According to USA Today, same-sex marriage is increasingly viewed as a private matter. Indeed, for a while I have had an extremely hard time seeing why it ought to be otherwise. Provided that the rights of all religious groups are protected, I cannot fathom what the point would be in prohibiting same-sex marriage on the civil level. I know that this view isn’t shared by all the authors or readers of this blog, but on an intuitive level, I can’t seem to get upset about this. Moreover, I can’t imagine that there would emerge some kind of long-term societal damage as a result.
I know that the theology on this is a different matter all together (it’s been treated extensively elsewhere on this blog), but as a civic issue, I can’t see the point in a prohibition.
I’m glad to see that the legal-political system is changing in the United States — but I think it is changing for the wrong reasons. I don’t think that marriage is, or ever can be, “a private matter” and so I’m afraid that these shifts have more to do with the prevailing ethos of global capitalism than they have to do with the sort of ethos I feel that Christianity embodies.
Hence, the ambiguity I feel about this sort of thing. Good step + wrong reasons = ?.
Indeed, rather than seeing state sanctioned gay unions, I would be far, far happier to see Church sanctioned gay unions. After all, getting married within the community that is Church is the polar opposite of being a “private matter” (and this, by the way, was the reason my wife and I decided to get married within a church, rather than simply eloping).
Also, it is good to see the recognition that doing this sort of thing won’t result in “long-term societal damage”. This, alas, is one of the central arguments that Robert Gagnon likes to make, and one of the reasons why he ends up sounding like an homophobic fool. He looks at stats relating to homosexuality and social issues, and argues that society will deteriorate given our approval of homosexuality. Sadly, he is building artifical cases — never factoring in things like, oh, let’s say being a part of a persecuted minority and the impact that might have on a person.
Let’s take an example I know rather well. When I worked with homeless youth in Toronto, the second largest reason why these youth stated that they were homeless was because of their parents’ refusal to accept their sexual orientation (40% of the youth surveyed presented this as a central cause of their homelessness — second only to violence which 75% of the youth surveyed identified as a central cause of their homelessness [of course, those surveyed could pick more than one option, which is why the numbers total more than 100]).
Now, according to Gagnon’s way of thinking, if we approve of homosexuality, the number of homeless youth would grow — in actuality, the number of homeless youth would shrink, but Gagnon seems incapable of thinking of the sort of (blatantly obvious) contingencies described above.
The truly sad thing is that my school — Regent College — has invited Gagnon to do a summer school course on this topic. Shame on us.
I would have chalked it up to Locke’s brand of classical liberal political thought (life, liberty, property) more than capitalism. Yes, classical liberalism is also the basis for capitalism (especially the property bit), but I think it’s more correct to say that the two have a common cause than that one caused the other.
As to seeing it as a “private matter” I think the study holds that in opposition to government regulation. In other words I don’t think “private” means “to the exclusion of friends/family/faith community” as much as it means “free from government interference.”
I have no objections to civil unions in the political sphere as long as the process is decided democratically. I would even accept the state refusing to do marriages at all and leaving them to the church. Obviously I would not approve the church performing ‘marriage ceremonies’ between two men or two women.
As to societal damage, I do not think that approving gay marriage will completely break society. It will only do as much damage as no-fault divorces, abortions, and other societal damaging evils have done.
I have to mention that dan’s example of street youth only shows that our society does not know how to handle those who are attracted to the same gender. Although they may have no moral objections to homosexual activities, it still disgusts people. They transfer that disgust to the person with homosexual desires. That transfer is wrong. Nonetheless, people seem unable to love the sinner and hate the sin. But then, I would not expect non-Christians to do so anyway.
Non-Christians?
Most of the kids I knew, who identified their sexual orientation as a primary cause of their homelessness, came from Christian homes. It shows the type of action performed by people who would affirm everything y’all have said in your discussion with me — it is these people, not “society” or “non-Christians” who don’t know “how to handle those who are attracted to the same gender”.
One more thing: how in the world can you assert that the “damage” that gay marriages would cause is akin to divorce and abortions? Divorce is about the fracturing of relationship, abortion is about the termination of life (and is generally a symptom of other social evils — poverty, deficient views of those who are ‘handicapped’, and the pursuit of values that are opposed to Christianity [cf. http://poserorprophet.livejournal.com/27409.html), but what does gay marriage have to do with these things? Again, simply another example of what I consider to be the thoughtless rhetoric of conservative Christianity — everybody says this sort of thing enough, and soon nobody is thinking “wait, how exactly is that true?” (of course, you might be an exception to this general rule so, please, prove your point!).
Matthew,
I’m not sure that homosexuality is universally found to be disgusting. When people raise “disgust” as an objection and they are pressed on it they usually talk about some of the more risque elements of gay pride parades or something. Say what you will about them, they aren’t worse than, say, Mardi Gras or several outdoor music festivals are for straight people.
I just don’t get the “disgust” angle of this discussion.
Saying that you are a Christian does not make it so. The label “Christian” does not apply to a person simply because they claim it for themselves. I would expect that less than 10% of Canadians are Christians.
Now if Christians were the ones responsible for the homeless youth (and this is possible), then they have no excuse. All I will say is that their parents likely did not know what to do. They were unprepared and acted improperly.
“One more thing: how in the world can you assert that the “damage” that gay marriages would cause is akin to divorce and abortions?”
It is akin in that is damages society. There is no further connection that I am aware of. Marriage is one of the ‘building blocks’ of society. When that damaged, then there will be societal damage. I am not referencing specific studies to make this claim. I am simply deducing it from the fact that homosexual activity is immoral, marriage is a building block of society and immoral actions damage what they affect.
“I’m not sure that homosexuality is universally found to be disgusting.”
I wouldn’t claim that it is universal. But it is widespread. Also, everyone I have talked to has found the homosexual element alone to be disgusting – no exceptions.
I certainly grant that people find some activities done for straight people to be disgusting as well. Naturally, these activities are also wrong. I would even agree that they are equally wrong.
Matthew,
Initially I wrote a lengthy response to your last comment. I chose to delete it. Angry words on a computer generally don’t accomplish much. Besides, I only use my anger to cover up the heart-break that I experience when I read things like this.
The truth is, it saddens me a great deal to see you writing what you have written, it saddens me that you can’t see how artificial (and destructive) your argument is. It saddens me that you will likely never be able to experience conversion in this area (especially if you are surrounded by people who all find homosexuality to be disgusting — “no exceptions”). It saddens me that, even as you condemn parents who abuse homosexual children, you also provide excuses for them. It saddens me that, although you seem to be an intelligent fellow, all you have really offered is a slightly more polished version of the sort of thinking exhibited by theroan in our previous discussion. What a waste of your intelligence.
The only thing I can do is this: I challenge you to spend some serious time outside of the circle of people who all affirm your belief that homosexuality is disgusting and socially destructive. Spend some time interacting, volunteering, working, whatever, within the LGBTQ community. Real life, when we choose to genuinely seek it out and encounter it, is able to break through our various ‘overcodings’ and artificial constructs, in ways that discussions on blogs can only dream of.
Lord, have mercy.
All I would say at this point is that Christ calls us to love both the youth you are familiar with and the parents that have done wrong. I am not offering excuses for them, but only trying to understand. Loving the sinner does not apply only to homosexuals – it also applies to their parents. Now I am not sure that I would be able to do that in your situation. I would probably feel equally angry at their parents. But how does condemning their parents advance the cause of Christ in love?
Yes, I agree that we are to love these violent Christian parents, but in loving them we are to reject the violence that they practice. Further, if such parents, after repeatedly encountering the gospel and the call to conversion, continue to engage in such violence, it may be necessary to exclude them from the Lord’s Table (for everybody’s sake, including their own [cf. 1 Cor 11]!).
That said, recall that in my work, I journey alongside of both rape survivors and rapists, both sex workers and the pimps who cut their toes off when they try to run away, both the addict and the dealer, the abused and the abuser, in all of the ways in which abuse plays out in street-culture. If one is incapable of learning how to love both sides, then there is no way that one should be in this line of work.
However, loving boths sides doesn’t mean that we back off, or tone down, our rejection of things like rape, sexual exploitation, or the abuse and abandonment of children. Indeed, we love the oppressor by calling the oppressor to stop oppressing others — for such an act dehumanizes the oppressor as much as it dehumanizes the oppressed. This is why, for example, Moses’ cry of “Let my people go!” is just as much an offer of salvation for Pharaoh, as it is an offer of liberation for the Hebrew slaves.
So, yes, it is okay to feel angry — but we can be angry without sinning (cf. Eph 4.26). Indeed, anger is, in my experience, most frequently an expression of wounded love. Thus, I am angry at Christian parents who engage in the type of violence described above, but I am angry at them, in part, because they are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and because I love both them and their children.
It seems that we do agree on something. I agree with everything that you have said here. I certainly do not claim do have all of your experiences. Hopefully we can approach our differences on the subject of homosexuality without assuming that the other side lacks the love of Christ.
“I know that the theology on this is a different matter all together (it’s been treated extensively elsewhere on this blog), but as a civic issue, I can’t see the point in a prohibition.”
A society which sanctions homosexual marriage, aborts a significant percentage of its babies before they are born, and otherwise has a low birth rate, is destined to demographic annihilation. It is a crisis of values that will lead another society to come and take its place. As a civic issue, therefore, I think that homosexual marriage is a contributing factor to cultural suicide. It is more of an issue in Western Europe than in North America. I regret this, because I don’t foresee the great liberal society of Europe being replaced by something better.
Like Dan, sometimes I think that if homosexuals get married and it remains a private issue, it shouldn’t affect my life very much. It is easy enough to be apathetic about it, or even in favour of allowing others to make their own choices–isn’t that the essence of a free and liberal culture? Perhaps this admission itself shows that the values of the world have deeply influenced the church. But alas! Such loosing of civic values does affect me and my local parish. Our denomination, the Anglican church, is being torn apart over the issue of same-sex relations–and if we, for theological reasons, leave the ACC as others have done, our properties, paid for by the faithful contributions of parish members, will be confiscated by the Diocese. If, however, we remain with the ACC, we will be alienated from the majority of Anglicans in the world (in Africa, Asia and South America), who are appalled by the loosening of values in the West and refuse to remain in fellowship with those who bless same-sex relationships. The cultural acceptance of homosexuality has seeped into the Anglican church, and those who do not agree for theological reasons are now being forced to make difficult decisions.
“Provided that the rights of all religious groups are protected, … ” I consider that our parish’s rights will not be protected if the ACC confiscates our property; we would join the ranks of the historic persecuted church: “You joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one” (Heb 10.34).
P.W.,
This would only be an argument against gay marriage if it was thought that gay marriage would actually increase the number of gay people.
With regards to your church losing its property, that has more to do with the structure of the Anglican church than it does the state. Other denominations are not so arranged. I don’t know of any Christians who desire greater state influence in the affairs of their denomination.
Hi Dan:
Thanks for your response.
“This would only be an argument against gay marriage if it was thought that gay marriage would actually increase the number of gay people.” I am at a loss to understand your point. If gay people could increase the number of gay people through procreation, then there would be no demographic problem with homosexual marriage. However, it is generally recognized that gay unions don’t result in issue through natural means.
“With regards to your church losing its property, that has more to do with the structure of the Anglican church than it does the state.” My point isn’t that the state will take away our church–though that will likely be outcome of the judicial process in the current disputes–but that the cultural climate has changed the view of a majority of Anglicans, which has caused them to want to change the church’s historic stance on sexuality. The legalization of homosexual marriage is one step in the radical change of the our culture’s acceptance of gay union.
I’ve been looking at the heavy words of condemnation of Poser-Prophet in this post and it illustrates his rhetoric of condemnation, ad hominem and shame (Gagnon is a “pompous fool”; Regent has invited him “shame on us”).
Now when it comes to why homosexuals are on the streets because of Christian parents, I think it is difficult to judge based solely on what he has told us, for obviously Prophet-Poser is an advocate for the street people. Where is the advocate for the parents? Before we condemn, we should hear their side of the story. It occurs to me because of trouble one of my friends is having, that the children in many cases may have become very rebellious, and they have rejected their parents advice–maybe not merely on the subject of sexuality either. Children in our society can abuse their parents through their rebellion, physical attacks, verbal abuse, and drug use. Dare I add to this list, using their sexuality as a weapon? Set aside the question of sexual orientation, which has become a sacred cow: How many of these parents advised their children to wait until they were older and more mature before they indulged in sexual behavior? How many of these children honored their parents wishes on this matter and others? The apostle Paul advises children to obey their parents because in the Torah, it is the first commandment with a promise (Eph. 6.1f.): “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.” Parents are not perfect and they can be abusive too: that’s why he tells parents not to provoke their children to anger. But before we condemn Christian parents with children on the street in a class-action blog, lets remember that there are in many cases children who are fault too.
And this is one place where I have to agree with Gagnon. Our cultural education–in public school, on the playground, and in the media–undermines Christian teaching by presenting homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and the like, as a good and inevitable thing. What happened to good ol’ deferment of gratification: shouldn’t young people spend their time studying and preparing for a career to make something of themselves? But our culture undermines such thinking by encouraging not just homosexuality in teenagers, but all kinds of sexual activity before they are ready: And what is “ready”? Ready is not when your glands say you are but when you’ve taken the steps of responsibility with your spouse-to-be, to prepare yourself to make a home and raise a family (Gen 2.25): “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Since most Christian education would discourage all but monogamous heterosexual unions in the state of holy matrimony, then the cultural teachings on sexuality and the laws allowing homosexual marriage and unions are anti-pedagogic. When the societal winds are blowing against them, it makes the duty of Christian parents to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord all the more difficult.
Oh, I forgot to mention Poser-Prophet’s ad hominem attack on Gagnon as a “homophobic fool”; because if you can’t accept Poser-Prophet’s radical agenda, you are a homophobe.
Sorry, Poser-Prophet never called Gagnon a “pompous” fool but a “homophobic” fool. Apologies in advance. By the way, Gagnon’s website has got a lot of great material (http://www.robgagnon.net/). Kudos to Regent College for having him.
Sorry, I missed something. What’s wrong with calling Gagnon a “‘pompous’ fool,” again?
John wrote: “Sorry, I missed something. What’s wrong with calling Gagnon a ‘pompous’ fool,” again?”
That was my mistake: the term that Prophet-Poser used was “homophobic fool”.
What would be the problem with calling Gagnon, a “homophobic fool”? Other than that it is ad hominem and creates a climate of intolerance for anyone who happens to agree with him (as I do with what little of his work that I’ve read); other than that name calling is a propaganda technique and a logical fallacy which incites fear and arouses prejudices (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name-calling); other than that Poser-Prophet’s purpose is to shame the readers of this blog that disagree with his own radical agenda; and other than that Poser-Prophet has academic aspirations, and it would therefore appear that he would like his writing to be considered seriously by academic people, for he is studying at an institution of higher learning (Regent College); other than that, I can’t think of thing wrong with calling Robert Gagnon a “homophobic fool”.
Admittedly, name calling can also be a powerful rhetorical technique, not merely for propaganda; when it is true, a name can powerfully denounce something for what it truly is. It’s calling a spade a spade. But as long as dialogue is possible, wouldn’t it be better to refrain from name calling?
I don’t recall where we determined that comment threads on a blog were an academic paper. It seems to me that you have selected some narrow band of what Dan has said and turned it into the lamest excuse to not accept anything he has to say. I am genuinely interested in dialogue, so I tend to let a lot slide as I am trying to speak above it. If you would like though, I can certainly start pointing out all of your rhetorical stunts as well, Peter – since that’s your main preoccupation with everyone else.
I don’t agree with Dan because in my view he is wrong on the main points. But if you guys are ok with his rhetoric that’s fine too. If you would like to point out my errors of rhetoric I can only benefit.
P.W.:
I think maybe if he were wrong on the main points, we had better stick to a discussion of those main points without drawing attention to the *way* he does it. Otherwise, you look as though you were drawing attention to his insensitive comments in order to disabuse him of *all* his statements. That is just an ad hominem attack. I really don’t want a part of that.
I’m all for sticking to the main points and avoiding ad hominem attacks. Pointing out another’s argumentative fallacies may be annoying but it is not ad hominem in my view (but perhaps it has become ad naseum at this point), since it helps us to distinguish between what is a solid point and what is empty or even abusive rhetoric.
I will no longer point out logical fallacies if that’s what y’all want, unless I am personally attacked again. If you want to point out mine, as John has tried, then I will be happy to consider it. Cheers.
So, what was your point then in stating “Oh, I forgot to mention Poser-Prophet’s ad hominem attack on Gagnon as a “homophobic fool”; because if you can’t accept Poser-Prophet’s radical agenda, you are a homophobe”?
Your view (in this case) is simply wrong.
Hi John,
I thought I explained my point in this comment http://civitatedei.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/a-sea-change-in-american-views-on-gay-marriage/#comment-2065 I won’t belabor that point, especially since it has become an annoyance to you and to Dan.
I’d be happy for you to explain to me what part or parts of my view are wrong. As it is, I’m not even sure which case you’re referring to.
You are special pleading in that you think that its not okay for PorP to call Gagnon an x, yet you supply a criticism of him in terms of an attack concerning the way PorP argues and not his argument in itself. In other words, it is alright by me to say that PorP “creates a climate of intolerance,” “name-calls,” perhaps even is trying to “incite fear” or “shame [his] readers”, but to phrase your post (especially as an afterthought) in terms of “Oh, I forgot to mention Poser-Prophet’s ad hominem attack on Gagnon as a “homophobic fool”; because if you can’t accept Poser-Prophet’s radical agenda, you are a homophobe” is simply throwing the same kinds of punches he does. How can you be saying anything except “look how silly this/he is?” (Remember I had to ask the question about your statement for you to supply us with what you meant.)
As far as I am concerned this blog is not intended to be highly academic (though I am happy you used Greek in the other post, which I am going to respond to) or as a tool to teach (certainly people like me) what “name-calling” is and other basic fallacies. Almost guaranteed everyone reading PorP realizes or should realize that his comments are intended for rhetorical purposes (they are not part of his argument) or are out of frustration, etc. Rhetoric, admittedly, will come into play; I don’t mind a bit of it, so long as we each tacitly recognize it and leave it alone, and attempt to be charitable. If you try to expose them then nothing you say better be for rhetorical purposes or otherwize . . . well you know. Exposing PorP as a user of name-calling seems as an attempt on your part to dismiss everything he says (and by extension the position he, Dan, and I are attempting to argue or at least discuss) by a kind of an a minori ad maius—”see, this is how he argues, how can we trust anything he says then”—attack.
Thanks for these clarifications.
May I just say that I don’t expect everyone to write academically in blogs. Poser-Prophet, and some others who contribute here do appear to have academic aspirations. I’d recommend that they practice writing here, as far as possible, in a way that they can be proud of later.
For the record, I don’t dismiss “everything” that Poser-Prophet says. And I do try to express reasonable objections to his main points with which I disagree.
I think (within reasonable bounds) it’s each commenter’s and/or author’s decision as to how they will write here. There’s no way I would write an academic paper the way I write here (most of the time). It comes off as pedantic to suggest that someone else’s blog is where budding academics ought to polish their scholarly prose.
I agree Dan. It is your blog– yours, Andrew’s and the Brook’s. If you agree to a certain level writing that is entirely up to you guys. And I can see how my comments would seem pedantic. However, I would add this caveat:
Everything a writer writes is practicing an art; everytime a scholar formulates an argument, he is honing his skills. If young scholars pick up bad habits, becoming sloppy or abusive in a blog or even in every day speech, they will be less able to avoid these bad habits at some important point in their career, and that can be costly. One should practice the way one intends to play (that’s what I would tell a high-school player in a pick-up game of basketball).
Imagine trying to get an academic job after you’ve displayed your intolerance across the pages of several blogs. Poser-Prophet himself has pointed out that this is a forum which has public access. Thus, I stand by my advice to those who have academic hopes, that they should write carefully and thoughtfully when they blog.
I really need to start reading the comments. I have no idea what’s going on!