to say nothing of the missing comprehensive Works Cited at the end. If I turned in this paper, I would not only receive a failing grade, but my professors would likely not waste time reading it.
With this in mind, I was curious to see that a professor took second name on this paper… that is, until I recognized the name. That he was willing to lend his name to this is perhaps the strongest evidence I can offer for the critical importance of the peer-review process.
I am curious to read their argument, though, so thank you for sharing, and as soon as I can break away from studying for exams and posting long-winded ramblings in discussion forums, I'll give it a gander.
Tim, I did not post it for you.
It is not an academic study of gay marriage.
It is already, however, fulfilling my purpose in posting it.
Tim, I did not post it for you.
Never said you did. I hope you don't mind if I read it anyhow.
It is already, however, fulfilling my purpose in posting it.
Huh. Given that mine was the first reply, was your purpose by chance to have it read by people for whom it wasn't intended? :X
Thanks for posting this. I would say only that the main problem is that their 'revisionist view' is actually mainstream legally and socially, and has been for about a century if not longer. It is correct to say that those who support same-sex marraige want to redefine marraige to include same-sex couples, but the actual definition of marraige they use is the same one that is used in everything from divorce laws to Hollywood 'chickflicks' and apparently even Mills and Boon novels. My sister persuaded me in my late teens that I should read one or two Mills and Boon stories simply to round out my education. I did so, but I do not intend to voluntarily make the same mistake again. With a wife and teenage daughter, I am still not in the position to avoid 'chickflicks' completely. The argument for same-sex marriage is not that marriage needs to be redefined, but that as currently defined in law and popular thought, there is no reason to restrict it to opposite-sex couples. It is actually those who want to define marriage around procreation who are really wanting to go back to an older definition – which seems like redefinition to me. I think it is not coincidental that the main argument legally is over removing the wording 'between one man and one woman' which, while it may alwasy have been implied, has in most cases been added to teh law on marraige fairly recently. If I were involved in lobbying, I would be stressing that the argument for same-sex marriage relies on not changing a long-standing law, but returning to the traditional wording.
I really enjoyed their defense of traditional marriage, and I think it provides an excellent overview of why God designed marriage to take place between one man and one woman.
I do have some quibbles with their methodology on the well-adjustedness of children; it seems that they only compared children being raised by two-parent biological parents to single-parent families, step-parent situations, and grandparent situations (or something else… I can't remember the third). It didn't seem to include two-parent adoptive situations with either same-sex or opposite-sex parents. So where there has been family trauma or disruption, or there is only one caregiver, I think it is likely that there WILL be more difficulties for the children. I would like to see different adoption scenarios included here, and the critique indicates that research in those areas shows that children may well come out just fine.
All that said, I think Kevin is right on the money that their analysis AND the objections raised to it both show that the societal definition of marriage has ALREADY changed so substantially that holding this last bastion legally seems pretty senseless.
I think the points they make about the benefits of long-term fidelity and the importance of strong family commitments could certainly be made in a community education type setting OR a church setting in efforts to enhance both same-sex and opposite-sex marriages (since they seem concerned about promiscuity among same-sex couples).
It's interesting that s Slate article is taken seriously, especially when the author avoided the main point of their paper, and apparently was missed by others as well. Marriage as an institution was not created by the state, but rather recognized by it. The 'objections' are answere here:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2217
Anyone familiar with the field will recognize that there simply has not been enough time or a large enough sample size for evaluating children of same-sex parents. The baleful effects of divorce took more than twenty years to become clear, and it has taken 40+ years to demonstrate the damage caused by a constellation of family-weakening policies in the 60's and 70's.
and then there's this: http://www.uexpress.com/printable/print.html?uc_full_date=20040706&uc_comic=mg
Please, don't tell me it's anecdotal; it actually says it's not science, it's just her feelings.
And I have to say, putting up the original article and the Slate article has served my purpose very well.
It's interesting that s Slate article is taken seriously, especially when the author avoided the main point of their paper, and apparently was missed by others as well.
Taken seriously by whom? Nobody here even replied to that post, as of this writing — do you mean "people" in general who read the op-ed and ostensibly agreed with it? How are those people any different than those who took the original article seriously, since both are simply opinions with little or no evidentiary support?
Anyone familiar with the field will recognize…
You know, forgive me, but… as a former investigator whose bullshit detector is pretty well honed, I'm amused by your continued invocation of "the field" despite repeated requests from a number of people to further define it, and if I were interested enough to build a profile here, I'd pretty easily conclude at this point that you were getting off on it. And hey, that's fine… but let's call it like it is, shall we?
…there simply has not been enough time or a large enough sample size for evaluating children of same-sex parents… and then there's this: http://www.uexpress.com/printable/print.html?uc_full_date=20040706&uc_comic=mg … Please, don't tell me it's anecdotal; it actually says it's not science, it's just her feelings.
So… why invoke her interview in the first place if, ultimately, there "hasn't been enough time" to establish the generalizability of such an anecdote? I could just as easily post dozens of such interviews in which children of same-sex parents who make emphatic arguments to the contrary.
And I have to say, putting up the original article and the Slate article has served my purpose very well.
Well heck, I'm no prophet, but I sure called that one. You -did- happen to notice that nobody actually responded to the Slate article, though, right? I don't expect you to clarify your "purpose," because you get off on the boost to your ego that the air of mystery provides, but… I can't help but wonder what your perception is of your own "purpose." Whatever it is, I hope you're enjoying yourself.
Not to be a jerk unnecessarily here, Ed, but.. I'm actually concerned at this point, from a physics perspective, that if your ego gets any bigger, it'll collapse inward upon itself and form a singularity from which not even light can escape, thereby destroying not only our world, but the entire solar system and any stellar body unfortunate enough to cross its event horizon. In the interests of avoiding catastrophic mass destruction, I feel somewhat obligated to call you out on the way you've presented yourself in this debate. I mean, if you believe it to be even remotely "Christ-like," even as an atheist nowadays, I'd be keenly interested in meeting this version of Christ. I'm sure he'd be a real treat.
No mystery, Tim. I wanted to learn something. I did.
It did not turn out as I had hoped, but that's the thing about learning.
Here is a prominent dissent to the Harvard article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/12/the_best_argument_against_gay_marriage.html
All,
I've had a nagging question that I've been trying to find a place to work into the flow of conversation here, but since I've not been able to do that, I'd like to just throw it out here.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Iowa now since 3 April, 2009 — a little over 3 years. Since that time, several thousand same-sex partners have married there.
Biblical qualms with such a thing notwithstanding, which we've [mostly] already agreed is a non-starter, my question is a two-parter — A) In what way has the legalization of same-sex marriage been detrimental, in any manner, to heterosexual marriages in that state, either to those previously existing or those newly formed, and B) If three years isn't a sufficient period to allow for the manifestation of sequelae, on what grounds does one not only assert that sequelae will occur, but on what basis does one reach such a degree of confidence in that assertion that it warrants, on secular grounds, such a vehement and vociferous, orchestrated effort against the very concept of legalization?
At a second glance, I suppose that's more of a two-and-a-half parter. 😉
We've gone on at length about definitions, tradition, the construct of "real" marriage as distinct from all other manner of human relationships, et al., and I don't mean to suggest that it hasn't been constructive or even that it isn't a proper approach to the thing. But my present question, intended to be simple without being simplistic, is a practical one. If we consider the thing after taking a few steps back from it, what do we see?
Tim
I think we should simply agree that for most people the conclusion is strongly held and then justifications are sought. With or without research, many people simply know that same-sex marriage will be bad for society in general and children in particular. When it comes to this issue, I don't think it matters much what the Bible says or what research shows. People know the answer. It is too obvious to need eveidence. All people really need is one case from experience, or one case from people they respect, and any counter examples become irrelevant. Simply put: same-sex marriage is wrong, therefore it must and will have bad consequences. No amount of time or data can prove otherwise. Of course, there are also people who are convinced of the opposite and no amount of data will prove otherwise. What it takes for most people is to have someone near to them have a successful same-sex marriage, just like knowing a homosexual is the most effective way of removing homophobia. We like to pretend this is a debate over data and logic, but I think we all know it isn't for most people.
Kevin,
Agreed… and I acknowledge and agree with the notion, of course, that even those of us with a personal stake in the conclusions we reach (in fact, perhaps especially people like myself) are just as prone to divorcing ourselves, if you'll pardon the little bon mot, from the data and from logic in our approach. I'm making a good faith effort to try and avoid that, so long as we avoid religious premises, which naturally have no foundation in logic anyhow.
Also agree with the notion that knowing somebody personally is more game-changing than any disembodied, argumentative approach, but… I'm sad to say that my closest friend of many years, who had known since high school that I'm gay, ended up voting for Prop 8 here in CA, though I don't think he ever had any intention of letting me know that was the case — he slipped in conversation one day. We remain good friends, but I recently declined the invitation to participate in his own wedding. It wasn't easy, but I need to be able to look at myself in the mirror.
So… as influential as knowing somebody may be, it remains important to play the logic/debate game, even if most of us are just simultaneously shouting at the field from the bleachers.
Kevin,
We can fight the issue, or we can find ways to share God's love with those for whom the issue is significant. What is your plan for doing that? Can you love someone because they are in need of salvation without showing offense because of their sin?
William, just a note that this topic will be addressed more fully in my upcoming article on gays and the church. This particular column focuses specifically on issues of separation of church & state.
Well, I can't understand what real difference it makes anyway. Gay people are ALREADY living together in lifelong committed relationships and even adopting children, whether or not it's legally recognized. This isn't going to occur more or less frequently because it's legalized or it isn't. Whatever harm is being done or not done to the institution of marriage is done or not done already. For goodness' sake, just let them visit each other in the hospital and file their taxes in peace. Seriously, people.
Kendra
I am sure you don't mean it that way, but that sounds so trivialising to me. Marriage is much more than visiting each other in hospital and filing taxes together. It is because it is so much more – and I would argue that it is and has for a long time been – that we cannot and should not reduce marriage to simply procreation or simply anything. A lifelong commitment to love and support another person is not what marriage has historically been about, and I also deplore the modern move to making marriage simply one more disposible source of happiness, but surely the commitment of two unrelated people to become one is the essence of marriage. I don't see that children are necessary, or that if we accept the current definition of marriage that same-sex marriages will somehow damage the institution of marriage.
But what I'm saying is, they are DOING all those other things already: the companionship, the commitment, the sex, even the children. All we are really withholding with the marriage license are the legal benefits of recognizing those things.
I can't speak to if they are making a commitment to "become one;" probably some are and some aren't, just as is the case in heterosexual marriages. That's the thing that should be more widely encouraged for everyone.
Stupid question perhaps, but I am from Australia, where gay marriage is banned but the government in effects grants exactly the same legal rights to people in de facto relationships (hetrosexuals, homosexuals and even polygamists). Further to the point Kendra just made, is this hole debate getting a little absurd when people in effect are married but just don't have the label or piece of paper?
I would say so. But there are many such debates. Just look at some we have in the church.
Same sex marriage was legalized nearly 10 years ago in some European nations, and in ten others since then. What have been the results that would offer evidence for the danger of instituting it in the U.S.?
Present marriage rates are at an all-time low, so it cannot be attributed to same sex marriages that have only been legal for a few short years in a few states. When does fear become legitimate reasons for enacting or rejecting laws?
I don't know that fear is a legitimate reason for enacting laws, but it seems to be the driving force between an alarming number of laws and elections since 2001.
More to the point, the damage to the institution of marriage does not at all stem from same-sex anything. It stems from the hypersexualization of our culture and the de-emphasis on serious, lifelong commitments. In fact, monogamous same-sex unions would seem to be a step in the right direction rather than otherwise.
Kendra,
I'm going to disagree with you just a bit. There is a deep, primal desire in each of us to enjoy the security of a long and faithful relationship that, ideally, will be monogamous. The model in nature for that relationship is a matching of one male with one female to the exclusion of all others. I've observed that same drive/desire in my gay and transgender friends. How they act upon that desire may offend those of us who approach such relationships from a spiritual basis. Still, it is there. So I do not see hypersexualization and de-emphasis on commitment as primary causes, but factors complicating resolution of the matter.
My challenge in this topic is identifying how to share the Gospel with such friends so they will be drawn to God and allow Him to work in their lives. The basis for my best such encounters have built on confirming that primal drive within each person and pointing to God as the creator of that desire.
Can't quite wrap my head around what you're suggesting, William… maybe you can clarify?
I agree that hypersexualization and a de-emphasis on life-long commitments are hugely problematic in their own right, but — and forgive me if I'm misundertsanding you — are you suggesting that those are tertiary to the real issue of the homosexual's confused primal desire for a member of the opposite sex, expressed as homosexual attraction?
Tim,
Yes, that is what I am suggesting. But let's not get distracted by any disagreement about primary and secondary cause factors. What we need is a basis for sharing God's love in a way that will lead to God transforming them. That is our real challenge.
Yeah, not trying to get bogged down by disagreements over causality, effect sizes and so forth, but.. you're making a very curious point here, and I'm compelled to comment.
I don't know any homosexuals (or social scientists or biologists, et al.) who would agree with your position, and I have to question what you think you've observed in your LGBT friends. You're suggesting an idealized natural model that isn't reflected by the realities of the natural kingdom around us — naturally-occurring variations between organisms exist everywhere, and variance occurs along every dimension, including sexual orientation, sex drive, fertility, fecundity and so forth. At best, we can define "normalcy" as a general tendency toward some mean.
But I'm more interested in the conclusion your position leads to — that homosexuals need to be transformed, which, if we're being honest, is really just a politically correct way to say that homosexuals need fixing. I'm not at all suggesting that you have any ill-intent — just not a big proponent of political correctness when it obfuscates the thing we're talking about.
I'd be curious to know how precisely you think homosexuals might be 'transformed,' either by God miraculously and outright, or by some natural mechanism He'd employ.
Let's look at a few hurdles that God might have in that endeavor. The chances of a homosexual male having a homosexual brother are 20-25% for fraternal twins and roughly 50% for identical twins (Kirk, Bailey & Martin, 2000), which is very compelling evidence for a heritable component to sexual orientation. Compared to mothers of heterosexual sons, mothers of homosexual sons show more extreme chromosomal skewing, which means one X chromosome is much more likely to be inactivated than the other (Bocklandt, Horvath, Vilain & Hamer, 2006). There is evidence suggesting a hormonal role in the prenatal environment (specifically, prenatal androgens) — men who have older brothers are slightly more likely to be gay than men who have no siblings, younger siblings only, or older sisters (Blanchard, 1997; Cantor, Blanchard, Paterson & Bogaert, 2002). It's believed that protein products of three genes on the Y chromosome provoke the mother's immune response, which should become greater with each successive pregnancy in which the fetus is male. A strong immune response from the mother might affect the masculinization of the fetus's brain while not affecting the gonads or genitals (we can see differences in this masculinization by looking at brain structures that vary in size in an expected way with more or less exposure to androgens). Further, we can use the fact that several brain structures are reliably sexually dimorphic (vary in a consistent way between males and females along some dimension) to consider differences in brain structures between hetero and homosexual men and women. The interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, which differs in size significantly between heterosexual males and females, does not differ significantly in size between homosexual males and heterosexual females, though the exact function of this brain area remains unclear (LeVay, 1991). There were some legit methogological issues with the LeVay study — nevertheless, a similar study that didn't have the same methodological issues, involving the SDN-POA in sheep brains, paralleled LeVay's findings (Larkin, Resko, Stormshak, Stellflug & Roselli, 2002). Larkin et al. found that the SDN-POA in apparently homosexual rams (6-8% of rams among domestic sheep mate exclusively with other males — fun fact) did not differ significantly from the SDN-POA in ewes, whereas it was significantly different in rams that did mate with ewes.
The list goes on. So whereas you might suggest that sharing God's love in a way that will lead God to transforming homosexuals is the "real" challenge, I propose that transforming homosexuals would be a "real challenge."
Perhaps we can agree that, according to Christianity, ALL of us are in need of God's transformation and leave it up to the leading of the Holy Spirit as to exactly what form that transformation might take?
Definitely. Even as the faithless heathen that I am today, I recognize and agree that that's one of the most important tenets of Christianity.
What I'm getting at though is that there are aspects of ourselves that we understand to be unchangeable. The Bible says with God all things are possible, if we only ask, faith can move mountains and so forth, yet none of us reasonably expects, say, for the Lord to suddenly grow new legs on somebody or grow a new face on a burn victim (sorry for the colorful imagery). There are physiological aspects of ourselves that we understand to be, for whatever reason we want to put forth, outside of the Lord's desire or beyond His ability to change. These are the things about which we say "well, ours isn't to understand why" or "in every hardship lies a blessing in disguise" or whatever it is we need to tell ourselves to keep faith alive.
So if sexual orientation has a physiological basis, at least in part as studies overwhelmingly suggest, then it's strange for one to presume it to be the highly maleable or even binary aspect of ourselves that Christians suggest. This is a source of great frustration for people like me and homosexuals everywhere. You can ask a tiger to change his spots, but the hard reality is that all of the most fervent prayer in the world will not — can not — result in even the slightest change whatsoever. Acting on our homosexuality is a bit different, of course, but only to a degree — I'll stop here to spare everyone my usual long-windedness and go there if / when it comes up.
Yes, that's kind of my point. I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility for God to change someone's sexual orientation (God can, after all, do ANYTHING), but in the vast majority of cases, it seems apparent that he does not choose to do so (witness the abysmal failure of change therapy, even among those who fervently desire it).
Similarly, God could, if he chose, have made me born not tongue-tied so I wouldn't have needed surgery. He could heal everyone of cancer, prevent all birth defects and genetic abnormalities, make everyone of at least average intelligence, prevent or reverse fetal alcohol syndrome, etc etc etc etc.
Christians seem to have resigned themselves to the fact that he chooses not to do so in the vast majority of these cases, but still seem to struggle with the idea that gays should be able to "pray it away."
As I alluded to in my way-back original article "God Loves Gays and so should we" (https://atoday.org/article/864/columns/perry-kendra/2011/god-loves-gays-and-so-should-we), in Jesus' day people thought being born blind meant that either the person or his parents had sinned. Jesus reversed that thought and revealed that instead, being born with a disability was not a direct result of sin and was, in fact, an opportunity for God to be glorified in that person's life.
Although I do believe that homosexuality is, in a GENERAL sense, a result of sin (i.e. in God's ideal plan, no one would be attracted to the same sex), I also believe it's equally unfair to blame the person or the family for the situation as it would be to blame them for their child being born with something like Down's syndrome — also clearly not in God's original plan, but clearly beyond their control and worthy of love and support rather than condemnation and censure.
My point to both you and William is merely that, as humans, we need transformation. If we leave it up to the Holy Spirit to decide and reveal what transformation we need, we can let go of preconceptions that "if gays are truly saved, their orientation will change," but also that it is completely outside the realm of possibility for God to do such a thing IF he miraculously chooses to do so. We can simply go along for the ride of God's leading in our lives.
Kendra,
Absolutely! While we can debate cause factors there should be no debate about the power of God to transform anyone. The fundamental question I see here is: Have we allowed God to work in us so that we know His power to transform and we can offer that same power to others?
Well I respectfully disagree, William. I'm happy to stop the debate about it just as soon as Christians stop suggesting to me that God can "transform" me into somebody who isn't homosexual. My entire point in bringing this up is that it's founded in physiology, just like somebody's "affliction" of missing legs, male pattern baldness, or any of the examples Kendra lists above.
God is either unwilling or unable to "transform" them, and he's either unwilling or unable to "transform" homosexuals' sexual orientation. So long as Christians insist otherwise despite the ridiculousness of the thing, it sort of forces the argument. If Christians gave that a rest, you'd see so many people come back to the flock overnight it'd make your head spin.
What makes it easier for some people to accept that God doesn't work in other cases is that they are not defined as 'SIN'. Many Christians cannot believe that God would call homosexuality an ABOMINATION (why does everyone feel the need to capitalise that word?) and promise to heal all our sins, and then not do so. It is almost as if God were saying 'don't worry, it's OK' when they know it isn't and can't be OK. Today, for many conservative Christians, homosexuality is the worst of sins, and if God won't heal that, then that raises big questions in everyone's minds. It is far easier to doubt/deny the sincerity of those who say they have prayed and not been healed than it is to face those issues.
But again, at the time of Jesus, blindness was clearly connected to sin. The disciples flat-out asked him, "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" That was a misunderstanding that Jesus had to correct.
Yes. But some misunderstandings take a long time to correct. And this isn't about whether someone is born homosexual because of sin, but whether it is in itself sin. Most Christians accept that blindness is not sin, so if God chooses not to heal blindness, that is his choice. But if homosexuality is a sin, why would God not heal it? That is where the fact that most of the time he does not becomes a problem.
What do you mean by "homosexuality"? This is the distinction between orientation and practice, which eludes many many many people…
I don't see how we can possibly define the orientation or the attraction in itself as a sin. Just because someone is gay does not NECESSARILY mean that they are having gay sex. When a ten-year-old starts to realize that he thinks about girls and boys differently than his peers, is that already a sin??
It seriously cheeses me off when people start talking about "the gay lifestyle." Which gay lifestyle? The single & celibate lifestyle? The single & swinging lifestyle? The monogamous and committed lifestyle? We have all of those on the heterosexual side, too, and nobody is calling any one of them "the straight lifestyle."
Kendra
Relax, I get it. I was taught for a number of sex, gender and sexuality subjects by radical feminists and queer theorists. I understand the difference between orientation and action, and the great variety of ways of being gay and straight. I even understand the difference between sex, gender and sexuality – and why the terms must but can't be kept separate. I have observed many discussions by experts about the best labels to use, and why one or another acronymn does or does not capture the essence of being gay/queer/etc. I can even follow most discussions on theoretical models and methodology. My point was partly that most people don't make that distinction and don't actually even see it.
I can probably get away with saying this where you may not, but the 'gay life style' that most people talk about is simply – as a number of experts in men's study pointed out decades ago – the lifestyle that most single young men of any orientation aspire to, or believe they should, if you remove the simple (or not so simple) issue of who they 'party' with. I really liked the term 'polymoprphous perversity' from the day it was first used in a lecture, but may be unusual in believing it can be applied not only to human sexuality throughout life but also to the minds of those who insist in so many ways on focusing on what other people do in private that is really none of their business.
If you really think you can separate identity and desire from action, then I seriously suggest you go and start the process of applying for a PhD in either psychology or social science. Should you be successful, you just may be one of the few academics who can make a decent living from the sale of books.
And for those who wonder, no it isn't my secular education that leads me to question the church's teachings on anything. That lies more in 4 years of theology before I started studying social science, if not earlier.
Hi Kendra, I am not sure if someone else has asked the question, but have you heard of the adelphopoiia ceremony (blood brothers)? I note 'Yale historian John Boswell in his book Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe, also published as The marriage of likeness, that the practice was to unite two persons in a marriage-like union.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis
In response to your point 5 re definitions, I am wondering if the LGBT adopted the term 'adelphoiia' rather than marriage, and where religious institutions are under no obligation to perform the adelphoiia ceremony, then if this might take some of the heat out of the debate.
I do realise this won't satisfy everyone, as people have also criticised Boswell's own argument, but I think it is better to discuss possible solutions rather than just yell at each other.
Much obliged.
I should just add, the obvious advantage of the adelephoiia ceremony, apart from obviously avoiding the word marriage, is that there are precedents for how the ceremony is performed etc. Therefore, for those Churches who want to perform the ceremony (and I am not suggesting in any way the SDA Church should), then it might provide a better solution.
I am not sure what the LGBT Christian community(s) think (they may be offended by the idea, not sure), but in some ways it would give deeper meaning, because the ceremony has a very long tradition, going way back to the earliest times of Christianity in the 4th century. The other advantage is that similar ceremonies (perhaps not suprising) are found in many other cultures, including Chineese, Indian, Germanic, Scandinavian and Native American ones – so it is not just a Christian-European thing.
Stephen,
I can't speak for the larger meaning or application, but I can tell you what I saw two years ago at the wedding of two friends, one of whom was transsexual. Yes, there were two brides at that wedding! They had a pagan ceremony that included the symbol of becoming "blood brothers" among several others. They were holding hands and the wrists of those arms were tied together. Next they attempted to each cut their palm so their blood could "mix" except the blade was not sharp enough!
Adoption of such terms is typical in fringe social populations as they seek to validate and defend their existence. How closely the application of the term matches with the historic meaning varies.
This is why certain pagan friends of mind pray ardently for these people to actually experience a 'spiritual experience' with those they believe they worship/invoke, because they believe, like many Christians, that the sacred cannot be mocked with impunity, even in ignorance. I cannot imagine any of them discovering the knife was blunt during teh service. Playing religion is endemic to modern life.
This strikes me as an eminently sensible solution!
Another alternative I think would work is for the government to provide civil unions for everyone (same-sex and opposite-sex) and for religious institutions to be in charge of defining and recognizing marriage.
But these are all rather obscure ideas that seem difficult for many people to get their heads around, so I don't suspect they will enter the popular discourse any time soon.
Thanks Kendra. Yes, I agree on both points re civil unions and practical solutions being too obscure for most people to get their heads around. To be honest, my understanding is the LGBT itself can be pretty obstinate in demanding they be granted the title 'marriage' and nothing less.
I don't think you're wrong about the tendency for some us to be obstinate on the topic, but.. I think it's important to recognize that much of that stems from a desire to avoid another incarnation of "separate but equal." And it doesn't help that the existing civil unions that some heterosexuals tote as being an equal alternative are clearly woefully inadequate.
Love the "itself," by the way. We -do- have genders you know! 😉 (Not offended — just amused)
What is done in many places is that marriage is a civil service, and then the religious practitioner blesses the existing marriage. As marriage is essentially a civil institution recognised by and licensed by the state, I think many people would object to marriage being handed to religious institutions. Most people want to be married, not united in a civil union. It is state recognition that makes a marriage legally valid, not the blessing of priest/pastor/shaman/etc. The crux of the issue really is the definition of marriage. If it is the recognition of two people committing to love and support each other (and have sex together), then not extending the right to same-sex couples is hard to defend. If marriage is primarily about forming a pair bond for procreation, then of couse same-sex marriages are debatable if not impossible. But if so, what do we do about infertile couples or couples who do not want children? Do we create a two tier ('separate but equal') system where marriage is for those who intend to have children and civil unions are for those who don't or can't? I think if we reduce the question to 'is marriage primarily about having and rearing children?' that it will soon become obvious that for most people the definition of marriage has changed and the answer is 'no'.
I think we largely agree. As others have expressed here, honestly, I'm not all that hung up about what to call it — marriage, a civil union, whatever. My primary concern is that it ends up granting same-sex partners precisely the same legal privileges and recognitions in the eyes of the state (whereas I'm perfectly content to have our unions continue to be seen as abominable in the eyes of the church, whether Adventist or whichever, unless a church wishes freely to bestow its blessings of marital recognition to its homosexual congregants). To do that, though, would require extricating the legal aspects of marriage from the religious aspects, as you state. That's the hard part, and worse, we (gays) are up against opponents of any state recognition of same-sex partners at all for religious reasons no matter what anybody wants to call it, as we saw overtly in the recent happenings in NC.
I will say, though, that it'll be a cold day in hell before we call it Adelphopoiia. Sounds -way- too much like a specialty brand of cream cheese. 🙂
Adelphopoiesis. I am not sure where adelphpoiia came from, but it is meaningless. I would not touch that argument. Boswell's credibility is much higher among (some) activists than among scholars – even those who share his views on what should be find his exegesis of texts somewhat hard to accept. That same-sex lovers may have undergone the rite of adelphopoiesis as a ceremony of commitment is entirely possible, just as some older men adopted their younger lovers as a way of legitimately living together and passing on property, but that was not its intention, nor is there any evidence it was ever seen as such. There is no shortage of same-sex commitment ceremonies, or of instances where such were spoken of in terms of marriage, but all we know of were of limited duration and were in addition to, not in place of, heterosexual marriage. That should not surprise us. The traditional western (and most other places) concept of marriage did revolve around procreation and inheritance. For same-sex couples, that was far easier to deal with by having an adoption ceremony than a marriage. There are limited precedents to call on because we are arguing over a different institution than existed in the past. It is not just that there were no formal life-long exclusive unions for same-sex couples, there were no formal unions for anyone that did not focus on procreation and inheritance. That should be the main focus of our discussion: what is marriage. The conclusion on same-sex marriage follows naturally from the conclusion to that discussion. But we should perhaps be aware that either conclusion also carries implications for all marriages.
I agree insofar as what IS marriage exactly? For religious people who seem to have very strict ideas on who should be denied marriage, I would submit many of them could not exactly explain what marriage is exactly.
Many religious people with strongly held opinions on various religious and social issues can't explain what exactly they are holding strong views about. Understanding is not a pre-requisite to certainty. After all, it is only after decades of debate and two votes at the GC that we are actually asking 'what is ordination'? The list of things on which we have no developed theology is amazing. That doesn't stop us believing we are right and otehrs are wrong.
Thanks Tim, yes I get what you are saying re 'separate but equal', with its segregation connotations'. With the use of 'itself' I meant it within the context of the LGBT community as a whole, and thought it might be offensive if I adopted anything other than a nuetral gender. Apologies if you were offended (it is ok to say so).
No worries! It really takes something like a roundhouse kick to the face to offend me. But I'm a big enough jerk that if I were offended, you'd know it. 😉 I see what you meant now.
As much as nobody likes to be judged, it's actually just as tough when people feel as though they need to walk on eggshells around me. When I was in the Army, I'd approach a group of fellow soldiers on a smoke break, wait for a natural lull in the conversation, and then say as solemnly as possible: "You guys know what's worse than Hitler and nuclear war combined? Gays." Only I'd use a decidedly less polite word for gays. My friends would laugh, and the poor soldiers who didn't know I was gay (I was largely "out" to everyone even before DADT was repealed) would just chuckle nervously, horrified and unsure how to respond. Even among my friends today, they know in no uncertain terms that if they ever stop telling gay-themed jokes around me simply for my sake, I'll kill 'em.
Anyway.. there's that. Moving on.
Two interesting blog posts that go over much the same ground, but seem to get to central issues faster than we have:
http://www.outofur.com/archives/2012/05/why_legalizing.html?utm_source=outofur&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=8424908&utm_content=127476598&utm_campaign=2012
http://www.outofur.com/archives/2012/05/why_the_church_1.html?utm_source=outofur&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=8424908&utm_content=127476598&utm_campaign=2012
Great posts! Thanks for sharing.
Yes, further to some of the most recent comments, I have another question (if that is ok). Is marriage a civil institution, a religious rite or both? Is it possible to have one and not the other?
For example, if in Nazi Germany a Jewish woman married a German man, that was not a 'legal marriage'. However, I would think that everyone here would agree it was a marriage in the 'eyes of God' and teachings of the SDA Church.
By contrast, if a hetrosexual couple had a civil ceremony at a town hall it would no doubt be a legal marriage. But would that be a marriage 'in the eyes of God' and teachings of the SDA Church? I would think we would probably think so, and couldn't really imagine the Church Pastor and Elders demand they undergo a religious ceremony or be considered biblically unmarried.
What then IS marriage exactly?
Legally marriage is a civil rite. Theologically it is a civil rite or a mixed rite, depending on your tradition. Popularly it is conceived of as either entirely civil, mixed, or entirely religious, depending on who you ask. In all countries I have checked, marriage can be entirely civil, but many also allow a religious rite. Indonesia racognises either a Muslim or a civil marriage. It does not recognise any religious ceremony except a Muslim one as valid. All churches recognise a civil marriage as licit, so as far as I know, no denomination requires a religious rite.
Historically, marriage in Europe was entirely civil to begin with, with the RC church becoming involved to an increasing degree over time for various reasons. Luther and Calvin both saw marraige as entirely civil – which may explain why most Protestant countries in Europe have civil marriages followed by an optional rite of blessing. But the RC church defines marriage as a sacrament in which the couple are the ministers, so a priest is not necessary for a valid marriage, but is if it is to be a valid nuptial mass, as only a priest can offer mass. In other words, two RCs married by a civil celebrant are considered to be 'really' married, but if they want a church wedding, it has to be officiated at by a RC priest. They conveniently consider all Protestant ministers to be civil celebrants – which, of course, they legally are.
The SDA church accepts as a licit marriage any marriage performed according to the customs of the place in which it was made, providing it does not break God's law. If anyone converts who is already married, whether that marriage was conducted by a civil celebrant, Christian priest/pastor, pagan priest or Elvis Presley impersonator, the marriage is licit and does not require any further ceremony if it was a licit marriage when contracted. When you compare that to our attitude to baptism and ordination, you will see why I argue that we do not view it as a religious rite.
Yes, I would seem to suggest that marriage is really more a civil recognition more than a religious rite.
I also had heard that in RC opinion it is the couples themselves who performed the ceremony by making an oath, and they become married by consumation. Thus, there were cases where couples were considered legally 'married' because they had sex after bethrothal but before the official 'marriage' by an officiating priest. I believe Henry VIII used that exact excuse to divorce Catherine Howard, arguing she was already legally married to a previous fiancee, even though she later broke off the engagement.
It certainly makes the issue of whether de facto couples are 'married' much trickier, especially if they are living together as 'common law' husbands and wives, and in some cases with children.
Re gay marriage, if marriage is essentially a civil recognition of the state more than a religious rite, and if governments in effect recognise gay partners as de factos with rights equating to other married couples, then what is the problem with allowing them to get married? No one is asking the SDA Church or any other group to bless such a union with a religious rite.
It's a *little* interesting to me how this gets mixed up with ordination as well. Apparently it is the act of ordination that makes one a recognized marriage officer of the state, right? Well, unless they hold a recognized civil office.
And now any random person can go on the internet and get ordained, and thereby become a recognized marriage officer.
So now we are calling into question not only the institution of marriage but the institution of ordination (which is fine with me, mind you — I don't think ordination is a biblical concept at all). It just struck me as odd how these two controversial topics co-mingle in this way. Perhaps because both have been hidden derivatives of our Catholic heritage that we accepted without questioning until now?
Or maybe I should say the "sacrament" of marriage and the "sacrament" of ordination.
What then IS marriage exactly?
It has to be whatever one wants it to be: the state has decided by its license requirements before it can be called "marriage."
The church hasn't decided (correct me) that a civil marriage is not one unless blessed by the church; ergo, the church has no legal standing on declaring what is a marriage.
The various states that have approved of marriage for same sex couples will be recognized as legally marriage within that state. The problem: will the other states also recognize those marriages, and what about the many problems that could occur with the mobile population. I believe there have already been problems. That almost predicts that it will have to go to SCOTUS.
But isn't that exactly the problem. Many Christians seem to have very strong views on who should be denied marriage, but they don't seem to be able to articulate what marriage IS exactly. For a start, they can't work out if it is a civil institution (even though the Nazi Germany example shows that can't be explicitly be true), a religious rite (even though the Church doesn't require a religious ceremony for there to be a valid marriage), or something to do with procreation (even though the Church recognises marriage without children).
As Kevin noted above, it really comes down to what marriage is defined as. If people want to stop others from getting married, perhaps they should have a clearer idead of what marriage is.
I agree with this insofar as it's applicable to most people here — intellectually curious, educated Christians who in spite of their faith recognize that we're all members of a secular society — but, as you know, that's far from a universal perception. A non-trivial slice of the Christian demographic believes homosexuals shouldn't be in any committed relationships with one another. I wish that were a hyperbolic statement, but it's not. The recent amendment to NC's state constitution, for instance, didn't merely define marriage as exclusive to the domain of one man and one woman: it explicitly banned any state recognition of any other domestic union in any form whatsoever. If you're having trouble thinking of a good reason for wording the amendment in such a way that it nullifies domestic unions, that's because there isn't any good reason except to kick homosexuals in the teeth. They did exactly that, and they're proud of it. There were probably hundreds of thousands of prayers of thanksgiving around the dinner table the very night it passed.
So I agree that the definition of marriage is a critical component of the issue, and in terms of the Adventist church deciding on a way forward, perhaps it's enough. But outside the walls of Adventism, definitions won't be sufficient on their own.
That is the reality of the situation: what should be primarily if not solely a discussion of a legal issue has become a discussion also of religious beliefs, traditions of various kinds, the reliability of research, civil and/or religious rights, and a political battle. Having a clear understanding of what is being discussed i.e. what is meant by 'marriage', even if there are a number of competing definitions, would make the discussion easier. While we carry on the discussion as if we are all agreed, or that the meaning and implications of marriage is self-evident, it is inevitable that much of the conversation will consist of talking past each other. Great for scoring political points, rousing the faithful to action through fear, and appearing to be doing 'something', but not so useful for solving problems.
It seems clear to me that the kind of marriage we are talking about politically is a civil union with all the legal benefits. It might be best to call it that for legal purposes, but traditions change slowly.
It should be up to the various churches as to whether or not they perform ss marriages and not have them become involved in the legal or state decision. Now if they were forced to perform such marriges by law, that would be against their religious liberty, but no one is suggesting that. For example churches are free to refuse to perform marriages between a believer and nonbeliever.
The problem here seems to be convincing churches that they should not make laws for all of society concerning the civil rights of consenting adults. In Islamic countries, I believe the state controlled by religion, can deny marriage to heterosexuals if they are not both Muslim; so you have the situation of the church being involved in marriage. That does not sound like freedom.
Now if they were forced to perform such marriges by law, that would be against their religious liberty, but no one is suggesting that. For example churches are free to refuse to perform marriages between a believer and nonbeliever.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but at present, can't clergy refuse to officiate a marriage for any reason at all, even if their 'religious' reasons directly violate federal or state laws with respect to discrimination against protected classes? Like, for example, refuse to marry an interracial couple? As I understand it, while such a thing may land the pastor / priest in front of a news camera, it won't land him in front of a judge.
Am I mistaken?
And apologies for the posting spree today — I get sick of hearing myself talk and am now getting sick of watching myself type!
The short answer is that it is not legally defined. By convention, in most places religious and secular marriage celebrants are free to refuse to marry anyone. I believe that is not the case in some European countries where marriage celebrants are directly employed by the state and can only refuse to marry someone if there is a legal impediment. England either has or is in the process of passing an amendment so that no minister is compelled to marry same-sex couples. Both amendments before the parliament in Australia make that exception explicit. This is one area where there is considerable choice, and no one is at risk of not being able to get married because no one will perform the ceremony. Which is a different issue to not being able to get permission from the state to marry.
Yes my understanding is that in Canada, based on a recent court decision, civil celebrants cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples, even if that is against their personal religious beliefs, because they are considered employees of the State. It would by like a State driving instructor refusing to administer a driving test to someone because they personally didn't like the person (i.e. same because of race, gender or sexuality).
By contrast, my understanding is that religious ministers are free to refuse to administer the rite of marriage. Interestingly, in Australia, my understanding is that religious minister can only perform a legal marriage if it is in accordance to the rite of their faith community. Thus, even if Australia legalised marriage tomorrow, if the SDA Church did not allow it, it might be legally questionable whether an Adventist minister had the legal authority to conduct the marriage, as the Adventist rites would not allow it.
In short – yes, there is really little to no danger of legalizing marriage somehow forcing ministers to marry people against their faith. Even if there was legislation somehow forcing Ministers to marry homosexuals against their conscience, I am sure the law would be practically unenforceable, as Ministers could simply come up with an excuse (family crises, sick, etc etc). It is similar to the 'Cab-rank rule' for Barristers, who are ethically obliged to represent anyone who asks (including alleged rapists and child molestors), but in practice find easy excuses if they don't want to take a case.
Stephen
I know some church administrators here worry about how little control they have over who pastors marry. A minister is licensed by the state and any legal marriage they perform is valid, whether or not the church approves. I have been to weddings conducted by SDA pastors which were held outside the SDA church simply to avoid the issue of whether the church approved. Remember, we technically say not to marry an SDA to a non-SDA, yet most pastors don't hesitate to conduct such marriages. That is also why the church is not keen on SDA laymen becoming marriage celebrants. It was particularly sensitive when women working as [unordained] pastors became marriage celebrants when the church at that time restrictred the right to conduct marriages to ordained pastors. I think now that even ordained pastors need to complete a course that is certified by the government before they can become marriage celebrants rather than it just depending on ordination. Although that may vary between states.
Just checked. Ministers of registered denominations/religions are registered by the states on the recommendation of the employing group and a statement that they have the required training and require registration to perform marriages as part of their religious duties. Celebrants in Registry Offices are appointed by states. Private marriage celebrants are licensed by the Commonwealth and have to pay a fee. There were 120,000 marriages performed in 2009, of which 67% were performed by civil celebrants. There were about 23,000 religious celebrants and 10,000 civil celebrants. I doubt it is a business in which one makes a good living 🙂
Covered in my very next column which I reallyreally hope will be posted later this week (at least the US considerations). Thanks for adding international perspective, and I hope you'll add those again when the new column goes live.
Why is this being discussed? Homosexuality is a sin and God calls it an abomination. No practicing gay will be in heaven–sin cannot exist before a Holy God.No gay or lesbian can possibly be a Christian. Practicing gays are NOT candidates for baptism and church membership.
Jesus came and died to save us FROM our sins–not in them. I'm not saying to shun gays–but to love them, welcome them to church, and show them the way to salvation. God will change them!