I think that a lot of Americans feel some compulsion to accept same-sex marriage out of a sense of fairness. I also think that sense of fairness is misplaced in this case, and is actually being used inappropriately as a leverage to persuade people to approve of something they shouldn't. And absent some careful thinking to see through this, fair-minded people succumb to the pressure to (supposedly) be tolerant. Frank Turek makes the accurate and important point that same-sex marriage isn't about tolerance. It's actually traditional marriage, which Californians will vote on next Tuesday, that is the truly tolerant position for society to take. He begins by making a list of what same-sex marriage is not about despite a lot of the red herrings offered in the public debate:
It is not about discrimination against a class of people.
It is not about denying homosexuals the ability to commit to one another.
It is not about love or private relationships.
It is not about bigotry or homophobia.
It is not about sexual orientation or being born a certain way.
It is not about race or the civil rights struggle.
It is not about interracial marriage.
It is not about heterosexuals and divorce.
It is not about the separation of church and state.
It is not even about religion....
What they want is government endorsement for their relationships. They know that such endorsement will make homosexuality and their behavior appear just as normal as heterosexuality. That’s why the same-sex marriage movement has more to do with respect than rights....
Since most homosexuals don’t want to get married or stay married, then why are homosexual activists so adamant about government recognition of same-sex marriage? Because same-sex marriage will win them what they really want—validation and normalization. In other words, the activists want same-sex marriage because they understand that government-backed same-sex marriage will validate and normalize homosexuality throughout society.
The key point here is “government-backed.” Homosexuals already can “marry” one another privately. There is just no government version of it. Nothing is stopping homosexuals from pledging themselves to one another in private same-sex marriage ceremonies. In fact, it is done all the time—there is an entire cottage industry for “gay” weddings.
But that’s not enough for homosexual activists. What they want is government endorsement for their relationships. They know that such endorsement will make homosexuality and their behavior appear just as normal as heterosexuality. That’s why the same-sex marriage movement has more to do with respect than rights.
...Andrew Sullivan understands this. He writes, “Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form of social approval imaginable.”
This is the real reason homosexual activists are relentlessly pushing to get the government to endorse same-sex marriage. Most don’t want to get “married,” but they do want the social approval that same-sex marriage will win them.
Once they get that legal and social approval, no one disagreeing with them will be safe. Schools, businesses, churches, and charities will be bludgeoned with threats and lawsuits until they abandon their convictions and agree to promote what is pleasantly called “diversity.” Ironically, the only view allowed by the coming diversity police is the narrow view that you must celebrate homosexuality. No other view will be tolerated.
In fact, this intolerance is already happening and will get worse if same-sex marriage spreads. A federal court recently denied parents the right to know when homosexuality was being discussed in their Massachusetts schools because gay marriage is now legal there. Also in Massachusetts, a Catholic adoption agency was forced to close its doors rather than provide children to homosexual couples as the state now demands. In New Jersey, a Christian ministry was investigated for refusing to conduct a same-sex ceremony. In California, a doctor was sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian. Several other examples of gay intolerance can be found here, and the unbelievable forced normalization of homosexuality in businesses, schools and charities throughout Massachusetts can be found here.
The fact is that, in California, where voters must make this choice next week, government-sanctioned same-sex marriage won't add any more or new rights that homosexual partners don't have now under state law apart from marriage. Same-sex partners are already tolerated under the law. It's the respect that marriage will confer that is the point of same-sex marriage. It's also the government-compelled approval that same-sex marriage is about. It's already possible to respect individuals without respecting their behavior or choices. And it's that second step that is the point of same-sex marriage. Not tolerance. Approval.
Here are a couple more articles I've linked to in the past that provide important considerations.
It looks like the "here" links aren't active in the above. I was expecting to click to the reference, if thats not the intent, my bad.
Brad B
Posted by: Brad B | October 31, 2008 at 04:11 PM
One links to an article written by Jennifer Roback Morse. The other article was a defense of Prop 8 by a self-proclaimed liberal democrat.
Posted by: Augustine | October 31, 2008 at 11:41 PM
I wanted to to throw out a hypothetical situation:
I understand that if all statistics showed that gay marriage benefits the society in every measure, solidifies marriage, children are more valued, tolerance is expanded, the economy rebounds because of the amount of marriage occurring, etcetera, the Christian's stance will remain that it is immoral.
My question would be, shown this (hypothetically), how should Christians present themselves and their position?
I ask this because I wanted to isolate from all the variable statistics the most crucial reason why Christians don't believe in homosexual/polygamous marriages.
Posted by: Augustine | October 31, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Or is that situation impossible?
Posted by: Augustine | November 01, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Hi Augustine, I think it's impossible in reality, because since God created men, the good and beneficial behavoirs would not likely be prohibited. But, given the hypothetical, government would be right to promote and endorse the activity for the good of society, even against Christian objections. [I say this as a hypothetical also.]
Brad B
Posted by: Brad B | November 01, 2008 at 08:48 PM
Hi Augustine, I didn't really answer your question, but here I will with another question. Does the fact that it is an offense to God leave room for any more crucial reason to oppose it?
Brad B
Posted by: Brad B | November 01, 2008 at 08:59 PM
There is a problem coming up on our horizon with our worldview in this area.
There is at least one longitudinal study done. This is what my friend said. He couldn't read the study and neither could I. We don't have access to that particular journal. But I think the folks here at STR ought to look into it to verify the quote from my friend. Hopefully they see this comment. How do you answer this sort of thing? I don't have any counter studies to offer.
From my friend: QUOTE--------
Golombok, Susan; Tasker, Fiona. Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families. [References]. [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] Developmental Psychology. Vol 32(1) Jan 1996, 3-11.
25 children of lesbian children and 21 children of a control heterosexual couple were involved. Children were seen at 9.5 and then 23.5 years on average. Along with sexual orientation, general psychological well-being is upheld. 9 children from the lesbian couples and 4 from the heterosexual couples expressed having had same-sex attraction at one point or another - but this is not satistically significant. Only two girls from the lesbian couples identified as being lesbian, again, not statistically significant.
Tasker, Fiona; Golombok, Susan. Adults raised as children in lesbian families. [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol 65(2) Apr 1995, 203-215.
I believe this would've been the same group of people. This journal article focusses more on psychological well-being. Says here that a strong number of the children in the lesbian couples were proud of parents and willing to talk about it to others and seek out public opinion. Whilst of the same-sex couples, of a parents who remarried/whatever/"nonconventional relationship", they felt the issue was a private family affair. The adults thinking back on their childhoods could no more remember being seriously teased than those of the heterosexual couples. A measure of Anxiety showed that there was no significant difference between the children. Similarly no significant different for depression.
--------------------------
Posted by: Chris | November 01, 2008 at 09:47 PM
Nope, there is no more crucial reason to object. And that is why in my coming debate on the issue, I am going to take a stance against same-sex marriage on the basis that the revision of marriage is a shift from one definition to another. The effects of that shift will depend from individual to individual; however, my position against same-sex marriage is because I don't agree with the new definition.
This stance is not bigoted, it is not motivated by scare tactics, it is not because I am homophobic, it is not because I don't desire equality, it is not because I support unjust discrimination.
This stance, motivated by my moral convictions which are grounded in the Bible, will propel me to love the gays and lesbians who I encounter because that too is entailed in my belief system. In the end, I really think that Christians can spend more of their energy used promoting a bill to promote a worldview that is ready to defend its position, patient with others' failures, reasonable when it comes to our own belief, tactical in rebuttals, clear in presenting Christianity, fair with others' objections, honest with the evidence, humble because they may actually be wrong, attractive to the people who we come in contact with, and dependent on God because He consistently reveals that He is the Truth.
Posted by: Augustine | November 02, 2008 at 12:17 AM
>>Nope, there is no more crucial reason to object. And that is why in my coming debate on the issue, I am going to take a stance against same-sex marriage on the basis that the revision of marriage is a shift from one definition to another. <<
Maybe it's the way you worded this and you have already done so, but a friendly warning just in case: You're going to have to articulate why you don't agree with the new definition if you're going to be at all persuasive towards your audience. I hope you have taken that into account.
Posted by: Chris | November 03, 2008 at 01:45 AM
Hello, I read your blog and decided to leave a comment after reading the statements made. I am a heterosexual woman who is also a Christian. With that being said, I choose to argue both sides when it comes to the topic of same-sex marriage. This may seem like I am not taking a definite stance or that I cannot possibly be a Christian seeing as though I am not arguing on the basis in approval of only heterosexual couples. This is moreover what or culture and the “bible” has deemed to be natural, but in what ways? Mainly due to our human anatomy which proves that two of the same species cannot reproduce. This is true. However, I feel many misconceptions have risen since this topic has been discussed.
In a recent presentation, I chose the topic of same-sex marriage. Through my own research, I have found marriage is just one basic right that homosexuals argue they are being discriminated on. Along with examples presented, the topics you brought up including bigotry and homophobia, the separation of church and state and so forth, I find these to not be “red herrings” if we look at the bigger picture. Red herring is drawing attention away from the issue and bringing up other irrelevant issues. Yes, the topic is marriage and not what was previously stated but we can all agree that “these” couples have been separated from what society deems acceptable since attention was brought to same-sex marriages in American in 93’ (see links http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1808617,00.html and http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm). Why should a gay couple be recognized as a “union” or “domestic partnership”? But then again, why should they have to be considered married as in a man/woman? Isn’t it the same thing without the title? My argument is we all have choices to make as individuals and to say that society is not being discriminatory is false.
As in marriage, basic rights that homosexuals have been discriminated on in our history have included: the ability to own land, have preference of jobs (job equality) and being able to adopt children. These privileges which most heterosexuals take for granted have been rights that we as individuals hold in high regard. I for one know that I would not want my rights infringed on at any level. When we evaluate what our rights are and look at how far we have come as a nation what has changed to make society so fearful of accepting “these” couples?
When talking about a complex topic such as "this" (same-sex marriage) issue, I find it beneficial to address all sides and make it a point to state all claims fairly. I understand everyone is entitled to their opinions; whether for or against gay marriage. In our society, we have over a long history as a people stated what is natural vs. un-natural. I understand that one cannot fathom homosexuals being able to function as a man and woman couple. In looking at how homosexuals view raising a family, it is not the way they started the family but the thought of being able to raise one. I find it amazing how a society based on the founding ideals of freedoms for everyone regardless of race, creed and gender has come to classify what marriage implies in each individual.
As a Christian, I know most feel it will only be a matter of time until there is a decline in the traditional family. Children may grow up confused and may start to question their gender and sexual preferences. I do agree with this claim and I would not want to see my future family (assuming heterosexual) influenced this way. On the other hand, there has been no evidence that homosexuals have caused families to separate or children to not function well by being surrounded by peers who can be homosexual as some of the comments above have stated. This also brings up another point. Homosexuality is not something one is born with but a choice just as in a choice of who we marry. One cannot be born to love someone; one chooses to love someone or in time falls in love.
Ultimately, to say that same-sex isn’t “tolerant” is under the basis that everything you and I stated is moral. Bottom line discrimination isn’t tolerant and even though you and I pose valid arguments on why same-sex marriages is wrong, we forget that choosing your mate is significant. It can even be said that it is the most significant thing we choose in life. Let’s not pick apart the issue, but realize that at the end of the day we are all humans who want the same rights as such. I am not a gay rights activist, I am a human rights activist and the right to whom we marry should be left for each individual to decide.
Posted by: Erica C. | December 03, 2008 at 12:20 PM
This website is sooo true it's not about biblical stance or right or wrong homosexuals want the governments approval. Hopefully it will never happen, but thats my stance. I don't understand why homosexuals can't just pledge there love for one another and not have to make it a marriage. Where did marriage come from? It came from God and shouldn't be aloud for same sex couples.
Posted by: Laurie | December 05, 2008 at 04:07 AM
Actually, at the beginning of the Churches history, same sex marriage was not only accepted, but it was preformed. I guess "Traditional" depends on how far back you want to go. Being socially recognized in a union is a human need, not a religious institution. No matter what your personal view on other peoples relationships. You have to agree that two people in a committed relationship deserve rights. Such as hospitalization rights. If one partner in a gay relationship goes into a coma, they are not legally ale to have any choice over what happens to their partner. Their partners family can choose to let them die or live, and can keep their partner from visiting. I've heard of a gay couple who one partner donated his kidney, only to be told he couldn't see his partner until he was released from the hospital since they weren't related! Also there are insurance benefits, an tax benefits.
A lot of people say "Why do they Want to get married?" Why does anyone want to get married? It is a natural desire to want to be bound socially to the one you want to spend the rest of your life with.
Posted by: Joey | January 31, 2009 at 08:53 PM