Christianity and gay marriage

[© tweed]

Why do you need a theological argument?  "The church should treat all human beings with dignity, respect, and equality," should be sufficient.  Who cares how that line of thinking descends through the centuries?

because that's a meaningless platitude which can be made to mean a million different things, obviously.

[DemPGH]

I'm not religious and am 100% in favor of same sex marriage. I'm 100% heterosexual.

This is probably worth its own post, but since it has to do with the current conversation, I'll post it here. I'm reading Frank Barlow's biography on King William II Rufus of England (k. 1087-1100). There's 99.9% certainty that William II was very homosexual. A gallant man's man kind of homosexuality.

Anyway, this is illuminating, from page 108:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Barlow then goes on to quote St. Peter Damian, who evidently argued that gay sex was worse than bestiality.

Okay, here's how to deal with this issue in the present. Taking those quotes above, we're dealing with an institutional mindset (Catholic or Protestant) that likely misunderstands what sex even is beyond its function. The church's position is all very ludicrous, of course. And it's an opinion that was formed at a time when nothing substantive was known about either psychology or evolution. Look at the amount of contemporary studies that show that a healthy, regular sex life is healthful in all kinds of ways. That these people deny that is nutty.

Now, I don't think the Bible has anything to do at all with us here in the present. So to me the argument that would make them look foolish in demanding celibacy and in demanding only heterosexual marriage would be to quote 1) Psychology and 2) evolution. How can either be countered? Human beings are not above sex and / or sexual impulse, and to deny it is to deny who we are. Nature makes mostly heterosexual people, but it also makes gay people.

[afleitch]

Why do you need a theological argument?  "The church should treat all human beings with dignity, respect, and equality," should be sufficient.  Who cares how that line of thinking descends through the centuries?

My feelings exactly. Sometimes things don't need to be viewed through a theological lens; they are what they are. If you see two men or two women who are everything to each other you don't have to peel it back and analyse it's worth, morality or integrity. It doesn't need to be complicated.

[DC Al Fine]

Why do you need a theological argument?  "The church should treat all human beings with dignity, respect, and equality," should be sufficient.  Who cares how that line of thinking descends through the centuries?

My feelings exactly. Sometimes things don't need to be viewed through a theological lens; they are what they are. If you see two men or two women who are everything to each other you don't have to peel it back and analyse it's worth, morality or integrity. It doesn't need to be complicated.

Surely someone who's spent a good chunk of their life arguing against "The Bible says so" ought to appreciate that a "just so" argument doesn't hold any water. This sort of view reduces the pro gay marriage view to nothing but sentiment.

We ought to have a sound basis for our morality if we want to convince others. No matter how obvious something might be to one person, someone else might have a totally different inclination.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Why do you need a theological argument?  "The church should treat all human beings with dignity, respect, and equality," should be sufficient.  Who cares how that line of thinking descends through the centuries?

My feelings exactly. Sometimes things don't need to be viewed through a theological lens; they are what they are. If you see two men or two women who are everything to each other you don't have to peel it back and analyse it's worth, morality or integrity. It doesn't need to be complicated.

Surely someone who's spent a good chunk of their life arguing against "The Bible says so" ought to appreciate that a "just so" argument doesn't hold any water. This sort of view reduces the pro gay marriage view to nothing but sentiment.

We ought to have a sound basis for our morality if we want to convince others. No matter how obvious something might be to one person, someone else might have a totally different inclination.

I think afleitch means that some things are just morally neutral.  Gay marriage proponents aren't arguing that gay marriage should be legal because it's moral, but simply because it isn't immoral, at least in an objective sense.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think afleitch means that some things are just morally neutral.  Gay marriage proponents aren't arguing that gay marriage should be legal because it's moral, but simply because it isn't immoral, at least in an objective sense.

Objective by what standard?  And how is that standard any less subjective than a traditional Old Testament based standard of morality?  Objective is one of those buzzwords one really needs to be careful about using.

[afleitch]

I think afleitch means that some things are just morally neutral.  Gay marriage proponents aren't arguing that gay marriage should be legal because it's moral, but simply because it isn't immoral, at least in an objective sense.

Objective by what standard?  And how is that standard any less subjective than a traditional Old Testament based standard of morality?  Objective is one of those buzzwords one really needs to be careful about using.

It’s entirely neutral. Given what we understand about human sexuality it has to be neutral. If marriage as an institution remained closed off to people because at one time those people were deemed to be ‘different’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ even though we now understand differently, then interracial marriage would still be prohibited. At a time when ideas of racial superiority or even ideas that races should not mix were prevalent then it made perfect sense. Of course now we understand racial theory is junk science. Deep rooted same sex attraction is part of humanity. The same bonds between couples exist and have the same value. People may still balk at that as they balk at women’s equality or a black man being President.

Fighting marriage as a ‘theological’ issue on both sides seems as alien to me as Saudi Arabia having a theological debate about women driving cars. Why? Because it’s not a battle ‘everyone else’ is having. People who are gay, or who have gay friends, colleagues or family members and are accepting of that tend not to view them getting married to the person they are committed to as a theological issue; they just see it for what it is. Liberal Christians shouldn’t feel the need to engage opponents in obtuse theological debate over an issue that those outside of the debate seem to be coming round to in their own way and without the need for theological ‘guidance’ anymore than they need to have a theologically engage with those peddling creationism.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I don't think anybody here is contemplating theological debate as a means to convince people of the legitimacy of civil same-sex marriages, or same-sex marriages in denominations other than the one in which the theological debate is taking place--at least I sincerely hope nobody is because you're entirely right that that's almost comically insular and ignorant of the rest of the world. The issue is that churches do (ought to or have to) have theological rationales to do or change much of anything, especially things that would require setting up new liturgical rubrics (the current liturgical rubric for marriage in the Episcopal Church can't be used for same-sex couples. It's structured in such a way as to assume on a pretty basic level that the people getting married are a woman and a man. So at the very least there needs to be a theological discussion of how to write a gender-neutral marriage liturgy, which really isn't the sort of question that can be answered just by looking at the broader culture).

[afleitch]

So at the very least there needs to be a theological discussion of how to write a gender-neutral marriage liturgy, which really isn't the sort of question that can be answered just by looking at the broader culture).

I don't disagree, but with same sex marriage (and in many denominations this is also true of the status of women in both vocational and lay positions) it's not really that complex a discussion to have; various denominations have got there and in 'getting there' haven't broken down as a result. The real problem is that the discussion is just postponed, not considered or outright rejected for very apparent and often disturbing reasons (which have little to do with same sex marriage at all). That is why, particularly in European nations with a history of an established church, there has been such strong opposition from the churches to same sex marriage on the basis that it requires them to confront same sex marriage as a reality; as a thing that is happening and which people might want to happen in certain religious settings. Churches don't like their hand being 'forced' on this issue. The Episcopalians in Scotland, mostly of the liberal wing and fairly honest about there intentions at most times announced that had to oppose the law change here, even if it merited private support, on the basis that there were doctinally unable to support it as the discussion in the Anglican Communion hadn't quite got there.

The problem for the Christian faiths in the western world in particular is that their continued opposition or 'wait and see' attitude to all LGBT matters which ten or fifteen years ago would have elicited a soft negative or even indifferent response from the public now elicits much stronger negative feelings. They are not too different from the sea change in attitudes to race a generation or two ago and have taken even me by surpise. Many churches are still a generation behind. If the secular public are ahead of churches on this and other related matters then continued religious association has quite a shaky future.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think afleitch means that some things are just morally neutral.  Gay marriage proponents aren't arguing that gay marriage should be legal because it's moral, but simply because it isn't immoral, at least in an objective sense.

Objective by what standard?  And how is that standard any less subjective than a traditional Old Testament based standard of morality?  Objective is one of those buzzwords one really needs to be careful about using.

It’s entirely neutral. Given what we understand about human sexuality it has to be neutral. [...] Deep rooted same sex attraction is part of humanity. The same bonds between couples exist and have the same value.

Is your understanding correct?  A Christian fundamentalist would likely argue that homosexuality is an imperfection introduced into man via the original sin of Adam.  Pointing out that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom would not shake the resolve of a true believer since in that world view, the taint of original sin caused by the fall of man affected the whole of creation.  As for bonds, don't tell a chemist that a covalent and ionic bonds have the same value.

As a society, we're embarking upon a large scale experiment on the social impact of same-sex marriage and the fact that nothing major has gone wrong so far is a guarantee that it won't.  After all, if one skydives without a parachute, nothing bad will happen in the first few seconds. Not that I foresee any problems resulting from same-sex marriage, and it will be at the very least difficult to perceive any that might result given that we have yet to fully understand the impact of the ready acceptance of divorce and remarriage upon society, a change for which potential problems are far easier to perceive in advance.

[Mordecai]

I appreciate your thoughtful and well meaning response. Silly me for mentioning my religious views on the matter. After all, "that religious horse-sh**t" clearly doesn't belong in a topic called "Christianity and gay marriage" in the "Religion & Philosophy" section of the forum.

You're welcome. I'm glad to correct your presumption.

[Gass3268]

Lutheran (ELCA) who supports gay marriage like my church does.

[MATTROSE94]

I am a Christian and I generally favor gay marriage and gay rights in nearly every case. Suprisingly, most churches that I attended did not seem that strongly against gay rights, with the exception of two right-wing churches that I attended a number of years ago.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Atheist who opposes gay marriage (the only way to live)

I thought you have a religious blog and stuff...

[PJ]

Atheist who opposes gay marriage (the only way to live)

I thought you have a religious blog and stuff...

he's being sarcastic.

[Deus Naturae]

I'm pretty sure Scott was joking...

[auburntiger]

Southern Evangelical Christian; biblically against, legally for.

In a nutshell, every citizen has the same legal rights as everyone else. Keep a strong separation of church and state, protecting the churches who disagree with same sex marriage from state and federal lawsuits.

To expound a bit on the second part of that, churches typically set up a list of core beliefs, each one of them adhering to a range of a liberal to literal interpretation of scripture.  Just as an aside, I attend one that does a great job at taking the Word contextually - referencing to the Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments, respectively. Regarding the issue of marriage, the state shouldn't interfere with whatever the church decides in its interpretation of scripture on sin.

The problem the Right has with it is the fear of being forced to recognize and be "OK" with something they honestly believe is a sin.

The problem the Left has with opposing this, I believe, is from a legal perspective entirely.

Just an observation here...I hear so many arguments of how gay marriage is destroying the sanctity of marriage. Well, look no further than in the "Church of America" and you will find hat the divorce rate is the same as that outside the church.

DIVORCE is what's destroying families and the sanctity of marriage. The Bible is very clear on how God hates divorce.

[Mechaman]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

How is 2004 treating you?

That would've been a good joke if he was a Democrat, hahaha.

If anything, this sounds like many conservative Republicans I know now days.

[SNJ1985]

I am a Protestant Christian and oppose legal gay ''marriage'', along with civil unions and any other forms of legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

The Bible's position on the subject could not possibly be more clear. And before you say ''well, what about eating shellfish and mixing fabrics''; research the difference between moral laws and ceremonial laws. Moral laws were never overturned, and remain in place to this day.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I am a Protestant Christian and oppose legal gay ''marriage'', along with civil unions and any other forms of legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

The Bible's position on the subject could not possibly be more clear. And before you say ''well, what about eating shellfish and mixing fabrics''; research the difference between moral laws and ceremonial laws. Moral laws were never overturned, and remain in place to this day.

Hi, welcome to the forum!

[Del Tachi]

Protestant Evangelical Christian who opposes gay marriage because I believe that the New Testament establishes that homosexual behavior is inherently sinful. 

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I am a Protestant Christian and oppose legal gay ''marriage'', along with civil unions and any other forms of legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

The Bible's position on the subject could not possibly be more clear. And before you say ''well, what about eating shellfish and mixing fabrics''; research the difference between moral laws and ceremonial laws. Moral laws were never overturned, and remain in place to this day.

"The United States of America is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion" - John Adams in the Treaty of Tripoli, or something like that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." - the First Amendment

And hello! You haven't posted in a while, have you?

[Maistre]

I am a Protestant Christian and oppose legal gay ''marriage'', along with civil unions and any other forms of legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

The Bible's position on the subject could not possibly be more clear. And before you say ''well, what about eating shellfish and mixing fabrics''; research the difference between moral laws and ceremonial laws. Moral laws were never overturned, and remain in place to this day.

This is my view as well.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm a Christian who is opposed to the government getting involved in marriage. Let the church decide.

Are you also opposed to the government getting involved in visitation cases, probate cases, spousal abuse cases, divorce and child custody and support cases,  and all the other manifold areas of family law that it really helps the government to be 'involved in marriage' in some capacity in order to enforce? What about people who want to get married but aren't religious or are estranged in some way from their religious bodies? It would be wonderful if people's religious communities were sufficient to help them with all these things, yes, but that's not actually the case, for reasons including but by no means limited to the fact that many people are in religious communities that would prefer not to marry them because of their sex.