The Coming Storm?

That's the title of one of the sidebars at National Public Radio, for a story about the inevitable clash between "gay marriage rights" and religions liberties. (So far, religious groups are losing, they say.) I want to know what our political leaders intend to do about this before I vote for any of them. Or should I just wait for the courts to decide? Oh, sorry, I forgot. I am not supposed to get all excited about this gay marriage stuff, and be a thoughtful and less knee-jerk reactionary religious citizen, and take in all the issues, including forestry-reform, prevention of environmental degradation (who's for that?), tax-code reform, and so on. So what if a five-year-old comes home from school and tells his mother he thinks he might want to marry a boy? You know he didn't make that up on his own but that the idea was put into his head by your tax-supported education.

Comments

[GL]

Thanks, Jim.

It is inevitable. The younger evangelicals who believe we old folks should be more tolerant and that we should live and let live on this (and other matters), don't understand the implications of same-sex "marriage" for religious liberty. As I posted a few weeks ago, even legal scholars who support same-sex "marriage" understand and admit that such conflicts are inevitable. There are conflicts which are unavoidable and when they occur, someone has to lose. Wishing it were otherwise does not make it so.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I thought you all might be interested in seeing a Heinz ad (30 seconds) featuring a homosexual family and two homosexuals kissing:

Heinz Ketchup Shows Gay Marriage in TV ad in England

It is the kind of ad which we can expect to see in California as they prepare to vote on homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage is illegal in England.

[Bill R]

Indeed. Right now the talk is of "accomodation" of religious beliefs, but how long do you suppose that will last? What happens when the concept of "accomodation" is reversed, that is, when the lawsuits demand that churches "accomodate" homosexuals who want their "marriage" solemnized in churches that refuse to do so? Oh, such churches can still exercise their religious liberties and refuse to do so, but then--will they be entitled to keep their tax-exempt status? If they deny a "constitutional" right to "public accomodation?" Wanna bet? Especially if the first suit is in, ahem, California? And how many churches could survive financially the loss of their tax-exempt status?

[Bill R]

"I thought you all might be interested in seeing a Heinz ad (30 seconds) featuring a homosexual family and two homosexuals kissing."

Well, I suppose Heinz would say it's time for the rest of us to, um, "catch up."

[AMereLurker]

Ironic, isn't it, that the so-called Agents of Tolerance will become the Thought Police and, ultimately, the Agents of Persecution, the ones who force the Church of Christ underground. As soon as they decide to tell a church what it can or cannot do, they're only a hair's breadth from telling the church what it can or cannot believe.

I really hope I'm wrong about that.

[Gina]

Ironic, isn't it

It's payback time, pure and simple.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

James Kushiner: "So what if a five-year-old comes home from school and tells his mother he thinks he might want to marry a boy?"

In a gay new world it won't even cause a blink.

"But for the most part in Massachusetts, lesbian and gay marriage has become so everyday that when kindergartner Chloe Page saw her teacher sporting a new wedding band, she asked if he had married a boy or a girl."

From In Massachusetts, a test run for same-sex marriage

[Clifford Simon]

Bill,
My nightmare scenario is that the good churchs will give up (or even refuse) their tax-exempt status, and the survivors will be those whose congrgegants love God more than they love their wallets. But it's not hard to hope that much good may result of that.

[Bill R]

"My nightmare scenario is that the good churchs will give up (or even refuse) their tax-exempt status, and the survivors will be those whose congrgegants love God more than they love their wallets."

You may be right, Cliff. The Lord may decide that the only fitting persecution for American Christians is one that hits our wallets.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"So what if a five-year-old comes home from school and tells his mother he thinks he might want to marry a boy?"<<<

Long before anyone knew that gay meant anything other than happy, kids came home to tell their parents they wanted to marry another kid of the same sex. While I don't think I ever had a crush on a boy (it's hard to have a crush on people who are beating you up), my sister came home from kindergarten once (and this must have been around 1965) to solemnly announce that she was marrying the girl who sat next to her when she grew up. "That's nice, dear", said my mother, who went on fixing dinner.

[Stuart Koehl]

Belonging to one Church that was actually suppressed and legally abolished by the Communists in 1949, and now belonging to one that has undergone real persecution since the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land in the 7th century, I gotta say that all this moaning and bellyaching about potentially losing your tax exempt status or perhaps incurring civil fines makes American Christians sound like a bunch of wussies.

[David Gray]

>Long before anyone knew that gay meant anything other than happy, kids came home to tell their parents they wanted to marry another kid of the same sex.

You had a truly bizarre childhood...

[Kamilla]

Stuart,

It seems the prayers of our brothers and sisters in the East are coming to fruition. One the one occasion I have visited Ukraine (Jan 95), we were told they were praying for our persecution.

I also wonder how many kids are getting permanently messed up because their "enlightened" parents "affirm" their choice to marry their first same-sex crush?

Kamilla

[YaknYeti]

My soon-to-be niece told me that she wanted to marry me when she grew up. "I'm sorry, but I'm marrying your aunt," I told her. After some thought, she announced she would marry her dad instead.

It takes discernment to know what to take seriously and what not to, but I'd say it's important not to overreact to a passing whim.

[Bill R]

"I gotta say that all this moaning and bellyaching about potentially losing your tax exempt status or perhaps incurring civil fines makes American Christians sound like a bunch of wussies."

You're probably right, Stuart. Serious persecution would require them to take away our TV sets....

[GL]

>>>You're probably right, Stuart. Serious persecution would require them to take away our TV sets....<<<

Bill,

Your so 70s. Serious persecution would require them to take away our internet. . . . ;-)

Stuart is, of course, correct. As I have stated before, where I believe we may be beginning to see the first signs of serious persecution is in requiring Christians to perform tasks at work which are or materially assist immorality or lose their jobs or professional license. Bill forwarded the editorial from the L.A. Times in which the author argued that employees in the county clerk's offices in California should be required to perform same-sex marriage. I have written before about pharmacists in some states being required to dispense Plan-B contraceptives.

Another area in which we are beginning to see the effects of mandatory tolerance (isn't that an oxymoron?) is the stories about the Catholic Diocese in Boston ending its more than a century-old adoption services when the state mandated placement of children in the homes of same-sex couples. I believe I saw recently a similar issue in England.

Taking away a person's livelihood is certainly a form of persecution, especially if he has a family to feed and shelter. Yet even that does not compare to the persecutions of the early martyrs or what the Communists did during their 70 year reign of terror in Russia or what the Chinese and African Muslims are doing today. We are just beginning to get the first faint scents of persecution and we don't much like it. How will we react if more serious forms visit our homes?

On the bright side, it will probably end the seeker-sensitive movement. There aren't going to be a lot of "seekers" interested in coming to church to sip lattes and listen to rock-inspired love ballads if the thought police are taking down names and snapping photographs of the attendees.

[Rob G]

"I gotta say that all this moaning and bellyaching about potentially losing your tax exempt status or perhaps incurring civil fines makes American Christians sound like a bunch of wussies."

I really don't think it's that, Stuart. A lot of folks see these things as the 'beginning of troubles' and are concerned about what may come later, i.e., whether the 'soft totalitarianism' will at some point become a firmer denser variety. Remember that even though the Russian revolution happened overnight, it didn't really happen overnight.

[Patrick Davis]

I'm confused as to why a homosexual couple would want or need the blessing of the church if the state "blesses" their "marriage." If they can now legally get married by the state, they don't need the church to make it legit, so why bother the church at all? If one wants a Big Mac, one goes to McDonalds, right? One doesn't go to Burger King and sue them because they don't provide one with two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun. (OK, the analogy breaks down fairly quickly, I know...) Why must the church be attacked? Why not just thumb one's nose at the "ignorant" and "backward" folk like is done on every other issue? What am I missing?

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Patrick,
You're missing the lurking presence of Satan. All of this nonsense about "same sex marriage" is just another way of attacking the Church and making this life uncomfortable for the citizens of the Kingdom of God.

I'm not really feeling up for persecution right now. We ought to resist the coalescing situation will all the intellectual, political, and legal tools given to us. ("Is it lawful to beat a Roman and uncondemned?")

[Jason]

Just to temper the reactions a bit, here is an article about the NPR story that provides a bit more nuance about what is happening--and has been happening for some time. While it will not put anyone at completely at ease, it takes some of the edge of the "payback time" fears.

http://volokh.com/posts/1213748649.shtml

[Gina]

While it will not put anyone at completely at ease, it takes some of the edge of the "payback time" fears.

I don't see how saying "the problem is bigger than you think" is at all reassuring. The relevance of the new gay marriage policy in California is that it emboldens such challenges as we have already seen under anti-discrimination laws.

[c matt]

I am surprised I haven't seen a full faith and credit clause challenge yet. Perhaps they are waiting until this election is over to see what kind of SCOTUS composition there will be in the near future.

If such a challenge were made, and SSM was to be given full faith and credit by sister states, stuff will start hitting the fan rather quickly.

[c matt]

I'm confused as to why a homosexual couple would want or need the blessing of the church if the state "blesses" their "marriage."

They don't want the blessing, they want to show they can force the church to give it.

[Bill R]

Gene Volokh is a very bright guy (how could he not be, as a law prof at my alma mater? ;-) ), and he's often on the right side, but he's completely off here.

"Instead of gay marriage causing a collision, both gay marriage and religious conflicts with antidiscrimination law are themselves the product of a much larger trend that is moving the tectonic plates of our culture. That trend is the increasingly common view that homosexuality is a natural and harmless variation of human sexuality, that gay people are entitled to be judged on their merits and not on the basis of outdated opprobrium, and that these beliefs should to a significant degree be reflected in law."

Volokh is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. This is what is happening among Americans, good-hearted and well-intentioned people that we are. It is not what those pressing for homosexual "rights" see as their agenda. Many articles have pointed out that there is in fact little desire within the homosexual community for "marriage." What they seek is social acceptance of homosexuality, and they are slowly (or not so slowly) winning their case. What really helps them is the wounding of their greatest enemies, namely, orthodox Christians. Thus the church is the principal target (as WED Godbold points out). If the church can be marginalized, social stigma against homosexuality all but vanishes (you have to get past the "yuck" factor, but a few Heinz catsup commercials will accomplish that). Ultimately it's not really a "clash" between two sets of "rights," but a spiritual battle. Volokh doesn't have a clue about that.

[Jason]

I read the Volokh article as part of an email discussion with a friend of mine on the issue of same-sex marriage (ssm). Two things eased the tension for me. First was the wide berth that the writer was willing to give to religious objection. I hope there are others in the larger debate with this fair-mindedness. Secondly is that he points out that most of these fights are more nuanced than the "gay marriage against religion" story that NPR tries to sell it as. The photographer being turned over to NM Human Rights Commission is the scariest and we have reason to worry that it is a precedent, but the writer generally diffused some of the fear that religious belief and expression is going to be steamrolled.

There is a line between objecting to ssm and the normalization of homosexuality on one hand, and reactionary fears about "agendas," "payback," "attacks," "totalitarianism," and the like. The best way to stay on the right side of the line is to know the "other." In "War As A Force That Gives Life Meaning," Chris Hedges offers this as an antidote to demonizing the enemy and slipping over the line from warrior to war criminal. He encourages soldiers foreign lands to get to know some of the natives personally--not the ones they are fighting necessarily, but those locals that soldiers have various reasons to interact with. If I know an Iraqi as a person, it is easier to remember all Iraqis are persons and refrain from shooting/torturing/harming any Iraqi just because they are Iraqi.

Christianity in America lost the Sanctity of Marriage battle before I was even born (my out-of-wedlock birth was one of the many casualties it suffered). SSM is simply a reality growing out of the full development of a new, corrupted idea of marriage that is simply separate from our world view. I am not suggesting that we give up, but I do suggest that we figure out how we are going to be an orthodox Christian witness in that new reality.

I have a suggestion: get to know personally some of the gay men and women around you, "married" or otherwise. You will gain a better understanding of the many individual motivations of individual people apart from ideas about a group's "agenda." It will also benefit your soul. When we react against faceless groups and ideas, we are diminished. When we respond to other persons in a personal way, we (and they) are enriched.

Some may object that I am saying we should mingle with immorality. But that is the same err that the other side makes--defining a person by sexual behavior. We can get to know people who experience same-sex attraction as people without being immoral. Let your spiritual director guide you on that point.

One more suggestion. Really be sure you clearly understand our doctrine on same-sex attraction and be sure you are responding out of that and not out of the messier cultural muck that demonizes "homos."

Sorry for prattling on and on but I am just off a lengthy discussion of this issue and I want to start doing what little I can to keep the impending "encounter" from becoming a conflagration.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Jason,
I'm not advocating anything other than charity to folks with same-sex attraction. But sometimes charity is *telling* them that the idea of their "marrying" someone of the same sex is nonsense. It effectively promulgates an ungodly view of the universe, one that distorts a protecting reference frame given to us by God. Acknowledgement of such "marriage" both effects and signifies the debasement of our humanity (see Paul in Romans). It goes explicitly against the words of our King:

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

It also strikes at the root of the eschatological union of Jesus with the Church (of which marriage is a prefigurement). Anyway, this is all old hat to many of the folks on this list and readers of the magazine.

[Jason]

W.E.D:

Your explanation of our issue here is particularly clear. Thank you for typing it out. I'll keep it with me.

But I am not disputing our doctrine on marriage and I will defend it. If I am charitable with my gay friends but they cannot accept my defense of the Faith, we will sadly part ways.

My comments are directed at the fear of a "coming storm," lawsuits against churches (who refuse to bless ssm), rhetoric about agendas, manditory tolerance, attacks, persecutions, totalitarianism and such.

Life is about to get a shade more difficult for orthodox Christians in America. I am only suggesting that we can make the issue better by personally engaging individuals. It is sobering. I was in a tizzy about the NPR article and my friend pointed out the Volokh article and I was able to see more clearly where the problem issues lie and where they don't. Further more, I cannot engage in dehumanizing rhetoric knowing real people on the other side of this.

Don't get me wrong, "Mere Comments" is lightweight rhetoric compared to other forums I choose not to read. I am making this suggestion to a group who is not likely to have a problem with it.

[James A. Altena]

Patrick,

Gene (Godbold) and C Matt are right, but I would elaborate further. When sin and evil are at their most intense and pure, they cease to have a specific goal beyond a sinful act itself, and perform the act solely for the sake of being able to perform it, as pure self-assertion of pure power. The man who desires power for the sake of e.g. accruing wealth is infinitely less dangerous than the man who desires power solely for the sake of having power; for the former may have his price, but the latter does not. The desire of gay rights activists for "gay marriage" has less to do with any real desire for social endorsement than it does with the the transmutation of unnatural sexual lust into the unnatural exertion of raw power.

----------------------

Jason,

First, I will second Gene's response to you. There is no evidence that anyone here is suggesting uncharitable speech or conduct, and it is rather presumptuous of you to think that you have to make a preemptive post here to forfend that possibility. (If you were to search this site, you would find some instances where I have argued against another person for taking what i deemed to be an uncharitable stance toward gays. Keep that in mind in reading what follows here.)

Second, your Iraq analogy is faulty. First, there is nothing wrong with being of a particularly nationality, whereas (in the words of a Vatican document regarding homosexuality) homosexual preference is "objectively disordered." Second, to be an Iraqi is not per se to engage in sinful conduct such as terrorism, or to justify such conduct by others. But people who identify themselves as homosexuals (as distinct from person who confess to struggling with homosexual temptation) justify and engage in the sinful conduct of sodomy.

Third, much of your rhetoric here is the patronizing twaddle of the political left that in fact seeks to "demonize" conservatives. Your post repeatedly, gratuitously, and falsely implies that conservatives have somehow contrived to live in hermetically sealed social worlds, in which they do not "know personally" gay men, and thus "react against faceless groups and ideas"; are subject to "reactionary fears about 'agendas,' 'payback,' 'attacks,' 'totalitarianism,' and the like"; and thus need to "gain a better understanding of the many individual motivations of individual people apart from ideas about a group's 'agenda'." Etc., etc., etc.

Rubbish. I didn't spend 20 years in academia and classical music circles without getting to know personally a good many homosexuals. And, as others on MC may recall from previous posts of mine, I have a lesbian sister-in-law in a "partnered relationship," with the two of them having adopted an infant black boy (now almost 6 years old. (I'm sure that a number of other folks here can share similar information.) I also spent a couple of years as an observer of meetings of an HA-type group.

And, from both personal experience, anecdotal accounts, and a wide range of reading, I can safely say that folks here at MC are not "defining a person by sexual behavior." On the contrary, it is the gays and lesbians themselves who, despite occasional pro forma disclaimers, do so, obsessively and incessantly. One cannot have the most innocuous conversation without some reference to their "sexuality" being gratuitously introduced and aggressively rubbed into your face. (Once, before we were married, my wife was invited by my sister-in-law and her partner to dinner at a restaurant with their parents [in their mid-70s in age]. The "restaurant" turned out ot be a lesbian club, the walls of which were painted with scenes of lesbian couples in graphic depictions of sexual acts.)

So spare us your condescending snobbery and lectures about whom we must get to know, and how. We hold our positions precisely because we are all too well acquainted with what homosexual activists are and desire, not only in terms of self-identification and self-gratification, but also in their desire to eradicate anything opposed to those. Our battle may be spiritual rather than material, but that does not make it any less deadly; for we fear him who can kill the soul more than him who can only kill the body.

[Bill R]

Jason,

WED, aka Gene, types faster than I can. But he says it well. I for one have a great number of homosexual colleagues (who are also friends), and not one, to my knowledge, wishes to "marry." They are all quite human to me, and I wouldn't disparage their humanity in any way. But their radical counterparts, following a depraved philosophy, are a grave danger (even to my non-radical homosexual colleagues). All the sympathy in the world that I have for these colleagues isn't going to change that danger, or the way I address it.

[Clifford Simon]

An Iraqi fellow-soldier is a sinner (as I am), but not willfully in the main sense pertaining to the reason why I ought to meet him. That's why it's disanalogous to compare that to talking to people who believe in the gay lifestyle. When we say "getting to know gay people," do we mean people who experience homosexual attraction per se, or do we mean other people who affirm a certain sinful way of acting upon that attraction?

C. S. Lewis said somewhere that once men forget a word, they soon forget the thing as well. The gay lobby has already erased from our language - and from our thinking - the colossal distinction between "gay people" (those who experience homosexual feelings) and "gay lifestyle" (the lifestyle of acting upon that feeling sinfully, as opposed to many other possible ways to act upon it, some indeed being holy). This is just the strategy that the Coca-Cola Company has suceeded at in some places. In the south, all kinds of soda are simply called coke. If you want a Pepsi, you need to order a "Pepsi coke" - or so I've heard.

When Christians speak of hetrosexual people, we don't consider them as forced to get married. We remember (or we're supposed to remember, if we listen to St. Paul) that Celibacy is supposed to be a good option for anyone, so long as they choose it for Godly reasons. The greater point here is that no one is determined to particular behaviors/lifetyles by their sexual feelings. Thus ot is unfair to connect gay identity with the obligation to live the gay lifestyle, just as it is unfair to connect heterosexual identy with the obligation to get married. That's just what the gay lobby wishes us to forget. If you're gay, they say, then you are obligated to "come out" and et cetera. Nobody, Christians and/or gays, should be fooled by that trick.

By the way, I though you used to get shot for fraternizing with the enemy...Stuart?

[Clifford Simon]

James beat me to the reply, and I also agree with his pointing out that we're not at fault for not knowing gay people personally, and that it is wrong to assume that against us. Indeed, the thing is quite a bit more nuanced than the picture Jason gives us.

[Ron]

Speaking as a homosexual, it seems to me that the activists are taking all the fun out of being homosexual. My partner avoided military service in Vietnam by simply "checking the box." If the activists had had their way back then, he could have been drafted and killed. Furthermore, I don't know where the media finds all these blissful couples that have been together since Gettysburg, because in my experience (and I am 46), most gay relationships don't last, and if they do last, they pretty quickly cease to be monogamous, so that what you end up with are best friends who share expenses. And if the relationship goes up in flames, you pack up and move on. Now, thanks to the benevolent activists, you have to go through the prolonged bitterness of a divorce. Now, remind me again? The activists are supposed to "like" homosexuals, but they want us to get shot and to play alimony. Forgive me if I am a little confused.

[Bill R]

"Forgive me if I am a little confused."

Thanks for the refreshing honesty, Ron.

[Patrick]

Warning: Rabbit trail ahead! Clifford, if one wants a cola down here in the south, one orders a "coke." Period. If they only have Pepsi, they'll usually ask you, "Is Pepsi OK?" The correct answer is, of course, "I'll have tea, thanks." Back on topic, I agree with Jason that we lost the "Sanctity of Marriage" battle when divorce became normal, fashionable even.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>he correct answer is, of course, "I'll have tea, thanks."<<<

By which, you mean ICED tea (to get hot tea, specify HOT tea), sickly sweet, lemon optional.

[G:]

>>>If they only have Pepsi, they'll usually ask you, "Is Pepsi OK?" The correct answer is, of course, "I'll have tea, thanks."<<<

But you must specify unsweet if that is what you want. Otherwise, they'll serve you sweet tea by default. I have been to one rib house in Memphis, the Rendezvous, which refuses to serve unsweet tea. The waiters act offended if you ask. (I did this once for some guests from China, who did not like sweet tea. They ended up drinking water instead.)

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Unsweet iced tea is an abomination. I think it's one of those things forbidden in Leviticus. (And, if not, it should be.)

[David Gray]

>Unsweet iced tea is an abomination.

Iced tea is an abomination...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Iced tea is an abomination...<<<

No, iced tea is redundant--and the one thing that makes life in the South possible.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Pre-electrification, I suppose you mean. I still think they should have electrified all regions *except* the District of Columbia. Now that they've got AC, people hang around there way too much. Maybe malaria should be reintroduced as well.

[Joe Long]

"Sweet tea" is redundant; tea is properly a supersaturated sugar solution, afterward chilled, and it should come in pitchers to be consumed at a langourous pace from shortly after breakfast, throughout a long afternoon. The English custom of hot tea, while charming, is unsuited to the South because tea is not an "interruption", but culinary background music which accompanies and enables productive activity. (Also, in accordance with the national anthem, it probably "makes you fat, or a little fatter", but I blame the occasional accompanying pork barbeque or fried chicken personally.)

[Joe Long]

Sweet tea is also one of the only things G.K. Chesterton was ever wrong about...though, of course, very cleverly wrong.

The Song of Right and Wrong

Feast on wine or fast on water
And your honour shall stand sure,
God Almighty's son and daughter
He the valiant, she the pure;
If an angel out of heaven
Brings you other things to drink,
Thank him for his kind attentions,
Go and pour them down the sink.

Tea is like the East he grows in,
A great yellow Mandarin
With urbanity of manner
And unconsciousness of sin;
All the women, like a harem,
At his pig-tail troop along;
And, like all the East he grows in,
He is Poison when he's strong.

Tea, although an Oriental,
Is a gentleman at least;
Cocoa is a cad and coward,
Cocoa is a vulgar beast,
Cocoa is a dull, disloyal,
Lying, crawling cad and clown,
And may very well be grateful
To the fool that takes him down.

As for all the windy waters,
They were rained like tempests down
When good drink had been dishonoured
By the tipplers of the town;
When red wine had brought red ruin
And the death-dance of our times,
Heaven sent us Soda Water
As a torment for our crimes.

- G.K. Chesterton

[Jason Gilbert]

James,

I was not being preemptive. The worrying language I responded to--agendas,' 'payback,' 'attacks,' 'totalitarianism'--were lifted directly from the previous comments to this post. I stated that this language is dehumanizing and it doesn't (yet) reflect what is really going on.

I'll give you that Iraq analogy is faulty. My intent was simply to provide another illustration about how engaging people can be an antidote to problems that arise when engaging groups. It was not my own point. I have never been to war and don't know the first thing about it. It was (I recall) the author's point and it makes sense.

By making a blanket suggestion to all MC readers that "you" "get to know someone gay" I was clearly being presumptuous and over generalizing. Please forgive me. Had I given myself more time to frame my comments, I would have presented my thoughts better.

You open by clarifying your charitable position towards gay people. Then you list your experience knowing may gay people. I simply want to suggest that it is possible that, if you had not personally known so many gay people, you might be less inclined to be so charitable. Now, that could be dead wrong. We learn should learn charity and be charitable towards all. But I simply state that it does help to be charitable towards a group when you know people in that group personally.

I did not say or imply that MC readers "define a person by sexual behavior." I said that if one posed the argument that being friends with some who is gay means mingling with immorality, then that argument defines gay people by their sexual behavior, which is "the same err that the other side makes." Your illustration about gratuitous references to sexuality is what I had in mind when I referred to the err of the other side. However, no one has made the immorality argument so it is moot (I think I was responding to my grandmother's voice in may head).

I will own to being condescending and ask again for forgiveness from everyone. I know that there are activists who desire to eradicate anything opposed to their self-identification. But the Volokh article, as well as my own recent experience, leads me to hope that there is a substantial alternative to that impulse. I should have kept my argument at that. But there was this other thought rattling in my head about engaging people as well as the groups, the issues, the "activists," etc. It is not a leftist attack on conservatives. It is about personal relationships keeping us human.

[Jason Gilbert]

and all the iced tea I've ever had tasted like putting my tongue on a pile of wet fallen leaves in late autumn.

blech

[Joe Long]

"...and all the iced tea I've ever had tasted like putting my tongue on a pile of wet fallen leaves in late autumn."

Well, technically, tea IS wet leaves, so I guess I can't gainsay that. However - in what geographical region did you imbibe this substance - and, vitally, was it the supersaturated "sweet tea" solution? Because, if you personally got to know sweet tea, you might not judge it - might first tolerate, then eventually celebrate it...

"...it does help to be charitable towards a group when you know people in that group personally." Well, sometimes. Other times, the less you know, the easier the whole endeavor. The old proverb doesn't go "familiarity breeds charity", for some reason.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

That's the reason that "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

[Bill R]

"Because, if you personally got to know sweet tea, you might not judge it - might first tolerate, then eventually celebrate it..."

Joe, this reminds me of Pope's famous lines:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

That was my experience of sweet tea a few years back when I drove my daughter through the South. For better or worse, I too now love sweet tea!

[Jason Gilbert]

Well, I hail from Kansas, which is no tea mecca. I grew up with sun tea--my dad, despite occasional pro forma disclaimers, drinks it obsessively and incessantly. So that would be about 20 years experience with tea. I have other family members that drink it as well and I have been in other groups that drink it. I had the supersaturated "sweet tea" solution in Tennessee. I have a sweet tooth but sugar-coated wet leaves aren't my style.

So spare me your condescending snobbery and lectures about what tea we must get to know, and how sweet. I hold my position precisely because I am all too well acquainted with what Southern Tea activists are and desire, not only in terms of self-identification and self-gratification, but also in their desire to eradicate anything opposed to those. My battle may be for Venezuelan beans rather than Asian leaves, but that does not make it any less refreshing.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Okay, I'll vote to give Jason a pass on the tea thing. Even my hyper-southern wife has no taste for watermelon (and she accomodates my dislike of charcoal-grilled food).

[Joe Long]

"...their desire to eradicate anything opposed to those."

You wrong me, sir. When I am elected benevolent dictator by near-universal acclaim, I shall not suppress any beverages at all - nay, not even the name-brand diet sodas, nor the flavored waters supposedly fortified with "electroginseng" or "liquid phlogiston"; let the people keep their superstitions. They harm no one else with their quaint beverages, and in fact give the rest of us useful hints about them by toting such things around. Benign and tolerant, that's me.

Besides, my secret police will be far too busy stamping out the cell phone menace and rap "music".

[Rob G]

For a great literary good time, read Mark Helprin's novel "Memoir From Ant-Proof Case," which is narrated by an adventurer (who may or may not be totally insane, an inveterate liar, or both) who believes that coffee is the cause of most of the world's ills, and that there is a giant worldwide conspiracy to keep everyone drinking it, so as to keep them under control of the shadowy cabal that controls it all.

Like Dickens, Helprin can be hilarious in one chapter, very moving in the next, and he writes like an angel.

[James A. Altena]

Jason,

Thank you for a very gracious reply, which does you much credit. However, I wish to emphasize two previously made points.

First, all of us here (I’m sure) personally know gays and lesbians. None of us has to go through any ”get to know them personally” process, so that point is moot.

Second, charity does not require us to live in a land of wishful thinking about the intentions of others. Many gay activists do have agendas of revenge, paybacks, attacks, etc., toward orthodox Christians, and make little or no secret of it. Seeing themselves as victims of unjust persecution, they fully intend to inflict that back with interest on those they regard as their persecutors. And unlike Christians, they have no higher and binding mandate for forgiveness.

Such activists are already seeking forcibly to silence and punish any free speech and action opposed to their own views. E.g. pro-abortionists have actively sought to require all medical school students to be trained in abortion procedures, and to deny licenses to practice medicine to any obstetricians and gynecologists who will not perform abortions. They are similarly seeking to require all pharmacists to dispense abortifacients and birth control. The supposed individual “woman’s right to choose” has morphed into a universal compulsion that everyone else must aid, abet, and actively participate in her choice, regardless of their own convictions.

The gay activists are already pursuing a similar course, with e.g. the suggestion already made in California that all justices of the peace be required to perform “gay marriages.” It is easy to foresee the day soon when all government employees in e.g. the IRS, SSA, HSS, etc., will as a condition of employment be required to refer to the unions of gay couples as “marriages.” (I am *not* speaking of treating gay couples the same or differently than heterosexual couples in terms of legally mandated benefits, which is a separate issue. I am speaking of being required to use the term “marriage” itself, and being forced on pain of dismissal to regard such unions as marriages.) The supposed “right” for gays to marry will soon become a thought control mandate for everyone to believe that such unions are marriages.

If you believe it will stop at, or short of, that threshold, you are being extremely naïve. There have already been a number of news stories from the UK, Canada, and Denmark of prosecutable warrants for “hate speech” being sworn out (sometimes at the initiative of government authorities) against clergy who have dared to continue to say nothing more than that they hold sodomitical conduct to be immoral, or to refuse to hire openly gay applicants for church positions. Clergy are also being threatened not only with dismissal from their cures, but also with revocation of medical benefits and pensions. In Canada, there have even been attempts by social workers to take children away from parents who are Roman Catholics and Seventh Day Adventists, on the grounds that such religious beliefs are “cults” into which the children are being forcibly “indoctrinated” by their parents.

And, of course, there is the whole new school of liberal legal thought which argues that the First Amendment must be curtailed or even removed from the Constitution because the social need to protect and support “diversity” and “tolerance” must trump the personal freedoms of speech, press, and assembly that permit “hate speech.” Orwell’s “1984” is a possibility far closer to reality than many care to contemplate.

My first and second points coalesce in what I term the modern Liberal "personal experience theory of truth," which needs a bit of unpacking.

Person X can believe that Person Y is wrong about Issue Z on the following grounds:

a) Ignorance -- Y is un- or mis-informed in terms of basic data.
b) Stupidity -- Y is either too mentally limited to understand Z, or else is grossly deficient in analytical capacity and judgment.
c) Irrationality -- Y is insane, mentally or emotionally ill, etc.
d) Dishonesty -- Y knows that X's position on Z is correct, but refuses to concede it for some immoral reason (greed, ambition, malice, pride, etc.)
e) Reasonable Difference -- Although convinced that he is right, X nonetheless believes that a knowledgeable, intelligent, reasonable, honest person could nonetheless arrive at a wrong conclusion by e.g. giving relatively different weight to various factors involved. In short, X exercises both charity and humility. (Cf. Chesterton's observation that a bigot is not a man who believes himself to be right -- since every man believes that -- but one who can't see how another man got to be wrong.)

Conservatives and modern Liberals differ in respectively de-emphasizing or emphasizing knowledge and understanding of truth through contextualization. Conservatives believe that the universal, permanent, and invariant nature of truth means that knowledge of it is acquired primarily by reason, and that truth and reason should (and do) form our subjective perceptions and personal experiences. Experience may refine our understanding and practical application of truth by confirming or countervailing related data, but it does not acquire, determine or evaluate truth per se.

Modern Liberals by contrast believe in a paradox. On the one hand, the limited and subjective nature of perception means that knowledge (or even existence) of truth is limited and provisional. On the other hand, modern Liberals also hold that "esse est percepi" and so personal experience is both the means for acquiring truth, and the norm for determining and evaluating it. Personal experience is for modern Liberals what right reason is for conservatives. (The strong American cultural preferences for philosophical pragmatism and utilitarianism, individual experience, and novelty, and corresponding disdain of philosophical idealism, abstract principle, and history, gives modern liberalism a strong initial competitive edge in our society.)

Now, if personal experience is the means for acquiring, determining, and evaluating truth, as modern Liberals believe, then two conclusions follows:

a) The more personal experience one has (both quantitatively and qualitatively), the better and more profound grasp of truth one will have.
b) The propagation of truth depends on the propagation of shared personal experiences.

Consequently, (and this finally is the direct tie-in to your posts, Jason), the modern Liberal believes that the way to overcome social conflict and arrive at a consensus of truth is for everyone to have not only more and more varied personal experience, but to be introduced to shared experiences by others. Thus, the conservative will cease to oppose homosexuality, or abortion, or women priests, etc. if he simply becomes personally acquainted with homosexuals, women who have had abortion, and priestesses. He believes that the conservative's negative notions of all these are due to ignorance of real people and faulty reliance upon abstract models and principles.

The fat hits the fire, however, when the conservative either refuses (out of principle) to partake of the modern Liberal's proffered experience, or else does not change his views as a result of having such experience. Refer here back to points a)-e) above.

The modern Liberal cannot hold out e) [reasonable difference] as a possible explanation for the conservative's (putative) obstinacy, because for the former "reasonable" is defined in terms of common conclusions from shared experience, rather than consistent adherence to formal principles. The conservative must therefore be dishonest, irrational, stupid, or ignorant. If he is dishonest, he must be punished; if irrational, quarantined; if stupid or ignorant, educated. The latter two assumptions are of course preferable to the former two, as holding out a much greater prospect for rectification.

And how is the recalcitrant conservative to be educated? With even more experience, as the source of knowledge and judgment. And this leads to the dynamic of the praxis of modern Liberal totalitarianism. The obdurate conservative must be forced (for his own good, of course) to undergo and share all such "experiences" that the modern Liberal selects for and imposes upon his to "educate" him him, as most likely to change his mind and enlighten him to the truths of modern Liberalism. Thus medical schools move from allowing to mandating that medical students must perform abortions; the government from allowing gay marriage to mandating that everyone must recognize gay couples as married; the church from ordaining women to requiring all clergy to receive communion from women clergy; etc., etc.

Ultimately, the modern Liberal faces an irreconcilable contradiction. On the one hand, he implicitly holds that everyone is fundamentally like everyone else (egalitarianism), and therefore if everyone shares experience Q then they should all arrive at the same truth. On the other hand, he also wishes to maintain the absolute individuality and uniqueness of personal experience (hence "my truth" vs. "your truth"). However, as is becoming increasingly clear, when the two collide, the modern Liberal will usually decide (quite illiberally) that individuality must be sacrificed (on putatively utilitarian grounds) to communal uniformity, and hence the push for e.g. the gutting of the 1st Amendment.

Fr. Neuhaus has observed regarding modern theological Liberals that "Where orthodoxy is optional, it will soon be proscribed." One might similarly observe here regarding modern Liberals in general that "Where experience is voluntary, it will soon be compulsory." It is the iron logic of Marxist "re-education" camps progressively writ into every facet of life, no matter how small.

So, Jason, if you wonder why your appeal to acquire greater "personal knowledge" of gays and lesbians raises a red flag here, it is because some of us know where that pathway leads. Applied more generally, the ancient Christian principle of "custody of the eyes" means that there are some "experiences" to which a Christian should not knowingly or wittingly expose himself.

[Jason]

Thank you for your graciousness as well, James. And thank you for taking the time to so carefully elucidate your understanding of this issue.

I have been mulling this over today, trying to figure out where I went so wrong in when I initially posted. I am usually given high marks for my ability to communicate myself in writing but something went terribly awry this time. I would still like to try to explain my original intent. I think the way to do that is to simply narrate what I was intending at the time.

This post began with with a reference the NPR story on the "Coming Storm and the in the initial comments was a lot of discussion of the inevitability of persecution of the churches, discussion of thought police, payback, totalitarianism, and much discussion of what homosexuals do and don't want. I offered up the Volokh article because I thought it did a good job of presenting the issue in the NPR story in a more nuanced manner--a manner that gave me hope that, although Christian morality is going to lose the ssm battle, religious liberty is not necessarily doomed. My argument did not intend to address the larger, more important issues of why Christian anthropology considers this idea preposterous and soul-killing.

But then I got to thinking about my friend with whom I just had a protracted debate on this issue--as well as other friends I have had over the years who have same-sex attraction. Most of these have been very charitable people who, although they would disagree with my current position, understand the concept of reasonable differences and, like the author of the Volokh article, are willing to give wide berth to religious objection. Not all of them are so open to the idea of course, including one gay man whom I presume is an Episcopal priest now in spite of his disdain for nearly every line of the Creed. He saw the priesthood as primarily a leadership position from which to effect social change in this area.

I can see and hear the reactions of my friends as I participate in any discussion of this issue. My friends would also take issue with me assuming that all--or most--or even a significant and influential group would push for any strenuous restriction on religious freedom. I don't see things as optimistically as they do--I agree that there will be problems. But there are many many people with same-sex attraction with a wide variety of goals ranging from merely wanting not be treated rudely to wanting to burn all religious institutions to the ground. I hope the reasonableness of the former will overcome the rashness of the latter.

And that is as far as I ever intended my comments to go--I think most of these legal cases are a lot more nuanced than the NPR story suggests and I want to stay away from language that implies a faceless conspiracy destroying our religious liberty.

And you are welcome to disagree with me. I might be naive--I certainly am not as well versed in the issues around religion and politics as James is. I'm learning. But just when I think I have seized on a fact--ah ha! here is a clear-cut case of ssm destroying a religious institution--I dig further in, learn more facts and see that is not so clear cut. And many of those facts give me hope that there will be room to avoid a really bloody war over this issue. But if war comes, I will take up my weapon.

But then I committed a cardinal sin even in my own book--I made the assumption that my experience was unique and fresh and that everyone needs to have it and I started preaching. It was dead wrong of me. It was also honestly unusual for me. I don't think I generally preach in these types of forums--my comments are typically shorter and on-topic. I don't think I have ever commented in MC though I read it daily.

But I want to assure that I never intended to say "you would change your mind on this issue if you just got to know some gay people better." I only intended, "hey, I have known a lot of gay people who just don't advocate wholesale religious persecution and it gives me hope that we'll be able to avoid such a thing. Perhaps there are some gay people in your life who feel the same way."

And I suspect there is one more thing that led to this--pride. I really pride myself on my ability to communicate in writing. This weekend, I am being tonsured a Sub-deacon, which is a great honor--a public honor with lots of people telling me "great job" and singing "Many Years." In preparation I have redoubled my prayers for humility. All MC readers probably know what happens when you pray for humility. Well, your prayers can be answered in the form a dressing-down on the internet for presumptuous logorrhea by a group of people whose faith, intelligence, and charity you greatly respect. I know it is a very small lesson in the Big Picture (Mr. Koehl), but I must be just small enough a Christian that the impact has been significant.

Thanks for listening. Thanks also for talking.

[James A. Altena]

Blessings on your tonsuring, Jason. Multos annos!

Your latest (and again gracious post) is much more clear regarding your intentions. I do think that most of us here are far more pessimistic than you are regarding the opposite sides of the "culture wars" -- and (with no apologies to friend Ethan Cordray, who contests the title ) am the reigning king pessimist on MC. Thus we differ here.

[Michael]

>>and (with no apologies to friend Ethan Cordray, who contests the title ) am the reigning king pessimist on MC.<<

Lies and calumny. You can sit at my right hand, though.

[Michael]

>>and (with no apologies to friend Ethan Cordray, who contests the title ) am the reigning king pessimist on MC.<<

Lies and calumny. You can sit at my right hand, though.

[Ethan C.]

King Pessimist? Bah, in the leveling course of modernity there will soon be no place for even such a minor king. :)

But an honest question: is it more, or less pessimistic to think that the near-term destruction of our economic and political order will preclude the cultural destruction that this conversation anticipates?

[James A. Altena]

Ethan,

The answer to your impertinent claims and inquiries will arrive with the thermonuclear warheads I have just launched against your residence (plus the remainder of the universe and a few other places as well).

[Bill R]

"But an honest question: is it more, or less pessimistic to think that the near-term destruction of our economic and political order will preclude the cultural destruction that this conversation anticipates?"

Yes. ;-)

[Bobby Neal Winters]

>>Iced tea is an abomination...<<

Heretic! Burn! Burn!

[labrialumn]

The new Caesar is much more powerful and intrusive than Stalin could have drempt of. There will be no secretly holding worship services in the woods, or secret seminaries. Pastors will be put in prisons. Zoning regulations will become universal (they already exist) specifying the maximum number of vehicles, or guests, in a home, and forbidding religious services and Bible studies. There will be no educated clergy. All of your contacts will be known by the government. Your beliefs will be picked out by sophisticated profiling. There will be no place to hide. Universal, coercive education will win over your children (which is why Hitler instituted the anti-homeschooling law now being enforced in Germany). The USAPATRIOT Act makes it 'legal' for the President to simply declare you an enemy combatant and you can be 'disappeared' denied all of your civil rights, and endure water torture. That President Bush has been friendly and relatively restrained does not mean that future executives will be.

Russia only endured 70 years of communism. But the Church used to exist all along the Silk Road and surrounding lands, and was wiped out by the Buddhists, Confucians and Muslims. The Church -can- be destroyed from a country even without the panoptican available to Caesar today.

Jason, the things which you are rejecting as reactionary are already a reality in much of Europe, in Canada and in certain American States. "You aren't nearly afraid enough."

The battle for marriage can still be won, we have suffered major defeats, but not total defeat, and the word is "Aslan is on the move" Despair is a sin (though it can be very persuasive in this age).

Stuart, that must be why life in the south is impossible (though sweettea (one word) is tasty stuff(!))

Chesterton obviously did not live on the northern prairie where hot chocolate and coffee take the place that sweetea has in the South (though in the, um, 'polar' opposite season)

Chesterton also taught us (or reminded us) that it is the loss of revulsion at abomination which is the unhealthy thing, not the acceptance and 'toleration' of abomination.

Rob, I agree with you on Helprin. Winter Tale is amazing.

Dr. Altena, I would add to your excellent post on modern liberal epistemology, the following observations:
Modern liberalism is postmodern, a.k.a. fascist in its epistemology. It isn't just the male/female divide over whether reason or feelings should rule decisions and perception of truth, it is now that there is no truth, that the sumum bonum is the group will to power. This includes their belief that words are just masks for power, and since the greatest good is the group will to power, then using words to deceive those who believe in objective truth, is just fine and dandy.

[Stuart Koehl]

Labrialumn has been smoking the good stuff again.

[Jdog]

James,

Please - comments like these...

"We hold our positions precisely because we are all too well acquainted with what homosexual activists are and desire, not only in terms of self-identification and self-gratification, but also in their desire to eradicate anything opposed to those."

show that not only do you not understand gay people, but you are seem all-too-ready to cling to stereotypes and perhaps inherent prejudices.

Its not surprising to me that SOME Christians are reacting to the idea that the society they live in, and its respective laws, is going to have to accommodate others besides themselves, others who believe differently or have different ideas, but what I find astonishing is how ready they are to use FEAR to further their own particular agenda.

There doesn't seem to be any compassion, any understanding, in readiness to accept real equality - simply reactionary and inflammatory statements. Is that REALLY how a Christian is supposed to behave?

[Jdog]

There also seems to be a readiness NOT to understand the very real complexities of the cases that exist in this country and others. As the Volokh article suggests, as much as some Christians try to paint themselves as the victims of some terribly selfish gay conspiracy, the TRUTH is much more complex than that - and anyone truly interested in Truth, will delve further into the cases - read the Volokh article - understand that things aren't as simply as others might have them believe.

As Jason said above, there are many, many gay people, such as myself (a gay, celibate Christian), who absolutely want to make room for those Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin, but also want the rights and privileges of some tax-paying and law-abiding citizens to be open to all.

Christians who try to paint their enemies out to be single-minded opportunistic monsters, are no better than those who call them and their motives homophobic while attempting to do the same. My understanding has been that Christians are supposed to stand apart from this world, but the more I read, the more I see self-proclaimed Christians acting just like everyone else.

[Clifford Simon]

Jdog,

As it says in the words you quoted, we hold our position because of the homosexual activists, not the homosexual people in general. Since you yourself credit the existance of "those who call [Christians] and their motives homophobic while attempting to [paint their enemies out to be single-minded opportunistic monsters]," I don't see how you can get on James's case for merely pointing out the same.

Moreover, to be gay and celibate is not a sin, and no Christian should think that it is. The homosexual abomination is a sin of acting imporperly. (Or, regarded as a sin of the heart, it is the sin of nursing the desire to so act.) To make a parallel, Freud's theory tells us there is such thing as the Oedepal Complex - the desire of a boy to kill his father and marry his mother. Assume for the moment that Freud's theory is correct. It would not be a sin for a boy to have that desire within his natural make-up. But, it would be an abomination for him to act upon it. Likewise, it is no sin to be gay and celibate; but it is an abomination to commit, nurse the desire for, or approve of homosexual sex acts.

[Jdog]

Clifford,

I'm not here to discuss sin - I'm already very familiar with the Christian viewpoint. I'm here to talk about civil rights for gay people.

It is not simply the visible "activists", whatever that word means, I'm sure we would all have a different definition, that want equal rights, it is the every day, working, tax-paying, law-abiding gay person that wishes to marry, have a family - who fights against second-class status.

[Jdog]

Clifford,

Let's try to distinguish between APPROVING of homosexuals and attempting to force our religious beliefs, through legislation, on those who differ from us. I'm sure you don't necessarily "approve" of Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, Wiccans, etc, yet you don't see people working to prevent them from have the same rights as everyone else, from being able to marry or practice their faith - why then do this with gay people?

[Bill R]

"...it is the every day, working, tax-paying, law-abiding gay person that wishes to marry, have a family - who fights against second-class status."

Actually everyone, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has always been able to marry and have a family. But everyone, whether heterosexual or homosexual, must always marry someone of the opposite sex. As it's been for all people since the beginning of recorded history. What has suddenly changed in this generation to render the judgment of all mankind for all of history incorrect? Or are the incestuously or polyamorously inclined also to be considered "second class citizens"?

[Jdog]

Please Bill - that is an old and dead argument and has absolutely NOTHING to do with equality. And for once, can we stick to the topic of homosexuality or must we always digress into other areas - the last time I check incest was illegal, homosexuality is not. As for the "polyamorous", I know of two, straight married couples who have children who both have open marriages. You want to talk about Swingers, or straight open marriages? We sure can.

[Jdog]

Bill,

While we're on the topic, I also know of two gay men who married lesbians simply for the tax benefits. They both lead separate romantic lives - is this what you want more of?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It is not simply the visible "activists", whatever that word means, I'm sure we would all have a different definition, that want equal rights, it is the every day, working, tax-paying, law-abiding gay person that wishes to marry, have a family - who fights against second-class status.<<<

Every gay person has it within his power to marry and raise a family. Unfortunately, most of them do not want to live with a member of the opposite sex. As I have noted many times, nowhere in human history, in any culture or civilization, can you find marriage defined as a union between two people of the same sex. Even in cultures where homosexuality was tolerated, marriage was defined as a formal, legally binding relationship between a man and a woman (in some cultures, between a man and several women, but the fact is, marriage requires at a minimum one man and one woman). Whatever it is that gay people want, it cannot under any circumstances be defined as marriage, because marriage has a definition that goes back many millennia. I fail to see why we should have to redefine a word and an organic social institution simply to placate the noisy protestations of 2% of the population.

[Jdog]

Stuart,

Call it something else if you must, but allow the secular state to bestow the same benefits on gay couples as it does on straight couples. We are the ones who give meaning and substance to the word, we can also change that. I WILL tell you, that of the couples I currently know, especially the ones who have children, they are as much MARRIED as any of the straight couples I know - whether you care to give them that title or not.

[jayhuck]

Stuart,

"Every gay person has it within his power to marry and raise a family."

That is patently false and a nice way of convincing yourself and others that gay people don't in fact deserve equality. We can get into a long and protracted discussion on the Ex-Gay movement if you want, but I've talked to too many Ex-Ex Gays to accept that what you propose is in fact true - In reality, all major professional organizations would disagree with you. Not that, I'm sure, this will dissuade you or change your mind on the matter.

[jayhuck]

Stuart,

"Every gay person has it within his power to marry and raise a family."

That is patently false and a nice way of convincing yourself and others that gay people don't in fact deserve equality. We can get into a long and protracted discussion on the Ex-Gay movement if you want, but I've talked to too many Ex-Ex Gays to accept that what you propose is in fact true - In reality, all major professional organizations would disagree with you. Not that, I'm sure, this will dissuade you or change your mind on the matter.

[Bill R]

Well, Jayhuck or Jdog, since you claim to be a Christian, do you believe there is a Christian understanding of marriage? If so, what is it? Does it differ from a secular or non-Christian definition of marriage? If so, how? Unless we begin with a common understanding of what marriage is, we'll simply waste our time and energy arguing to cross-purposes.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That is patently false and a nice way of convincing yourself and others that gay people don't in fact deserve equality. <<<

Cry me a river. Marriage is not merely a contractual relationship between two individuals; it is a societal institution, organically developed over the entire course of human history to propagate the human species. History shows that marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman is the most stable and successful arrangement for raising children. it is in the interests of society to support and regulate such relationships for the benefit of society as a whole, and not merely one small segment of it. As I said, there has never been, in all of human history, a society in which marriage was defined in such as way as to cover relationships of two people of the same sex. Sorry, but there it is.

In addition, traditional, monogamous marriage between man and a woman is the essential nuclear institution of society, the only one capable of resisting the overwhelming power of the state. it is not by accident that totalitarians of all stripes have as one of their primary objectives the dissolution of the traditional family, for (as Mussolini put it), "Everyone for the state, no one against the state, nothing outside of the state". Like it or not, expanding the definition of marriage to include people of the same sex seriously erodes the uniqueness of marriage and weakens a free society. And that is not something I am willing to do for the benefit of a small minority of a very small minority who express the desire to marry.

Finally, we have to take into consideration that when gays who want to marry speak of marriage, they generally have something in mind a little different from the monogamous ideal that heterosexual marriage entails. In fact, until quite recently, most gay activists and queer theorists opposed the very notion of gay marriage because marriage per se was antithetical to the gay lifestyle. I suppose a couple of things happened in the interim: first, AIDS, which made a good health care policy an essential accessory of gay life; second, the desire to partake of a range of other benefits commonly extended to married couples; and third, the realization that the quickest way to undermine traditional marriage AND validate the legitimacy of the gay lifestyle would be to legitimize gay marriage. At one stroke, this would make marriage a much less attractive institution for heterosexuals, just one choice among many; in addition, it would also allow gays to say (quite falsely), "Look, we're just like you", and gain access to a whole range of financial and legal benefits.

One reason we have those benefits and tend to limit them to legitimately married people is the basic economic rule--you get more of that which you subsidize. We subsidize traditional marriage because we know that traditional marriage is good for society. As soon as we begin subsidizing "alternative" family arrangements, we get less marriage and more "alternatives". And all of those alternatives, including gay marriage, carry with them severe social costs which, frankly, I don't want to pay, nor want my children to pay, so that some people can engage in dysfunctional behaviors and not suffer the consequences of doing so.

And yes, it's mean, nasty and judgmental as all hell. But then, the world is very judgmental, and like it or not, each of us makes his own hell. You'll have to offer a good defense before the awful judgment throne of Christ, as will I. That is why, every time I go to liturgy, that is one of the central petitions of our litanies. I commend you try it.

But please note, the argument I have made against gay marriage is not rooted in Judeo-Christian theology at all, but rather in a purely secular context. I'll save the sacramental argument against gay marriage for a later day.

Meanwhile, feel free to go off and marry, and have children. Just do it the old fashioned way, please. Lots of people did--even Oscar Wilde. And remember, you have the right to pursue happiness--but nobody, not even God, can guarantee that you will find it.

[James A. Altena]

I suggest that Jdog and Jayhuck simply be ignored as the equivalent of trolls. (Jdog is clearly a fraud. No genuinely "gay, celibate Christian" would be supporting the things he supports -- and his statements how he clearly hasn't a clue about Christianity.) The only point I would make briefly is that marriage has nothing to do with "equality," so their arguments centered round that point are bootless. And, quite predictably, they readily they themselves resort to stereotypes in order to accuse others of so doing.

Labrialumn,

I appreciate your goodness in giving me a compliment (considering our many past and sharp disagreements), so I hope you won't mind my expressing a point of disagreement. Leaving aside Bush, the Patriot Act, etc., as topics for other threads, I would simply point out that (contrary to Jonah Goldberg's recent awful book) modern liberalism and postmodernism are not fascist, in terminology or otherwise. All totalitarian philosophies will share certain things in common and converge on certain points (Such as using words as masks for covert seizure of power), but that does not mean that they are all the same (left and right totalitarian philosophies have fundamentally different presuppositions.). It will not help us creditably fight against all such evils if we fail to distinguish properly between them.

[Clifford Simon]

Jdog,

Hindus in the past practiced wife-burning. William Carey, a British Christian missionary, campaigned to wipe out the practice. It was wiped out.

Pagans sacrificed children to idols (read the Old Testament). This too was made illegal and wiped out.

Legalizing gay marriage can be expected to have several society-destroying effects. Some of these effects were enumerated here recently, in the comments to the post titled "Church/State Bay Partnership" (search for this in the Google box on the left side-bar of the Mere Comments page). Or you can see similar things in the "Ten Arguments for Sanity" (link on the right side-bar). To summerize for you briefly, the one-man/one-woman monagamous marriage is the foundational unit of civilized society: if society is to survive, it cannot be tampered with. Read what I've suggested to get the nuances here.

To claim that our disapproval of gay behavoir is anyhow different than our disapproval of old Hindu behavior, or Pagan behavior, et cetera, just betrays ignorance of the things you speak of. In all these cases we simply oppose that which is untenably evil.

Finally if you're not here to discuss sin, then Mere Comments, which is a forum of Mere Christianity, is probably the wrong forum for you. Christianty is about sin and redemption. It's nothing personal, but just to keep the discussion germaine, I have to insist that this is a conversation we can only continue in public if you would change your mind and be willing to discuss sin. Otherwise, there will be no point in engaging this discussion in public any further.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Hindus in the past practiced wife-burning. William Carey, a British Christian missionary, campaigned to wipe out the practice. It was wiped out.<<<

Charlie Napier's approach worked really well, too.

[Jdog]

Cry me a river? A troll? A chorus of voices and not one that sounds even a bit like a Christian.

A troll? Because I'm a Christian who believes differently than you? Is this how we play this game? Seriously?

I believe there is a religious understanding of marriage and a secular one - these two things are most definitely seen as different in the eyes of the law, and this is what I'm talking about

"History shows that marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman is the most stable and successful arrangement for raising children."

History shows no such thing - rather, all history shows us is that the majority of families were made up of female and male parents - either one of each or many. Marriage has most definitely changed throughout history.

The issue I'm having is that when the religious argument against gay marriage fails, people jump in trying to claim some sort of secular, historical precedent - yet after they establish this, they rush back in using religious terms such as sin, etc.

I would be happy to discuss sin, but this thread shows that we've gone WAY PAST discussing sin and started determining that the law should reflect Christian ideals and not those who disagree.

The fact of the matter is that Gay marriage is, for all intents in purposes a done deal. You may go on discussing this issue as if it is still a hypothetical situation, but the rest of the world will move along without you.

For those who decide to label me a troll because I disagree with you: I am a gay man, one who prayed and tried for many years to be otherwise. I came to peace - for the most part - with the realization that I will have to live my life as a celibate man. I also, however, came to the realization that I can hold my beliefs, that homosexuality is a sin, and yet not trample on the rights of my gay neighbors who believe otherwise - many of whom also call themselves Christian,

I want to tell this short story: I was listening to my bishop give a sermon this Sunday - he went on a diatribe about gay people, gave an example of a small very activist group that broke into a Church and desecrated it. He then launched into talking about gay marriage and how it was an abomination. I had to get up and go downstairs. I wasn't sure whether to cry or hit something. I couldn't believe that this many - who really is a good man - whom I've admired and respected for years, would stoop to bearing false witness against his neighbor. What I came to realize is that in his mind, when he thought about gay people, gay couples or gay families, the image he must have in his mind is that of this small group of gay people dressed in Halloween costumes who broke into a church. - When *I* think about gay people I think of my good and long-time friend Allison and her partner of over 10 years and their two daughters.

What sorts of images do you guys have in your minds when you think of gay people? Are you bearing false witness? Does the state have a vested interest in encouraging monogamy among gay individuals and families or not - what are the prices we pay for NOT doing this?

If you don't think there are many, many gay couples who want a solid, monogamous marriage, then you are mistaken. If you don't think there are thousands if not millions of STRAIGHT married couples who want anything BUT a monogamous marriage, you are also mistaken.

I'm really trying to appeal to your sense of fairness and goodness. There isn't any reason why gay couples/families, who want it shouldn't be afforded these protections. Do not co-opt the writings of a few gay activist/authors who do not speak for the entire gay community - do not lump ALL GAY PEOPLE under some stereotypical umbrella.

The ONE THING history HAS shown us is that groups of people who don't agree with each other CAN learn to live with each other without repressing he civil rights of the other. This is hard, and it requires letting go sometimes of a privileged majority status that some of us have held for a long time - we might have to - GASP - make compromises for the sake of equality, but that's really a small price to pay -

I want to leave with a quote from the Volokh article:

"Many people in our society object strongly to this trend. I think the law should make room for them to a considerable extent. It should be possible, in particular, to recognize gay marriage and to continue to protect religious faith at least to the extent we have already done so when religious views about marriage diverge from the secular law of marriage. Of course no religion should be required to change its doctrine to recognize gay unions. Of course no religious official should be required to perform a same-sex marriage (or an interracial wedding, as some once objected to, or a second-marriage wedding, as some object to now, or any other wedding he objects to). These things have never been required and nobody is asking that they should be.

While marriage and religious belief are one creature in the minds of many people, they are separate things in the law. Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism, for example, refuse to recognize secular divorce. But few argue that we should refuse to let people divorce for this reason. One can be divorced under the law but married in the eyes of the church. The statuses can be separated without a diminution of religious liberty. And nobody thinks that this de-linking of the two constitutes official oppression or the obliteration of religious freedom. Similarly, in principle, it should be possible to have a regime in which same-sex couples are married under the law but not married in the eyes of a given religion — all without extinguishing religious faith.

Matters are more complicated when religious persons and organizations provide services to the public or ask for public funds while at the same time requesting to be exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else. These conflicts come up in a dizzying variety of contexts, where the equities vary wildly and the costs of allowing exemptions are sometimes great and sometimes small. No person of good will should have a one-size-fits-all approach to this — everybody gets an exemption all the time or nobody ever does, no matter the circumstances — and our courts and laws don't usually adopt a categorical approach. Let's think hard about the hard choices involved, but let's not exploit pre-existing conflicts to gain the upper-hand in the gay-marriage debate or scapegoat gay couples who want their families protected by the law." - Dale Carpenter, Law Professor

[Jdog]

Stuart,

"Meanwhile, feel free to go off and marry, and have children. Just do it the old fashioned way, please. Lots of people did--even Oscar Wilde. And remember, you have the right to pursue happiness--but nobody, not even God, can guarantee that you will find it."

The old fashioned way - yes, that works out SO WELL, doesn't it? I know many gay men who have repressed that part of themselves, had kids, lived in a passionless and nearly loveless marriage - a marriage that became a sad role model of sorts for their children. If you really want to erode the institution just keep pushing these antiquated ideas.

Let's please not pretend that the old fashioned way as it were is a panacea, or that kids born the old fashioned way will grow up any better than kids born in other ways - or even that ALL straight couples do or CAN have kids in this old-fashioned manner.

[Bobby Neal Winters]

>>Let's please not pretend that the old fashioned way as it were is a panacea, or that kids born the old fashioned way will grow up any better than kids born in other ways - or even that ALL straight couples do or CAN have kids in this old-fashioned manner.<<

These 8 billion of us are just a fluke.

[Jdog]

Stuart,

I will leave you guys alone - I don't think my comments are helping and I don't think that my staying here is going to help anyone.

I do not mind talking about sin - I really don't, but it is something that WE ALL have to grapple with - all of us have fallen short, not just our gay neighbors. Don't get so caught up in talking about other people's sins that you lose sight of reason, charity, compassion and love.

I think its past time talking about how gay marriage is bad because it goes against our beliefs - or how it may or may not be bad for society because of a perceived precedent - and start talking about how we are going to live alongside it. How can we hold to our beliefs, protect them, and co-exist with our gay neighbor(s), especially the gay married couple or gay family?

[Jdog]

"These 8 billion of us are just a fluke."

Sigh - Goodbye Bobby - hopefully someone will see the point I was trying to make - or not!

P.S. - Actually, I believe the world's population is somewhere between 6 and 7 billion currently - FYI

[Jim Kushiner]

Since I willl be away for the rest of the week, I've decided to close this thread. It could go on and on....my point was that "clash" is inevitable, when the government steps in and starts to redefine what society, what people, that is, who are prior to the state, have always believed and practice, if quite imperfectly. Even when imperfect, even bad, they know it is so because it doesn't measure up to a standard everyone accepts.