Why Christians Shouldn’t Advocate Same-Sex Marriage
I’m hearing an increasing number of Christians say that they are for the legalization of same-sex marriage, or at the very least they don’t have a problem with it (though they view it as sin). While I have some reservations on how Christians oppose same-sex marriage legislation, I can not wrap my head around the idea of advocating our government to endorse something which we think is a distortion and harmful to the participants. I hope this analogy helps illustrate my point. (Please note that this is intended for a Christian audience. I do not think it’s the least bit persuasive to non-Christians. If you are a non-Christian you’re welcome to review the ideas but they assume some suppositions I don’t assume you to have)
A brief analogy
I think people should have the freedom to drive their cars into lakes. I do not want to use the government to stop anyone from having the experiences and consequences of driving their cars into a lake. Because I’m willing to allow people the freedom to be underwater-drivers does not mean I should advocate the government name all lakes as official highways. I think such behavior is harmful as I believe that Toyota did not make cars to drive underwater. Allowing freedom and granting government endorsement are two different things. If I have sway over my government, I can not lovingly allow it to endorse behavior which I feel is harmful, even if I’m willing to allow the freedom for that behavior.
Some may say that the government declaring all lakes to be highways will provide greater safety to underwater-drivers. This will allow the government to post speed limits and guard rails throughout the lake which will make all underwater-drivers safer. While I recognize the value of speed limits and guard rails I think they provide minimal assistance to cars unintended for the bottom of a lake.
I recognize that not everyone shares my views on the inability of cars to drive underwater. Some call it a religious conviction and say that I should give way to other religious convictions. This is why I’m all for the freedom to drive a car into a lake. But if I truly believe that Toyota didn’t make cars for underwater use I should not and can not encourage other people to drive their cars into lakes whether that’s through my personal relationships or my democratically elected government.
On another matter, if the government decides to make all the lakes into highways I most certainly shouldn’t have to build ramps to help people drive their cars into lakes just because I’m a carpenter. Calling me a bigot or accusing me of discrimination is something I can live with if I know that I am not complicit in the destruction of their vehicles. If however people want a tow-truck to help them get out of the lake, I’m more than willing to call a Jewish friend of mine who doesn’t charge a dime.
Some will say that I’m attempting legislate my own morality or I’m imposing my values on others. This idea is so obviously shallow it’s amazing that it has to be addressed. All laws that affect personal behavior are legislated morality (murder, stealing, pollution control, pay child support, etc.). All law is a reflection of someone’s values. Because my values have been influenced by my religion does not make them automatically less valid than values formed by the lack of religion. It is impossible to have law that does not in some way legislate morality or reflect our values.
The idea that “religious-views-should-not-influence-public-policy” is someone’s view about religion. If we shouldn’t be required to accept other peoples religious views, then we shouldn’t be required to accept “religious-views-should-not-influence-public-policy”. It’s simply self defeating. Moreover, Christians should not adopt such a view because it’s not a Christian idea.
If Jesus is the Lord of your life, and not simply your after-life fire-insurance, that means he has influence over all of your actions and everything in your life. One of your duties as an American is to vote and that means as a disciple of Jesus that He gets to influence your vote. To not allow him into the voting booth with you is to live a schizophrenic life. Secularists will tell you that your religious views should remain private and hidden from the “secular” world. But that is their religious view, not Christ’s.
God, not the government, invented marriage. Do not let others tell you that it must be distorted or changed. If it will be changed, do not let it happen with your vote. Allowing people the freedom to drive underwater is different than endorsing it.
photo credit: CanadaGood
Tylor
It’s an interesting analogy but I’m not entirely sold on it, to be honest. I never would have suspected it in my younger days but I somehow became one of those Christians that is an outspoken advocate for LGBT rights. That being the case, I think starting a dialog between all these different points of view is what needs to happen at this particular point in history. Interested?
November 25th, 2009 at 12:54 amTim
I would love to know where you think it fails Tylor. I put my thoughts out there so they can be interacted with.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:13 amBridget Jack Meyers
Tim ~ It’s said that all analogies break down at some point. This one breaks down for me almost immediately for the simple fact that cars cannot drive underwater. They break down, stop working, and become death traps within minutes. It has nothing to do with Toyota’s intentions and everything to do with pure functionality.
But continuing within the parameters of your analogy, let’s say that wasn’t the case. Let’s say cars could actually drive under water quite functionally, without instantly destroying the vehicle or causing bodily harm to the vehicle’s occupants. My reasons for thinking people shouldn’t drive underwater are that Toyota did not intend for cars to function in that way, but the underwater drivers think that Toyota’s intentions are irrelevant; the cars are working decently underwater and they’re free to use them as they see fit. In that case, building guard rails and posting speed limits underwater is precisely what the government ought to do.
You say that all legislation is a reflection of someone’s values, which may be true enough, but all of the cases you cite (murder, stealing, pollution control, pay child support, etc.) are cases where the general population agrees that legislating these practices are in the best interest of the common good. Where the general population cannot agree, we try to allow freedom or accommodate differing views. Our government was set up to allow the will of the people to rule with an eye toward protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority. Gay rights is not an area where the general population has come to any kind of overwhelming consensus as they have with murder and stealing, so the debate is on whether the majority should be allowed to impose their belief that gays don’t deserve legal marital rights or whether the minority is being oppressed by the majority and should be protected from this. Obviously I’ve fallen in with the latter crowd.
Two things about my position on SSM though:
(1) I believe that a homosexual couple should have access to the same legal benefits as a heterosexual couple should they wish to enter into a committed, lifetime relationship.
(2) I believe these unions should be legally called by the same terminology that is used to describe heterosexual unions.
So, in order of preference, I would vote: (a) to eliminate government-authorized “marriages” and instead offer civil unions for all couples; (b) to offer government-authorized “marriages” to all couples; (c) to offer civil unions to homosexual couples with the exact same benefits as heterosexual government-authorized “marriages.” I don’t think (c) is the best option, but it’s better than nothing. I have zero interest in joining any gay rights activist groups or giving money to these causes. They can fight those fights on their own; all they get from me is my vote.
I would not advocate for the government to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I believe that is a spiritual truth and I don’t need the government to legislate spiritual truths. This is, btw, a reversal of my position that has come over time. In November 2004, I voted “yes” on Utah Constitutional Amendment 3 defining marriage in Utah as the union between a man and a woman. I wouldn’t do so now.
My final point: you say that as disciples of Jesus Christ, He should influence every aspect of our life including how we vote. I guess that’s true enough. However, one of the founding principles of this country was the separation of church and state, and the ideal that no one religion should be given preference through legislation. Is it possible for me as a Christian to agree with both of these ideals simultaneously? Or does doing so constitute, as you put it, schizophrenia?
I believe that it is. Jesus told us to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things which are God’s. Caesar wants there to be religious freedom and equal opportunities for all. I have no problem giving it to him.
Anyways, I am sorry if my position on this chagrins you, Tim. You’ve been so kind to me in the year that you’ve known me, part of me is a little afraid to disappoint you, but that is how I feel. I will always listen to what you have to say about my views, so share whatever you want.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:12 amTim
Jack you should know me well enough by now to know that our friendship is unaffected by disagreement.
I think that sometimes it’s easier to attack an analogy rather than the idea expressed by the analogy. I’m well aware the analogy doesn’t hold up, but that’s not really the point. If you’d like I can substitute “lakes” with “swamps” or “flooded plains”. You’re right to point out that functionality is an important component of the analogy and that’s why I chose “lakes”. Cars don’t function in lakes. Perhaps “swamps” are better because you might get a little ways in a car but eventually you’re going to break down. The guard rails and speed limits treat a secondary problem and are ultimately ineffective at making swamps a better place for cars.
For a more true to life analogy consider heroin use. We don’t (generally) criminalize drug use (other things surrounding drugs are criminalized like possession and sales). Nobody is getting random drug test on the street and then hauled away to jail for having heroin in their system. Now, we might be content allowing that freedom but we wouldn’t want FDA approval for heroin to make sure there aren’t any foreign toxins in it. The drug is toxic enough on its own.
Jack said:
Our government was set up to allow the will of the people to rule with an eye toward protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority.
Basically what you are saying is “might makes right”. While this may be how our government views ethics and morality (and that’s debatable), this is not how we as Christian view morality. We think truth is true no matter how many people believe it. If we have a clear understanding of what God intends for marriage, we should advocate for it because we know God’s intended functionality for relationships is what brings about the greatest social order.
The other problem with your position is that I can find any number of minority groups that want something that you will not give them. So you’re picking and choosing based on who knows what criteria to determine which minority groups are being unjustly oppressed by the majority. You can’t be consistent under this approach unless you’re willing to be absolutely libertarian.
Jack said:
I would not advocate for the government to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I believe that is a spiritual truth and I don’t need the government to legislate spiritual truths.
Okay, I have no idea where you are getting the notion of “spiritual truth”. Christians don’t believe some things are spiritually true and other things are not. “The blood of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins” is true. It’s just as true as 2+2=4. There aren’t special categories of truth. If there are you’re basically saying “some things are true for me but not for other people”. We’re all going to have an impossible working definition of “truth” if that is the case.
In addition, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman across all religions, cultures and ages. It’s hardly a sectarian idea.
Jack said:
I believe that it is. Jesus told us to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things which are God’s.
So what do you do when Caesar wants something that was originally God’s? Caesar created his own money and his own taxes. Marriage was around well before his rule.
However, one of the founding principles of this country was the separation of church and state, and the ideal that no one religion should be given preference through legislation.
Replace the word “religion” for “worldview”. If no worldview gets preference over another, then how are you going to give preference to a worldview that allows for same-sex marriage over all the other worldviews that do not allow for same-sex marriage? It’s impossible to not give preference. Someone’s values are going to be imposed no matter what.
November 29th, 2009 at 12:04 amTylor
Well, the stance I’ve chosen to take is that the government should not regulate things that can only be argued on a faith level. This preserves the sparation of church and state and in this particular case protects a group of people from being denied a basic civil right that is allowed to other people.
In order for the banning of same-sex marrage to pass mustard by this standard it would have to be proved to be harmful on a sociatal level and on that level I am yet to hear a convincing argument. Your analogy assumes that we are guarding against something that is dangerous to society as a whole so by this standard it doesn’t really work.
Furthermore, the argument that homosexuality is an unnatural state is also beginning to lose it’s strength. The more I look into it myself the more I see how, by and large, it seems to be something inherant in who these people are and not a learned or chosen trait. Also, as far as nature is concerned, it is interesting to note that among animals it is not uncommon for some members of a species to act in a homosexual manner. It is believed that this is a natural reaction when a species faces overpopulation. Perhaps homosexuality isn’t quite as unnatural as we’ve always thought it was.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:52 amTim
Tylor, do you think children born into illegitimacy is harmful to society as a whole?
November 30th, 2009 at 12:41 pmTylor
Not quite sure what you’re getting at.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:40 pmTim
it’s a simple question. Do you think it’s benign or harmful to children and society as a whole. I don’t know you or where you’re coming from, so I can’t really speak to you clearly without knowing what you think on this issue.
It’s relevant.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:11 amTylor
Still not sure what it has to do with the topic at hand. It would be a strech to compare the situation of illegitimacy to same-sex marriage but I’ll consider it. Well illegitimacy certainly isn’t an ideal situation but how good or bad the situation is can vary greatly from case to case. As a whole, though, I don’t know if it has any profound effect on the well being of society. At most it would only have subtle effects on society just as any less than ideal situation would.
December 6th, 2009 at 2:15 amTim
Thanks for the response Tylor. It helps me see how differently we think the importance of marriage is, particularly in regards to raising children. To you it seems marriage is nothing much more than chocolate syrup on top of ice cream, it’s ideal but not important (for child-rearing).
I bring up the topic of children born out of wedlock because you assert that same-sex marriage has little to no consequences to society. In countries where same-sex marriage is practiced there have been noticeable increases in children born out of wedlock. I’m inferring that you might agree that it’s a consequence but not a negative one.
In the United States, the illegitimacy rate has recently climbed to something like 40%. It seems our society is coming into agreement with you on the importance of marriage. So it makes sense to me why people are not bothered by a redefinition of marriage; it’s an inconsequential institution. People don’t think their own strong, stable marriages are essential to the overall stability and health of their children and our country. I don’t think same-sex marriage is the cause of the devalued importance of marriage, it’s just a reflection of that attitude.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:24 pmTylor
I think you may misread me. If I thought of marriage as inconsequential I wouldn’t be so concerned about securing that right for those it is currently denied to. I think the actual difference in perspective here is that I do not think that children being raised by married homosexuals is bad. In fact I would consider it more ideal than children being raised by non-married homosexuals (or even non-married heterosexuals). With this in mind I’d say that such a move would reduce illegitimacy and lessen the occurrence of a less than ideal situation.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:19 pm