Prop 8 Debate: The Problem

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Due to my policy of not debating in other areas now, I decided to start my own thread here on the Prop 8 debate. Recently, one judge overturned the will of 52% of California. The debate on the topic unfortunately has turned to the usual tactics seen by those who agree with the judge's decision.

What are those tactics? That all those who disagree simply hate homosexuals and are bigots.

This is the problem. When it reaches this point, the debate is not about facts any more. It is about attitudes. It is not discussing facts about homosexuality or marriage. It is discussing attitudes about them. Attitudes however are subjective realities. I can have hatred for homosexuals. You can have love for them. Neither of them changes what homosexuals are.

The facts about homosexuals and homosexuality and marriage however do not change regardless of my attitude. In fact, let's assume for the sake of argument that I do hate homosexuals. Let's assume that I am a bigot. Does that mean I'm automatically wrong? No. It can prove that I'm a jerk, but one can be a total jerk in how they hold their position and why they hold it and still be right in it.

For instance, if all people who are against homosexual marriages are people who hate homosexuals, then what does that say about David Benkof, whose website is here ?

In this case, we have a homosexual who is against the LGBT community wanting to have homosexual marriages and is supporting the belief that marriage is between a husband and a wife. Are we to believe that because he believes that this is a fact about marriage, that he is thus a bigot and a homophobe?

Well, no. However, if there are no facts on one's side, the best thing for them to do is make their opponent have to defend themselves rather than their position. This assumes that the side that is for homosexual marriage is obviously right and the only reason someone could have to be against it is an attitude. It does not consider that there could be facts about the nature of marriage that supporters of marriage believe in.

Now you could argue "But there is no metaphysical reality to what marriage is!" Okay. You can argue that. Can you demonstrate it however? It does no good to assume it since that is not my position. As my opponent, your task is to prove me wrong based on the things that I believe in. It does no good to demonstrate that I simply disagree with you. That's why we have the disagreement. Why should I agree with you? Show me a contradiction in my position or a fact that I have wrong. Don't give me just an assertion.

There's also the argument that a homosexual marriage does not harm my marriage. Now in a sense, that's accurate. A homosexual marriage will not spell the end of my marriage to my wife. However, the recognition of homosexual marriage being on par with marriage does harm, but it is not mainly to me.

It is to the most vulnerable amongst us. Our children.

What we who believe in marriage affirm is that men and women are different by nature and there are some things a child needs a father for and some a child needs a mother for. A mother and father for children is the ideal. Now I do realize there are of course bad homes that have a mother and a father. There are also single parents who do a great job raising their children. However, single parents are not the ideal and neither are bad examples of the ideal the ideal.

The debate is not just about marriage. It is about what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman and the lowering of marriage will mean that there is no essential difference in the eyes of society.

However, we often never get to this point. One side is too busy screaming "Bigot!" and "Homophobe!" and "Gay hater!" Now as a Christian, I do stand up and say we should not hate people who have homosexual desires and live that lifestyle. They are people that are created in the image of God and have goodness in them just for that reason. When I worked at a Wal-Mart in Knoxville, TN, one of my friends there was a homosexual man. I never said anything about it to him, but I also made no secret of the fact that I was and am a Christian. Now if he'd asked me for my opinion, I would have given it. But until then, I was simply a friend and not just to convert, but because we did share some mutual interests and I enjoyed his company.

Now the response to those who are for homosexual marriage could be to say that I am lying. If that is the case, it will be up to them to demonstrate it. What facts will they give? I am against homosexual marriage? How does that demonstrate I hate homosexuals as people? I'm against alcoholics getting behind the wheel of a car and driving. That does not mean I hate alcoholics. I do not want people with contagious diseases serving me in a restaurant. That does not mean I hate sick people. I am here in defense of an institution. I am not here in hatred against a person.

What supporters of homosexual marriage should do instead is come and debate the issues instead of the attitudes. Until that time comes, there won't be any debate. It is simply a tactic to silence the opposition with an ad hominem. The belief of defenders of marriage will not be listened to because the people will not be listened to. Ironically, this comes from the same group who shouts out that we need to be more tolerant and decries the way we "treat homosexual people."

[jpholding]

I'm still waiting for someone to advance an argument in favor of homosexual marriage that doesn't also support polygamous marriage, incest marriages (provided no children are produced), or stuff like

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/

or even stuff like

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapc...ing/index.html


I won't hold my breath.

Anyone here hate dolphins?

[Jnthn]

I'm still waiting for someone to advance an argument in favor of homosexual marriage that doesn't also support polygamous marriage, incest marriages (provided no children are produced), or stuff like

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/

or even stuff like

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapc...ing/index.html


I won't hold my breath.

Anyone here hate dolphins?

Exactly.

At one point I seriously entertained sending emails to LGBT marriage advocates pretending to be from a pederast or polyamorous group to see if they would "join in solidarity" with their respective causes.

At heart, it's not a human rights issue. It's what's paletable to the broader society. The former is just a veneer.

Who wants to take a bet that in a generation polyamory is legalised. Next up will be de facto pederasty.

J

[Hamster]

This is a heavy topic for me and I'm not that articulate on the best of days. Hopefully this won't turn into a directionless ramble, but here we go

A problem within the problem is the disagreement about the nature of homosexuality. Conservative Christians seem to see homosexuality as a kind of strong taste. Like Fred loves hamburgers but really hates vegetables. Fred could eat vegetables if he just sat down and tried it but he craves hamburgers, so that's what he eats. Maybe with a bit of practice Fred could give up burgers and eat vegetables.

Homosexuals usually do not see it that way at all. Their sexuality is as part of them as their maleness or femaleness. Even if they were to remain completely chaste for the rest of their lives, with the self-discipline of an experienced saint, they would still be homosexual - it's just the way they're made. From personal experience, study, and testimony this is the view that I have.

I'm not going to say that some uppity activist queens don't try and manipulate the public by calling them "bigots" because they definitely try to browbeat rather than use rational arguments.

But I just want us to keep in mind that there are people who develop into a state where their sexuality more resembles the opposite sex's then their own sex's. They grow up like all of us with the American destiny in mind: mature, go to school, go to college, meet someone you love, get married, and have a family. They try to make this happen the best way they can. I'm not saying that we should just pat them on their heads, give them a marriage certificate, and pretend that everything is A-OK.

I'm just trying to say that the message they're getting is: There is something fundamentally broken about you. You should never be able to start a family. You should never raise children. You should watch your friends and siblings grow and flourish while you remain single. You better start hoping that you somehow transform into a heterosexual, otherwise resign yourself for a solitary life.

Most or many of them are not even Christians or religious to begin with. So how would you interpret this message as something other than hate?

I don't think Christians on TheologyWeb hate gays any more than Buddhists hate people who eat meat or Hindus hate people who eat beef, or Jews hate people that work on the sabbath. Although I'd wager that most Christians are definitely not as articulate or informed as the sort that post here on Tweb.

[Rayado]

My two cents:

I'm just trying to say that the message they're getting is: There is something fundamentally broken about you. You should never be able to start a family. You should never raise children. You should watch your friends and siblings grow and flourish while you remain single. You better start hoping that you somehow transform into a heterosexual, otherwise resign yourself for a solitary life.

Most or many of them are not even Christians or religious to begin with. So how would you interpret this message as something other than hate?

I know this is easily the view that SSM advocates would tend towards; but when we get to the line about not being able to start a family or raise children, a line gets crossed, and we pass from reason into rhetoric.

Because at that point, we have to start asking some questions, namely: what is the family? What is marriage? And it's not so much a matter of "shouldn't" as it is a matter of "can't;" as though those who oppose SSM can simply flip a switch to render reproduction impossible by mere fiat. It's simple nature that same-sex couples from reproducing; at what point does that even get taken into account? Where do we draw the line in what makes a marriage and a family, and what doesn't?

But also: the very word "shouldn't is a moral one. And the dirty little secret is that there is no moral neutrality about SSM. Either it is moral to support it, or moral to oppose it--and even the more litigious advocates already leverage this against those would not support same-sex couples. (Of course, the minute SSM advocates set foot on morality territory, they've lost the battle. They either have to argue for a consistent moral relativism--which cuts off litigation against those who refuse to recognize or host SSM--or argue that it is immoral to oppose SSM. The former grants far too much, and the second one argues for an objective morality, which brings enough risks on its own.)

Do we send that message? Of course. Can it be evaluated critically to sift the true from the false? Sure. But our culture is far from the only culture in the world to send the message that we should raise families and have children. "Should we?" is still a valid question.

Does the wrong message get sent? Yup. The level of distrust on both sides of the issue is amazing. Groups like Soulforce, and their opposites of the Phelps variety, certainly don't help.

But I think, too, that the Christian worldview is the best answer, and certainly better than a secular worldview. If I recall correctly, Aquinas--maybe? somebody--said that attraction in and of itself was not sinful, because it could not be helped, but acting on that attraction was another matter. How different things would be if someone who struggled with same-sex attraction knew they could find trust and safety within the church, with no compromise on the reality of sin and the reality of grace.

P.s.

I'm not that articulate on the best of days

is a daggum falsehood.

Edited to add: Could the case for traditional marriage be made better? You bet.

[Rainbow Brite]

It is to the most vulnerable amongst us. Our children.

What will you do if you have a child that's gay and wants to marry, would you go to the wedding? I'm not sure I could, I don't know.

[Hamster]

I know this is easily the view that SSM advocates would tend towards; but when we get to the line about not being able to start a family or raise children, a line gets crossed, and we pass from reason into rhetoric.

Because at that point, we have to start asking some questions, namely: what is the family? What is marriage? And it's not so much a matter of "shouldn't" as it is a matter of "can't;" as though those who oppose SSM can simply flip a switch to render reproduction impossible by mere fiat. It's simple nature that same-sex couples from reproducing; at what point does that even get taken into account? Where do we draw the line in what makes a marriage and a family, and what doesn't?

But also: the very word "shouldn't is a moral one. And the dirty little secret is that there is no moral neutrality about SSM. Either it is moral to support it, or moral to oppose it--and even the more litigious advocates already leverage this against those would not support same-sex couples. (Of course, the minute SSM advocates set foot on morality territory, they've lost the battle. They either have to argue for a consistent moral relativism--which cuts off litigation against those who refuse to recognize or host SSM--or argue that it is immoral to oppose SSM. The former grants far too much, and the second one argues for an objective morality, which brings enough risks on its own.)

Do we send that message? Of course. Can it be evaluated critically to sift the true from the false? Sure. But our culture is far from the only culture in the world to send the message that we should raise families and have children. "Should we?" is still a valid question.

Does the wrong message get sent? Yup. The level of distrust on both sides of the issue is amazing. Groups like Soulforce, and their opposites of the Phelps variety, certainly don't help.

But I think, too, that the Christian worldview is the best answer, and certainly better than a secular worldview. If I recall correctly, Aquinas--maybe? somebody--said that attraction in and of itself was not sinful, because it could not be helped, but acting on that attraction was another matter. How different things would be if someone who struggled with same-sex attraction knew they could find trust and safety within the church, with no compromise on the reality of sin and the reality of grace.

Edited to add: Could the case for traditional marriage be made better? You bet.

Great reply, thank you. I wish that in Christendom there was a place for homosexuals. Often there's no acknowledgement that homosexuality even exists - only 'behaviors'. There's also so much focus on the family life. It seems like there's no place for a celibate unless you want to be a Catholic priest.

P.s.
is a daggum falsehood.

Hah. It takes me so long to get the right words out and I still usually screw up what I'm intending ot say. But In a week I'm starting writing classes at college, so here's hoping for a brighter posting future...

[Zeratul]

I'm still waiting for someone to advance an argument in favor of homosexual marriage that doesn't also support polygamous marriage, incest marriages (provided no children are produced), or stuff like

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/

or even stuff like

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapc...ing/index.html


I won't hold my breath.

Anyone here hate dolphins?

I agree that homosexual "marriage" naturally leads to polygamy/incest, however it wouldn't necessarily result in "marriage" to animals. Because obviously the animal cannot provide "mutual consent." But otherwise I agree with you.

[Rainbow Brite]

I agree that homosexual "marriage" naturally leads to polygamy/incest...

Ironic that sin of Sodomites led to Lot having relations with his daughters, resulting in Moabites, Ruth, David, and Jesus as salvation from sin.

[Jnthn]

This is a heavy topic for me and I'm not that articulate on the best of days. Hopefully this won't turn into a directionless ramble, but here we go

A problem within the problem is the disagreement about the nature of homosexuality. Conservative Christians seem to see homosexuality as a kind of strong taste. Like Fred loves hamburgers but really hates vegetables. Fred could eat vegetables if he just sat down and tried it but he craves hamburgers, so that's what he eats. Maybe with a bit of practice Fred could give up burgers and eat vegetables.

Some Christians, possibly, but speaking personally, I've never heard it expressed in such a simple fashion. I may be wrong (memory fading as I approach 40 etc. etc.) but most of the contemporary writings and exchanges have been at the moral-ethical level and around the nature vs. nurture debate.

Homosexuals usually do not see it that way at all. Their sexuality is as part of them as their maleness or femaleness. Even if they were to remain completely chaste for the rest of their lives, with the self-discipline of an experienced saint, they would still be homosexual - it's just the way they're made. From personal experience, study, and testimony this is the view that I have.

Sure. I don't think that would trouble many Christians, and without rehearsing some of the arguments in the debate that's not really where the debate should operate or does operate in my experience.

I'm not going to say that some uppity activist queens don't try and manipulate the public by calling them "bigots" because they definitely try to browbeat rather than use rational arguments.

That kind of appeal to emotion is not exclusive to the debate on human sexuality, by any means.

But I just want us to keep in mind that there are people who develop into a state where their sexuality more resembles the opposite sex's then their own sex's. They grow up like all of us with the American destiny in mind: mature, go to school, go to college, meet someone you love, get married, and have a family. They try to make this happen the best way they can. I'm not saying that we should just pat them on their heads, give them a marriage certificate, and pretend that everything is A-OK.

I can't comment on the American perspective for obvious reasons, but I feel compelled to point out that none of these items in your destiny list are by any means guaranteed to anyone. As harsh as this may come across, the American Dream must, must be tempered by a healthy dose of reality.

I'm just trying to say that the message they're getting is: There is something fundamentally broken about you. You should never be able to start a family. You should never raise children. You should watch your friends and siblings grow and flourish while you remain single. You better start hoping that you somehow transform into a heterosexual, otherwise resign yourself for a solitary life.

But the whole point of the Christian message is that humanity is fundamentally broken. The church is made up of broken people and we need to be broken down further before we can be rebuilt into the better way. It seems only fair at this point to share with you how messed up I am: While I am comfortable to self-describe myself as hetrosexual (it's a clumsy term but I won't develop this line of thought here) I am bulimic, clinically depressed, on the autism spectrum, periodically acrophobic, insomniac, have attempted suicide and am decidedly un-Christlike at the best of times.

However the lesson I am learning in my fourth decade, however slowly is to shift my perspective, rest in Him, and learn how my mess can somehow be for good in a way I may never know this side of Heaven.

It's all about perspective and the vantage point one stands on.

Most or many of them are not even Christians or religious to begin with. So how would you interpret this message as something other than hate?

There has to be an element of fear and insecurity. While hateful things are done to homosexuals, the sphere of what qualifies as 'hate' has distended to an unreasonable size. And because of the favoured status of the LBGTQ cause, the distention has not been challenged. If it has not done so already it has got to the extent that 'Wolf' has been cried too many times.

On a slight parallel, there is an aspect of Christendom that needs to be addressed: It is evident that the main thing that is being proclaimed is the "gospel" of moral conservatism rather than the Gospel proper. The first need of non-Christian homosexuals is to hear the Gospel, not to be persuaded to abandon their sexual practice. There is a dam' fine line to be walked but it is there.

I don't think Christians on TheologyWeb hate gays any more than Buddhists hate people who eat meat or Hindus hate people who eat beef, or Jews hate people that work on the sabbath. Although I'd wager that most Christians are definitely not as articulate or informed as the sort that post here on Tweb.

It's a function of the circle one moves in and of the level of discernment in the individual.

J

[ApologiaPhoenix]

What will you do if you have a child that's gay and wants to marry, would you go to the wedding? I'm not sure I could, I don't know.

But a question like this is part of the problem. When we do this, we no longer discuss if the issue is right or wrong. We're discussing "How do you feel about the issue?"

Suppose this happens and I end up going to such a "wedding." What would that show about the rightness or wrongness of "homosexual marriage"? Nothing. It could prove I'm a hypocrite, but my attending tells only about myself and not about the event I'm attending.

What if I don't go? That could demonstrate that I am stalwart in my beliefs, but again, I could be stalwart in them and be wrong.

The question is not "How do you feel about homosexuality?" You could think all homosexuals are abominations that deserve to die and be entirely right that homosexuality is immoral. Actions do not become right or wrong because of the position of the people who argue about those actions but because of those actions themselves.

Discussing personal feelings makes for interesting psychology, but not for interesting metaphysics into the nature of marriage.

[Rainbow Brite]

Suppose this happens and I end up going to such a "wedding." What would that show about the rightness or wrongness of "homosexual marriage"? Nothing. It could prove I'm a hypocrite, but my attending tells only about myself and not about the event I'm attending.

What if I don't go? That could demonstrate that I am stalwart in my beliefs, but again, I could be stalwart in them and be wrong.

Suppose I asked you as my minister if I should attend my child's gay wedding, what would you advise that would be compatible with upholding Christian ideals?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Suppose I asked you as my minister if I should attend my child's gay wedding, what would you advise that would be compatible with upholding Christian ideals?

That is not the point of the thread. The point is "How are we to handle the Prop 8 debate?"

[Rainbow Brite]

That is not the point of the thread. The point is "How are we to handle the Prop 8 debate?"

You made a lot of points in your OP, one of them, "However, the recognition of homosexual marriage being on par with marriage does harm, but it is not mainly to me."

So I wanted to clarify what your position would be, should you or one of the people you provide with spiritual guidance face that situation. Should you advise to attend, that would seem to be recognizing gay marriage and thus do harm. So then is your ministry position advising not to attend? It's a reasonable question given your comments about it.

Since as you know it's one thing to have a position, but another to follow through if it means potential alienation between you and your children.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

You made a lot of points in your OP, one of them, "However, the recognition of homosexual marriage being on par with marriage does harm, but it is not mainly to me."

So I wanted to clarify what your position would be, should you or one of the people you provide with spiritual guidance face that situation. Should you advise to attend, that would seem to be recognizing gay marriage and thus do harm. So then is your ministry position advising not to attend? It's a reasonable question given your comments about it.

Since as you know it's one thing to have a position, but another to follow through if it means potential alienation between you and your children.

Do you think I should support children if I think what they're doing is sinful? Not at all. That's not love.