It's About the Difference between Men and Women

In a recent Twitter conversation, I was told that opposing same-sex marriage is, by definition, bigotry:

[Y]ou are bigoted on this issue; of that I am sure. You might not be a bigot in any other part of ur life but on this you are.

I’m sure because you spell it out when you fight against equal rights for gays. Your fight makes me sure.

Leaving aside the arguments for why this issue is not about equal rights, this is what I wish our opponents would grasp: Our objection to same-sex marriage is not about a difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. If we were saying that homosexuals were lesser people unworthy of rights, then one might have an argument for this being an example of bigotry. But the case we’re making isn’t about a difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals (it’s not even about whether or not homosexuality is morally wrong); it’s about the difference between men and women.

Mollie Hemingway’s piece in The Federalist on “The Rise of the Same-Sex Marriage Dissidents” (written in response to the Mozilla situation) touches on this:

We…have a system that is demanding conformity, uniformity and discipline — it’s not just about marriage law, to be honest. It’s really about something much bigger — crushing the belief that the sexes are distinct in deep and meaningful ways that contribute to human flourishing. Obviously marriage law plays a role here — recent court rulings have asserted that the sexes are interchangeable when it comes to marriage. That’s only possible if they’re not distinct in deep and meaningful ways. But the push to change marriage laws is just one part of a larger project to change our understanding of sexual distinctions. See, for example, the 50 genders of Facebook….

The drive to redefine marriage depends on denying the differences between the sexes, and yet these are the very differences that brought about the need for marriage in the first place:

[T]here’s precisely one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system. It’s the one that involves sex between one man and one woman. It’s with respect to that system that the unit is the mated pair. In that system, it’s not just a relationship that is the union of minds, wills or important friendships. It’s the literal union of bodies. In sexual congress, in intercourse between a man and a woman, you are literally coordinated to a single bodily end.

In every other respect we as humans act as individual organisms except when it comes to intercourse between men and women — then we work together as one flesh. Coordination toward that end — even when procreation is not achieved — makes the unity here. This is what marriage law was about. Not two friends building a house together. Or two people doing other sexual activities together. It was about the sexual union of men and women and a refusal to lie about what that union and that union alone produces: the propagation of humanity. This is the only way to make sense of marriage laws throughout all time and human history. Believing in this truth is not something that is wrong, and should be a firing offense. It’s not something that’s wrong, but should be protected speech. It’s actually something that’s right. It’s right regardless of how many people say otherwise. If you doubt the truth of this reality, consider your own existence, which we know is due to one man and one woman getting together. Consider the significance of what this means for all of humanity, that we all share this.

It’s not unreasonable or bigoted to treat the unique joining of sexually complementary partners uniquely. But in order to see that this is a reasonable understanding that isn’t motivated by hate, one must first acknowledge the differences between women and men. Conversely, in order to hide its reasonableness, one must first erase those differences in people’s minds. Watch for this happening (e.g., with Facebook, see above), and make the connection.

I would say that perhaps we need to start our arguments farther back in the chain of reasoning, at the point our culture used to take for granted—the objective, unchanged-by-wishful-thinking differences between the sexes, but I actually don’t think that’s far back enough.

No, this goes back farther than that, for the questions involved here (whether gender is assigned or a matter of choice, whether there’s such a thing as male nature and female nature, whether an institution like marriage is something we recognize or create, whether the good of society lies in conforming itself to a predetermined purpose or a new vision, whether human nature is something in particular or a sea of possibilities bound only by what we can imagine for ourselves) all depend on whether we are here because of God or because of chance. In the end, it comes back to the most basic of all worldview differences: theism vs. non-theism.

So in a way, the people who accuse us of basing our position on religion are right, though it’s not in the way they think. That is, we’re against redefining marriage not mainly because we think homosexual behavior is wrong, but because we think human nature (including each person’s gender and the way that relates to marriage) is something fixed that we were given, not something endlessly changing and malleable that we can create for ourselves. (Not that one needs to believe in God to observe that human nature is unchanging. History is on our side on this one.)

Since we don't think we have the power to defy reality and mold ourselves and natural institutions like the family into something radically new, we therefore conclude that attempts to force such a change will lead to suffering throughout our society.

That has nothing to do with bigotry.

Comments

[l]

"(it’s not even about whether or not homosexuality is morally wrong)"

Ultimately it is, though.

[Lenny Esposito]

I like approaching the issue with this little story. It tends to help underscore your point. http://bit.ly/XbtnPq

[Erkki S.]

Lets take this at face value and say that we give social conservatives the benefit of doubt and assume that their stance towards SSM is not motivated by dislike of homosexuality, but rather sincere desire to protect the sanctity of marriage.

In that case, could someone explain the following:

1. If the point is about protecting marriage, why are not social conservatives and no-SSM advocates demanding for civil unions and alternative social and family arrangements for homosexuals?

2. If no-SSM advocates do not have any issue with homosexuality itself, should they not be on the frontline in decrying the recent surge of anti-homosexual laws in Uganda and Russia?

3. If no-SSM advocates do not have any issue with homosexuality itself, should they not demand that sexual education in schools teaches homosexuality as acceptable form of personal sexuality?

4. Have conservatives and no-SSM advocates ever been demanding legalization of homosexuality and condemning anti-sodomy laws?

5. How many social conservatives and no-SSM advocates have formed organizations and support groups to combat bullying and discrimination against homosexuals?

[VA Steve]

Erkki, I think you're missing the point. The point is not whether traditional marriage advocates do or do not approve of homosexuality itself (thus nullifying your points). The point is that it doesn't even enter into the equation when talking about what marriage is, which is what this discussion needs to revolve around in the first place.

[Darth Dutch]

Erkki's point is the same line of argument that says that if you are against abortion you personally must adopt every single baby that is unwanted in order for your argument to be valid. The two things are not related.

Darth Dutch

[Josh Reynolds]

Erkki,
1. Civil unions are already in place. Apparently the title is not good enough.

2. The US has already made many headways into those countries to protest. Have you researched what churches have been doing in those countries to help?

3. As far as I know schools already do teach that. Their problem right now coming down on those who are not "tolerant" (ie come down on any bully and, (time to get fired), any teacher who would dare raise objection.)

4. Those laws were taken off the books years ago.

5. Again, we're past that. It's churches and christians and CEOs and St Pats Day parades that are being bullied - being forced to "accept" and "celebrate". Basically, the other side has gone so far to say "you can't believe what you believe".
Tolerance and bigotry go both ways and the country is seeing that.

[Mike Westfall]

What I wish our opponents would grasp is that screaming BIGOT! at people who disagree with them is not a good argument for their position, even if it is is having some success for them at the moment.

Such a tactic can't possibly be sustainable in the long term, and will eventually lead to a backlash when people get tired and fed up with the judgmentalism it entails.

[Erkki S.]

Erkki's point is the same line of argument that says that if you are against abortion you personally must adopt every single baby that is unwanted in order for your argument to be valid. The two things are not related.

Thats not really a very good analogy on my point. My point is that it should not come as a surprise that people are assuming that opposition to SSM has everything to do with general opposition to homosexuality, since the people who are most vehemently opposed to SSM are generally the very same people who have been opposing homosexuality as a whole. Politics do not exist in a vacuum where everything is neatly separated: the troubling issue in anti-SSM advocacy is not strictly speaking simply the issue of marriage rather then the larger issue of wanting to marginalize certain people.

[t]

If any thing not pro-gay is homophobic....

If there is a "gay gene", which takes priority?

a) Not discriminating, in any way against homosexuals

or

b) the right to abort for any reason the mother feels like

What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistible force?

[Andrew]

In reading this post and the Hemmingway Federalist article, the point seems to be that government recognizes marriage because of procreation. But if that's it, shouldn't marriage be tied to the act of producing a child? It's more complicated, of course... Property is involved, as is the notion of family...

[James Bradshaw]

Marriage frequently involves procreation, but it doesn't have to.

We grant civil marriage licenses to the infertile and elderly, do we not?

In addition, we grant civil marriage licenses to people we absolutely do NOT WANT to have children: those incarcerated for violent or sex-based crimes.

Marriage has demonstrable benefits for the participants, whether or not children are produced. It provides companionship as well as emotional and financial support in a way that people would not receive otherwise (whether it be extended family or even "good friends").

Gay people exist. They can either remain celibate, marry heterosexuals (and as I've said, are there any heterosexuals here willing to bite the bullet and marry a gay person?) or they can commit to someone whom they love and desire.

There is only one reasonable and just option here, if you ask me.

[John Moore]

Homosexuals are not denying the differences between the sexes. Instead they are pointing out that there are effectively more than just two sexes. Seen from this perspective, it's the conservatives who are denying differences.

[Cogitatingduck]

John Moore, effectively more than two sexes, to what purpose? As for providing a child a stable home among her biological parents as a rule, as a group, and by nature, this is what marriage does. The only sexes that matter there are male and female.

James Bradshaw, I hope you understand that most natural marriage proponents want gay couples to live and be well, without being ostracized. Many states already have civil unions for government benefits. A piece of paper from the county clerk should not confer happiness or dignity to people; only God can do that.

But sometimes, a piece of paper can help reinforce the union of two biological parents of a child. As a rule, as a group, and by nature, that is what man-woman marriage has been throughout history. It just is that.

[Amy]

There is only one reasonable and just option here, if you ask me.

James, Wesley Hill has a different perspective.

[dave]

Re: James, you said,

"Gay people exist. They can either remain celibate, marry heterosexuals (and as I've said, are there any heterosexuals here willing to bite the bullet and marry a gay person?) or they can commit to someone whom they love and desire."

I've used your logic and substituted biblical principles in place of gay references in hope that you will see the issue more clearly. It is as follows.

Sinners exist. They can either stop sinful lifestyles, marry a repentant partner (and as I've said, are there any repentant partners here willing to bite the bullet and marry an unrepentant sinner?) or they can commit to someone steeped in sin whom they love and desire.

No matter what you say, if the bible condemns homosexuality, (which it does repeatedly), the only option is to repent from that particular sin.

We were all born in sin to be repented of. There are people born with certain sinful traits and biases other than homosexuality that also need to be controlled and repented of.

[VA Steve]

Erikki

"the troubling issue in anti-SSM advocacy is not strictly speaking simply the issue of marriage rather then the larger issue of wanting to marginalize certain people."

I am in favor of conjugal marriage, but at the same time do not want to see people with same-sex attraction marginalized, just like I would not like to see ANY group marginalized. I think we can work on the marginalization issue without changing the definition of marriage, however. That's the point of those in favor of the conjugal view of marriage. You are correct, there are many who irrationally marginalize people with same-sex attractions, and naturally they will be against SSM, but there are also many who want to see these people treated better, but do not think changing the definition of marriage is the way to get there. You are conflating two distinct groups - those who hate homosexuals, and those who have principled reasons against SSM. Yes, there is overlap, but that does not mean EVERYONE who is against SSM has this irrational hatred.

I like this quote (from another STR article):
"But tolerance shouldn’t be our goal. Christians shouldn’t aspire to treat homosexuals the way the secular culture treats them. We fail if we do. Instead, we should treat them better. That doesn’t mean we advocate for gay rights or pitch their agenda. It just means we love them better than they’re loved by the world. That’s the first step in transforming our relationship with them for the sake of transforming their relationship with God."

That is what I would like to see Christians move more and more toward, and I don't think accepting SSM is the way to get there.

[Jason]

The root of the same sex marriage movement is not of sexuality but of identity. I believe in order to fully comprehend this issue one must first understand it from this perspective. When someone says "I am gay" or "I am a homosexual" they arent commenting on what they do (as traditional thought would imply) they are making a statement of WHO they are no different to them than when I say "I am a male" or "I am white". This puts their argument into a different category than that of the physical acts of homosexuality which is why they believe it to be a civil rights issue. The institute of marriage creates a social construct that, even if they could legally participate in, will never be "fair" or just (they will not be naturally able to reproduce). This being said the question now is, why do they want to participate in an "unjust" or "immoral" social order such as marriage? The answer they chose for this question intentially put them at odds with religion and this is the underlying agenda stated in the phrase "separation of church and state". Basically they are saying that they want to participate in this "unjust" institution which is why I am against SSM and don't believe it is a civil rights issue at all. Martin Luther King Jr. and his movement sought to ABOLISH a law they seen as unjust. Their movement wasn't trying to ammend the law so black people could own a bus and force white people to sit in the back as the SSM movement is trying to do. God made man and women, man made Black, White, Asian, etc. and "Homosexual" as defined above.

[g]

I have only one response to this issue, and it's THE fundamental issue in this "debate":

Repent and believe in Christ!