Weak excuses
I was asking recently how anyone could think banning same-sex marriage was a Christian thing to do. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Christianity is about loving your neighbors — all of your neighbors, not just the ones that agree with your interpretation of the Bible. Christianity is about spiritual growth, trying to be more Christ-like, letting the Holy Spirit in.
Or did I miss a memo? Is it now a social club designed to help people feel better than others? Or just a code of behavior that lets you drone through life without ever examining your actions critically?
If that’s the case, then you can count me out.
In all of the discussions I’ve seen and participated in, I have not seen one scintilla of evidence that working to ban same-sex marriage is a way to show your neighbor love. I have not seen a single testimonial that working to ban same-sex marriage helped even one person’s spiritual development.
In fact, this work hurts people’s neighbors, it doesn’t help them (probably hurts them), and it diverts them from doing real good.
So why do Christians do it?
I’ve come across a few explanations. I think they are just weak excuses, after the fact rationalizations for bad behavior. Let me pick some of them apart to explain why.
Gays are imposing on me by changing the definition of marriage
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that we must fight gay marriage because gays are imposing on “normal” people by “changing the definition” of marriage.
This is ridiculous.
There was no ballot initiative in this cycle that attempted to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. The only people doing the redefining were supporters of these anti-gay measures. The gay community wanted you to do nothing. They wanted laws to remain unchanged. Sure, they would like more equal treatment down the road, but that was not the question for this cycle.
Even if it were the other way around, the argument is completely specious. Words are not defined by our laws. They aren’t even defined by the folks at Merriam-Webster. Words are defined by common usage. They mean what you understand them to mean.
No law will ever make the very large conservative Christian community in the United States understand the word marriage to include same-sex union. No change to the constitution will ever stop many same-sex couples from considering themselves married. The Catholic church does not recognize Protestant marriages, and I doubt many Protestants recognize FLDS marriages. The same word already means different things in different communities, and no law is going to change that.
The fact is, gay marriage is going to happen with or without the bans. People are going to understand the word ‘marriage’ pretty much the same way with or without the bans. If your marriage is so weak that facing this reality is going to make it fall apart, then go get a divorce already. It’s going to happen anyway, with or without the bans. The only question here is whether same-sex couples should be treated equally.
My answer is “Yes”.
Schools will “teach gay marriage” to my kids
Another favorite argument is that somehow kids will be “taught gay marriage” in school. I don’t even know what that means. How can you teach any kind of marriage?
I guess they mean that their children will be taught the fact that gay marriage happens. And learning facts about the world in school is somehow unacceptable. Well same-sex couples do enter committed relationships, and they will keep doing this no matter how many laws you pass. Your kids are going to learn about it sooner or later.
I just want to know what kind of cowardly, lousy parent is so afraid of talking to his kids about reality that he has to hide it from them. I want to talk to my kids about these things. I want to show them as much of the world as I can — both good and bad — while they still respect me and I have a chance to pass on a bit of my wisdom. I may disagree with the ban-gay-marriage crowd about what is good and what is bad, but good parenting transcends these details.
Sheltering kids is lousy parenting. Sheltering kids is a lousy excuse to ban gay marriage.
The people have spoken, so don’t try to fight democracy
When people really want to turn off their brains, they fall back on a religious conviction that the majority is always right. They say “the argument is over, the proposition passed”.
That is simply not how our system works. If we accepted this, then we could pass laws to force everyone to become Catholic and go to mass on Sunday. We could pass laws to force everyone to sign a profession of atheism. I’m not saying it’s likely any time soon, but with the right demographic shifts it could happen.
Our founding fathers knew this, and that is why they wrote the Constitution. The purpose of the constitution was to protect democracy by limiting its powers. If they did not build a system that prevented majority rule from making cruel mistakes, the system would not be stable. It wouldn’t be moral either.
When judges overturn laws, they are not being “activists”. They are doing their job, making sure that lawmakers did not overstep their bounds and violate the constitution. If they stop doing this, our system will fail.
Anyone who claims “the people have spoken, so the argument is over” is either ignorant about our democracy, or they despise the principles on which this country was founded.
It’s in the Bible!
Maybe I should be used to it, but I’m still shocked how often people try to convince me of something “because it is in the Bible”. There’s a lot of stuff in the Bible, I don’t understand most of it, and I don’t know anyone who does. But I do know that the fact something is in the Bible is absolutely irrelevant to lawmaking. Church and state are separate in this country and that protects all of us.
If we allowed the Bible to set our laws, we would immediately be condemning a large fraction of our country to second-class citizenship. Unacceptable. We’d also have a problem deciding who gets to interpret the Bible. President Obama? Joe Lieberman? The Pope? The fact is, most “Christians” don’t even agree about what the Bible says. The Bible is not a Legal document, and any country that treats it like one is courting disaster.
Just like the people touting majority rule, anyone pushing for use of the Bible to make laws shows fundamental disrespect for our constitution and the ideals of our founding fathers. Of course, all ideals should be questioned. I just want to make it clear that these people are not putting their country first.
So why are they doing it?
All of these explanations seem like weak to me, and the real reasons are probably a bit more embarrasing. The most honest excuse I’ve seen is “I am afraid to talk to my kids about the real world.” But that fear is no reason to take away the rights of other Americans. Suck it up, nobody ever said being a parent was easy. If you can’t handle it, maybe there should be a law to stop you from getting married.
It’s in the Bible. Never mind what I think. Never mind what you think. Never mind what “anybody” thinks. The only opinion that matters is that of Jesus Christ. One of these days “all” of us will stand in front of him and answer “TO” him. Read the Bible. Either you believe it or you don’t. Interpret the Bible for yourself and don’t allow the thoughts of others to influence you. It’s too important and too dangerous to depend on the thoughts, interpretations, judgments of others. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality. Read it in the book of Genesis. Also, it’s not “homosexuality,” that is the prime issue, it’s the matter of sin. Any sin. God will not allow sin in his presence. He sets the standard. He also provides the way out of suffering the consequences. Homosexual sin won’t damn anyone any quicker than heterosexual sin. The Constitution is important, but not as important as settling the issue of your eternal destiny. Separtation of Church and State? The modern Church is a big stumbling block. So is religion. EVERYTHING pales in comparison to the importance of “being saved.” The wise person will choose God over country. Hell is a horrible place. I hope you don’t go there. I hope nobody goes there. You or others may state that I am Close minded.” I sure am. Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” “NO man cometh unto the Father but by me.” Either that’s the truth or a lie. That means those that count on Islam to get them to Heaven are going to hell. It means that those that are counting on the Catholic Priest to absolve them of sin are wrong. The priest does not have that power. He’s no different that any of us. Freemasons counting on their membersihip to the lodge to get them into Heaven are wrong.
davisoftheapes1
November 9, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Actually Davis, we’re probably more like minded than you think. We agree on a very important point: for a Christian, good behavior doesn’t matter if you aren’t saved.
So why worry about forcing good behavior on people? Shouldn’t Christians be trying to save them instead? And effective proselytizing is going to take some respect for the people you are talking to, so shouldn’t they be trying to understand and connect with others instead of banning them?
Rolfe Schmidt
November 9, 2008 at 3:43 pm
To not ban same sex marriage would be a vote for the “world system.” We need to take a stand. Make a decision. Either we agree with Jesus or agree with the world. Proselytzing should be done with love and soft words and not “in your face, loud, condemning words and actions.” God hates “haughtiness.” Rolfe, God loves homosexuals. He died for them and made it possible for their sins to be covered by the blood. He does not say that you can be saved and “keep on sinning.” What I’m saying is that laws, government, rights, and social mores are insignificant when compared to judgment. Not my judgment or society’s judgment, but God’s judgment. I believe time is short. I look for Jesus to return any day now. The sooner the better. I pray that everybody will get saved before he does, but, sadly, that’s not likely to happen.
davisoftheapes1
November 9, 2008 at 6:45 pm
How does a ban help anyone?
How does a ban stop any “sin”?
All it does is make it hard for some people to visit loved ones in the hospital. It makes it harder for them to deal with transfers of assets upon a partner’s passing. It subjects them to a different tax code. And it makes them feel like second-class citizens.
How does any of this help your cause? I don’t think anyone is going to say “I love this person and I want to spend the rest of my life with him, but the taxes will be too inconvenient, so I’ll go straight.”
The laws are insignificant here, so way waste your time with them?
Rolfe Schmidt
November 9, 2008 at 7:10 pm
“Either we agree with Jesus or agree with the world.”
Did Davisoftheapes actually mean this? It struck me as a very powerful insight into what’s wrong with our politics, and why we humans will never be able to progress together here on earth, if so.
Think about it. The teachings of Jesus as anti-world.
JJ
November 10, 2008 at 8:45 am
Did y’all see the street brawl of the robed monks in the news?
At the Holy Sepulchre no less, “revered as the site of Jesus’ crucifixion” –
JJ
November 10, 2008 at 8:54 am
“We were keeping resistance so that the procession could not pass through … and establish a right that they don’t have,” a young Greek Orthodox monk with a cut next to his left eye told the AP.
Sound familiar?
JJ
November 10, 2008 at 9:11 am
Either i’m not saying things clearly enough, or you all are not getting it. What I’m saying is that laws, rules, regulations etc. are totally inconsequential when you think about the fact that one day you’re going to die and after this, the judgment. Yes, i’m saying that Jesus’ teaching are ‘anti-world.’ He said that his kingdom is not of this world. But, be not afraid, he (Jesus) has overcome the world. Banning same sex marriage? Big Deal. Going to hell, VERY big deal.
davisoftheapes1
November 11, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Then in your view he won’t mind, if while we’re all here in the world together, we do the best we can to treat each other as if it DID matter? And constitute humane government policies?
JJ
November 11, 2008 at 5:11 pm
The Bible also forbids eating shrimp, lobster and cheeseburgers… Should we ban those as well?
Uncle Scott
November 12, 2008 at 10:06 am
Never mind the seafood, what about us women? It hasn’t been so long that marriage in America defined women both legally and in church, as little more than chattel. I’m not (pardon the expression) WED to that definition!
JJ
November 12, 2008 at 11:37 am
Davis, I’ll just repeat my unanswered questions:
How does a ban help anyone?
How does a ban stop any “sin”?
If the laws are insignificant here, why waste your time with them?
Scott, JJ: I’ll add to the list. I’m pretty sure that right around the Old Testament admonitions against homosexuality there are equally stern commands not to touch a woman during menses or “let your seed fall to the ground” (the rhythm method?)
It kind of makes sense when you put them together: there is a coherent set of laws saying “MAKE BABIES”. Maybe that is what their society needed at the time to succeed, and it served them well.
So, should we ban good Catholics who use the rhythm method from getting married? Does “not making babies” constitute “violating the sanctity of marriage”?
Rolfe Schmidt
November 12, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Homosexuality also throws off the whole patriarchal balance of power: God over man, man over woman, woman over child, child over dog, dog over cat, cat over fish, fish over plankton (?)… which is reason #666 why gay marriage will throw the whole of western civilization into a death spiral.
boremetotears
November 13, 2008 at 1:21 am
Hey, now there’s a lesson from the Bible worth secular policy embrace:
“Maybe that is what their society needed at the time to succeed, and it served them well.”
What does our society need most at THIS time, to serve us all well? What are the most enlightened humans NOW, trying to weave into a storyline that can save us all, literally, and the planet along with us? I’m thinking innovation and progress, not reproduction and tribal rote.
JJ
November 13, 2008 at 7:31 am
The ban helps no one. It does not stop sin. Frankly it does not even “take a stand” for the church in a manner that is positive. All it does is drive those that do not believe that Christ is savior further away because someone feels that by being intolerant, they are loving the world.
I would like to point out who Jesus spent his time with, prostitutes, tax collectors, pharisees and the like. The people who need him. I would be willing to guess that all this lack of care for our fellow citizens (American, European, Canadian, whatever) makes him deeply sad.
As well, boremetotears, I would like to point out that the Greeks practiced Homosexuality, and they can arguably be called the beginning of western civilization.
The reason that there is such a backlash against homosexual behavior is that the majority of Christians do not see it as temptation, and cannot understand why others face it as a foe. Look at divorce, the numbers I saw recently show approximately a 50% rate among average American and Canadian citizens. Intriguingly, the number among churchgoing Christians is higher. So, if you are going to rail against homosexuality, go ahead, it is well withing your rights to freedom of speech. All I ask, and I am sincere, is that you are consistent. You have to be as committed to all the other sins as well. Walk in to your church on Sunday, ask all those who have been divorced to get out, because, following your example, we have to take a stand.
Alex
November 18, 2008 at 2:24 am
I’m sure you’re not surprised I agree wholeheartedly with you here Alex. Divorce is a much bigger threat to marriage than giving a few happy couples fair legal treatment.
I’ve often wondered about the backlash against homosexuality in particular. As far as I can tell, it doesn’t get any special treatment in the bible. It’s just another sin.
The mere fact that it is mentioned in the old testament is evidence that homosexuality is nothing new. As you pointed out, the Greeks did it too, anyone who has read a Plato dialogue or two is going to be well aware of that fact. (Is that why Plato is almost never taught in high schools?) So the claim that “homosexuality is an assault on our traditions and culture” rings hollow.
And I didn’t even mention the fact that I’ve never seen a command in the bible to “uphold tradition”. Early Christianity was all about upsetting tradition. Protestantism was all about upsetting tradition. The point of Christianity is that the “golden rules” — love God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love your neighbor as yourself — trump all else. Right?
Anyway, I did find an interesting article which may partially explain homosexuality’s “special status” as a sin in our culture (it isn’t just the church). You can read it here. The gist is this — men who display homophobic behavior are more likely to be aroused by homosexual activity. Things get complicated.
Rolfe Schmidt
November 18, 2008 at 10:51 am
Hmmm, maybe the Greeks and Romans were the reason, the cautionary tale? Also think about the Christ-as-man example for sex — none at all, right? The Catholic Church reacting to the Da Vinci Code alternate storyline that he was secretly “married” and sexually active could not be entertained even thought it featured a female disciple rather than one of the males.
But there were a lot more males, and if there was any sex happening for anyone, it wasn’t at home with the wives. I wonder then, if that’s how it might have been seen as important to explain what was or wasn’t going on with some scripts that made them different from say, the Roman Senate?
JJ
November 18, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Your initial post was terrific as is this follow-up.
So many Bible-believing Christians have enormous planks in their eyes and are too busy pointing out the dust in everyone else’s. Justifying violence using the Old Testament is wrong. It’s called the Old Testament for a very obvious reason. The message of the New Testament is quite simply, Love One Another. Anyone who tries to justify violence using the example of Jesus upending the money changers’ tables and using a whip to remove animals from the temple yard (one of the replies from your first post) seems to forget that Jesus never hurt anyone. Maybe a big heavy bag of coins inadvertently landed on a money changer’s foot, but it was unintentional and I’m sure Jesus was sorry.
Sermon on the Mount? “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”? Recognize any of these? He wasn’t called Prince of Peace for nothing.
Love one another. Everyone. Not just the ones in your churches. Not just the ones you like. Not just the ones you approve of.
It amazes me when I, a de-convert, behave in a more Christian manner than many (most?) so-called Christians and I find it ironic that they are always on the lookout for the Antichrist when their behavior is anti-Christ.
L
November 27, 2008 at 5:27 pm
And davisoftheapes1, why concern yourself with the worldly system? No servant can serve two masters. Serve your god and leave the worldly stuff to us.
L
November 27, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Thanks, L.
I think about the “planks in the eye” verse a bit too. I just don’t see what Jesus said or did that suggest tradition is more important than love, that violence is a way to convert, or that behavior is more important than faith.
It is a touch ironic that you have protestants and mormons hopping mad about other people not respecting their traditions.
Even if you only look at the Old Testament, I think you’ll be hard pressed to say it condones any violence oppression or mistreatment. Yes, I know there are plenty of awful stories, but remember Rabbi Hillel’s condensed version:
I think that sums it up pretty well.
Rolfe Schmidt
November 28, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Bravo Rolfe !
I have much more in common with the ‘disbelievers’ who think the story of Jesus a cautionary morality tale about the dangers of Theocracy and its inherent hypocrisy ( the Synagogue was instrumental in seeking his death ) than with any who don’t understand a simple observation and extend it to a more general principle : The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
The deal is this : Belief entails using the principles in one’s life. No other criteria apply.
opit
November 28, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I just don’t see what Jesus said or did that suggest tradition is more important than love…
In my experience, evangelicals usually deride “tradition” – except when trying to sneak their particular brand of Christianity into the public sphere: “Ten Commandments in the courthouse,” “In God We Trust” on our currency, Nativity displays at City Hall, moments of silence in the classroom, “Marriage between Man and Woman” written into state constitutions… All of these issues are couched in secular historical terms only to hide their real intentions which are solely religious. The leaders of these movements may be horrible, but they’re not stupid.
boremetotears
November 30, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Opit said:
That sums it up pretty well. I also get the feeling that I know more ‘unbelievers’ than ‘Christians’ who are earnestly looking for truth. I feel much more comfortable with people who are looking than with people who think they’ve already found what there is to find.
Lynn- The two-faced approach to tradition is probably what stopped me from accepting evangelical christianity whole-heartedly. When I was a kid, I got the message loud and clear that tradition was an impediment to faith and spiritual development. I didn’t understand that this was mostly just an attack on the Catholic church, and I did see the justification in the bible. So when I started seeing the same people cling to their traditions at all costs, and presume that their traditions should be enforced by law or taught at school, I started to have some doubts.
Now I must admit, I don’t think all tradition is bad. I do go to a Catholic church after all.
When you said
I think you were spot on. It’s the same ploy as ID: lie for the sake of your God. I guess they don’t think God is strong enough to win the game by playing fair?
Rolfe Schmidt
December 2, 2008 at 9:54 am
Yeah, criticisms of “tradition,” “idol worship,” the practice of “religion” (in contrast to relationship w/Jesus) are all just swipes at Catholics, aren’t they? (There are probably many more that I’m forgetting.)
I agree with you about tradition; I just don’t like when it’s used as a trojan horse for ulterior purposes.
boremetotears
December 2, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Hey, thanks! I didn’t know that I could use the quotes tag in comments!
boremetotears
December 2, 2008 at 12:46 pm