Further thoughts on Gay "Marriage"

I would like to share with you some random, long-winded thoughts on gay marriage. For the sake of brevity I have not included much by way of supplemental material on some of my more debated points but I will gladly point anyone in the proper direction if you would like to know the basis for my comments. Also, I would challenge those who disagree to provide counter-balancing arguments based on science, history or tradition.

What strikes me so often about this debate is that instead of reasoned arguments based on logic, ethics and truth what often happens is name-calling and straw man fallacies. To call me a bigot, homophobe or worse yet, “a fundamentalist Christian” does not refute my arguments but reveals the lack of arguments for the opposing side. I would rather get into a knock down, drag out discussion based on the issues than to have someone sling mud at me and then be self-justified in putting me in my place. As has been said, “when you throw mud at someone else you must realize you are only losing ground beneath your own feet.”

These are not intended to be the end all or be all of the argument and they are not even in totally logical or sequential order. But they are some thoughts I have had on the issue over the months and I have promised many I would comment on the raging battle. Much more could be said and will be as other weigh in.

Please, let me know your thoughts but I am looking for a civil discussion and not a shouting match.

1. Why must we equate a relationship of a man with another man or a woman with another woman as the same thing as a man with a woman? My point, which I will expand upon later in different forms goes to the heart of the issue. We are arguing about the definition of a word and that definition brings to mind specific thoughts, ideas and emotions. We can move the debate to “rights” or “equality” but the foundational issue is what is the definition of marriage? Do we maintain the historical, traditional, cultural definition or do we change the definition to broaden it to include any two legally consenting adults?

2. Further, why must we say that religious arguments are inherently invalid but a secular argument is valid? Isn’t the very difference we are discussing a difference in belief systems? God vs. no god, transcendent morality vs. relative morality? Why must we de facto disallow one view from the outset because it doesn’t line up with the opposing worldview? Why is it inherently wrong to make a distinction and limit the definition of the word and therefore the concept of marriage to refer to the intended permanent, monogamous, heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman? As soon as a person brings up an argument from religion he is dismissed and the basis for his argument is seen as invalid. But saying there is no god is also a philosophical proposition as well. And basis my arguments on the belief that there is no god is also a philosophical position. To argue that there are transcendent values based on a deity is a philosophical position. But to say that morals are relative and situational is also a philosophical position based on the belief that there is no transcendent order and that life exists by random chance over time. It is based on the assumption that we are all there is and that we based right and wrong on what we (or the majority of culture) decides is right and wrong.

3. Why are opinions based on emotions and personal sentiments inherently more valuable that opinions based on religious convictions and personal beliefs? On what basis does anyone make moral or ethical arguments? I based my arguments on “something” even if that something is my own subjective experience. A Christian bases his beliefs on the Bible and his understanding of a transcendent, eternal God. A Muslim bases his beliefs on the Koran and his understanding of Allah. A person who has no transcendent belief system bases his view of right and wrong on philosophical and ethical arguments created by philosophers. Some base it on tradition. Others base it on majority opinion. Others base it on their own personal beliefs (emotions, sentiments, opinions). All of us seem to inherently work out of a moral framework that we have learned and accepted as true. Perhaps this is what theologians and philosophers call a conscience. I would define a conscience as the internal moral mechanism based on the moral teaching that we have had that we accept as true and through which we determine if something is “right” or “wrong.” If that is the case then aren’t we just arguing beliefs based on perspective? And if that is the case then aren’t the religious arguments as valid as the non-religious arguments? If not, on what basis do you make that judgment?

4. Why must we be willing to ignore 6,000 years of recorded history, tradition that transcends national boundaries and cultures and the beliefs of the majority of people in our country to attempt a social experiment that will alter the very fabric of our society? This is really the rub of the issue on a cultural, practical basis. If the vote in California, lets say, had gone the other way and voters had approved gay marriage would we be having this discussion? It seems to me that the democratic process works as long as the decision goes my way. We have history, tradition and religious beliefs that are being ignored or disregarded for the sake of changing the fabric of society. Will gay marriage affect me? Surely it will because it changes the definition of marriage for everyone, not just homosexuals. If words are used in our thinking to define concepts then changing the definition of marriage is not only about changing words but changing concepts and thoughts. If gay marriage is viewed as “right” then to disagree is inherently “wrong.” We have already seen cases (perhaps rare at the moment but can it be forever?) where certain ideas are viewed as not only inherently wrong but also illegal and criminal. If we change the definition of marriage and allow for this right then those who speak against it are inherently wrong. Further, if that is the case and those words (sermons) are twisted and used for malevolent ends could it not be argued that those words are “hate speech” and should be censored? Certainly they could and conceivably they will over time. This would be a slippery slope if it has not already happened in other contexts (Canada and Europe presently). Why is it improper to define and limit a definition that has served society for written history?

5. What does it matter to me personally what other people do? It matters a lot! There is general morality that says some things are proper and some things are improper within society. We limit people all the time for the general good of society. One may certainly not run naked in the park or have public sex. Why? Because there is a consensus that those things are outside the bounds of public acceptance. We do so for the sake of children and for the sake of generally accepted public decency. If gay marriage is allowed then whenever the discussion comes up in a school classroom the teacher will be obligated to give every perspective on the issue or be accused of discrimination. Why should my child be forced to accept a position that we believe is morally unacceptable and against both history and tradition? Why should I have to explain to a toddler why the adopted child has two daddies? Once could say, oh you don’t have to accept it or teach it as morally valid to your children. But what would happen if a child stands up in a public school setting, say in fifth grade and says that homosexual marriage is wrong? That student would be corrected by no less an authority than his teacher with the full weight of the educational system behind that instructor. A classroom of young, impressionable minds is going to not hear equal time for opposing views but will hear what is the accepted and “legal” view. Even if it is never brought up in school or taught about (however unlikely a scenario that may be) it will still have to be addressed on a regular basis since it would be an accepted and protected part of society. So to say that gay marriage doesn’t affect my family or me and I should let people do whatever they want is just not accurate. I read recently the analogy of a large boat where one person is trying to drill a hole on the bottom. It could be argued that we should leave that person alone since his decision is not affecting you directly since he is not in your part of the boat. But to allow him to exercise his freedom on his side of the boat surely will have an effect on you as it brings down the whole ship. Likewise, changing the definition of marriage changes it for everyone not merely for those who are homosexual. His drilling a hole in California certainly will affect my end of the boat in North Dakota. Anyway, if that weren’t the case why would people from the rest of the country be so bent out of shape with what California decided? Their decision doesn’t affect everyone else, does it?

6. We make a mistake to equate historic civil rights that were based on nationality and skin color to gay rights that are based on sexual behavior and lifestyle. It has never been conclusively argued that homosexuality is genetic in its basis. In fact, much logic and science goes against a purely genetic argument. Studies of identical twins have shown conclusively that it cannot be a purely genetic basis. If it were purely genetic there would be a 100% concurrence rate (just like eye color, looks and physical traits). I would suggest that there is a complex matrix or influences that move a person to homosexuality and not a small percentage of those influences are from early childhood. This also explains why some people remember thoughts or feelings from early childhood. Further, if homosexuality were purely genetic and true homosexuals by definition did not have children biologically then prior to common fertilization treatments the “gay gene” would diminish from generation to generation. To put it in straightforward terms, let’s supposed that everyone on an island were purely homosexual, if you were to go back to that island in 75 or 100 years, how many people living in the island would be homosexual? The obvious answer would be none because there would be no next generation. Therefore there would inherently be a diminishing pool of the gene, as natural selection would eradicate that gene over time. The argument would have to be that homosexuality is a recessive gene. But if that were the case then wouldn’t everyone pick up a dominant heterosexual gene since presumably his or her parents were heterosexual. One could argue that there are many bisexual parents who don’t know or deny their homosexual tendencies but then it could be argued that there are many closet heterosexuals among the homosexual population. Worse still would be to say that homosexuality were a genetic aberration which then begs the question if it should be tested for and eradicated if found. I don’t intend to solve the “nature vs. nurture” argument for homosexual behavior but want to make the more modest argument that it is far from certain that homosexuality is genetic and that much argues against a purely genetic basis.

7. We must not mistake the argument for “civil rights.” This is an argument not over rights, which homosexuals have in most states under “domestic partnership laws,” but an argument over the nature and definition of the CONCEPT of marriage in our culture. The concept of marriage has had a very specific and limited application in western civilization at least from the times of the Romans. Further, it has been associated in our culture most directly to religious ideals stemming from the pages of the Old and New Testament. To acknowledge this is to merely acknowledge our history and heritage. Now some desire to change this and ignore this history and cry “foul” is anyone else brings this up. Why must we ignore the history and heritage of the majority of people who have lived in our country for the sake of an untried social experiment by expanding the definition of marriage?

8. During my Masters Degree studies I did extensive research on the question of homosexuality. First, a person must have two discussions because the nature and practices of male homosexuality are very different from that of female homosexuality. Reasons, rationales and potential causes seem to vary from the onset of the discussion so I will direct my comments to male homosexuality for the moment. Among the male homosexual population I was shocked to find the level of sexual partners to be shockingly distinct from the heterosexual population. It is not uncommon for practicing male homosexuals to “cruise” for an anonymous sexual encounter without strings attached or any intention for a relationship. This is based purely on physical attraction and desire. This is much more so than in heterosexual relationships. Some could argue that is true among heterosexual guys as well and I would grant the point. Men in general tend to be more focused on sex regardless of the existence or depth of a relationship. In general that is not the case for women but our culture is trying to change that. However, by in large it is still true that women do not seek anonymous sexual encounters with men. But this brings me to my very point. In a heterosexual relationship there are two people with different biological and psychological makeup that offset one another’s drives and desires. Together they bring a level of stability and consistency that is not found among practicing homosexual men. I think it could be decisively argued that the woman in the relationship pushes the couple towards stability and permanence even as the man in that relationship may initially be motivated more by physiological drives. Together they have the biological basis for marriage, both the permanence and stability of lasting relationship and the sexual drive that pushes people toward sexual encounters and procreation.

9. It could be argued that the institution of marriage is crumbling and that the idea of stability and permanence is from a bygone era. That may be the case to some extend but the solution is not to change the definition of marriage and bring into it a situation where the “couple” is inherently more promiscuous and less likely to remain in a long-term commitment. I believe the answer lies in the very opposite direction. We must strengthen the institution of marriage and hold it in high regard for the sake of the stability of our society and the future generations. So often people rise or fall to the level of expectation that is placed upon them. If we view marriage as a contract of convenience that is easily entered into and more easily dissolved then people will not weigh the decision heavily before entering in. However, if we as a society view marriage as a special relationship with clear boundaries and expectations then perhaps over time a greater number of couples will rise to the challenge. Will we ever have a perfect marriage in our culture? Of course not. We are too selfish and self-centered for that. But could we have a better situation? Absolutely. But the exact wrong answer for that is to broaden and water down the definition of marriage to allow for any two adults to become marriage partners.

10. If we do this, why stop there? Why not allow three people to get married or four? On what basis could you argue against polygamy if you allow for homosexual marriage? Who are you to decide what is right for three other consenting adults? Or four? Or five? The same arguments that justify homosexual marriage also justify polygamy? What arguments would be different? Why is two people “right” but three people “wrong”? The same arguments used to limit marriage to a man and women are the same ones that argue against polygamy. But to allow for homosexual marriage is to open the door inherently to all other types of social arrangements under the broadened definition of “marriage.” On what basis do we allow one and disallow the other if all we have is our own subject, personal opinions? Could we argue that it is better for society to disallow polygamy? Could we say it is better for children to disallow polygamy? Could we say that it flies in the face of history and tradition to disallow polygamy? Or does a proponent of gay marriage say we just like one and don’t like the other? As the philosopher Francis Schaeffer once quipped, “modern man has both feet firmly planted in midair.”

I share with you my thoughts, observations and ruminations to stir dialog and debate over the issue of gay marriage. Clearly I don’t think the issue is resolved and I don’t think that secularists have the moral high ground over those who hold to transcendent morality. We live in a pluralistic society and we need to allow all voices to be heard and weigh in on the argument. We should not inherently disallow arguments merely because they are based on religious teaching. Further, we need to question the basis of secular arguments for at the core they are based on personal, subjective opinion and nothing more. Even the notion of “rights” is based on the belief that there is transcendent morality. If a secularist wants to argue that there are transcendent rights not based on religion or ideas of God then I would like to hear his rationale.

As I said, much more could be said but it will need to wait for another post. I trust this challenges your thinking on this important cultural issue.