We are not really having an argument about same-sex marriage anymore, and on the evidence of Arizona, we’re not having a negotiation. Instead, all that’s left is the timing of the final victory — and for the defeated to find out what settlement the victors will impose.
I don't think Andrew pushes back hard enough here. These kind of overwrought, garment-rending love songs to the victimization of christians have no reasonable basis in reality. No one is telling churches what to believe or that they have to love gay people or the idea of gay marriage. No one is pushing for punitive measures against churches for not loving gay people and they'd be wrong to do so. Churches are still in complete control of what churches get to believe. All that's happening is churches are losing the "right" to impose legislation on non-churchians regarding what marriage can legally be. This is happening largely because they have, to date, failed to produce a single, valid argument about why two consenting adults who love each other should be unable to marry, or how those marriages will impact society in a negative way. Not a single, compelling argument yet from them, other than, "but my limited and myopic interpretation of the bible in a way that conveniently reinforces my biases instead of challenging them suggests that ...". Which is to say, not only do they not have a single, compelling civic argument against gay marriage*, there are compelling religious arguments against gay discrimination that most churches seem to be pointedly ignoring. So no, I'm not going to feel sorry for churches on the basis of losing the battle on the civic right for gays to marry. They are not going to be "forced" to do anything other than live in a world where gay people get to be married and affectionate with each other, sometimes in public, and where they and their children will have to see it. And arguing that Christians have some kind of monopoly on the world marriage and the institution itself doesn't pass the laugh test. Ask the kings of Israel what they think of "traditional" marriage. When they can tear themselves away from their concubines and wives #2-100 I mean. Ask the unmarried disciples how much traditional marriage allowed them to spread the word of god more effectively. The modern religious case for "traditional marriage" as something the bible endorses is incoherent, and only emerges if you're good at picking metaphorical cherries.
And really, there are two arguments going on here aren't there? The first is that "We are a christian nation and therefore the laws should be based, at least in part, on biblical values as perceived by citizens of this country in this century, especially James Dobson." Since there are many good and strong arguments against this idea, they are failing that. The second then, is, "Well, we at least deserve to create lives for ourselves where we don't have to interact with non-christians and open sinners like gay people," which, sadly, also has many strong, and obvious, arguments against it, from both a civic and religious point of view. I don't know, honestly, why people who have lived in a pluralistic all of their lives don't understand that they have not ever had, do not have now, and will not in the future (hopefully!) the expectation to live in a society where they do not have to interact with people who do not believe in Jesus and do not share their sexual orientation.
The expectation that one can and even SHOULD expect or try to arrange this kind of life is flat out ridiculous. Even from a churchian point of view, Jesus never promised a life of sameness, a life of comfort, and life where your beliefs and lifestyle can never be challenged. In fact, if I'm remembering my churchian holy book correctly, he, in fact, exhorted his followers to get out in the world and rub shoulders with the unclean! And, if in rubbing shoulders with the unclean fails to convert the unclean to your churchian point of view, he DID NOT recommend taking over the government and forcing them to live your way anyway. And of course, this cuts both ways. Gays like myself can't reasonably expect that we get to live in a world where everyone loves gay people and gay stuff in general! The best deal for both sides then, given that neither can have a world where their worldviews and lifestyles will never be challenged or praised by all people, is to agree to, you know, courteously agree to disagree on these particular matters, because simply believing in a higher power doesn't hurt anybody else, and marrying someone of the same sex has so far been shown, scientifically no less, not to hurt people.
So no, I don't feel sorry for churchians on this particular matter. We have, in fact, been having this discussion for a few short decades now, and the anti-gay marriage types have had ample time to make a compelling argument and have repeatedly failed to do so. So no, this is absolutely NOT an imposition of liberal values on principled conservatives. This is a relatively mild repudiation of the attempted imposition of christian principles on civic law because the religious argument against gay marriage is uncompelling*. Liberals and the state do not care what churches choose to believe about gay marriage, so long as they aren't insisting the rest of us agree to their tortuous and tenuous arguments against it based on a biblical authority that non-churchians do not recognize or agree with. And how many times do people have to suggest that churchians have lost the plot, before they'll consider the possibility that the reasons their beliefs are not compelling guidelines for behavior sans sympathetic legislation have more to do with flaws inherent in their own interpretation and adaptation of churchitarianism, rather than pernicious and stubborn choice to do evil by not listening to them and their questionable religious authority. I would like to gently suggest that non-churchians are, by and large, reasonable people and the issue is they don't find your arguments against and decision to be hateful towards gay people reasonable or well-founded. Even if we were to accept the possibility that the Bible contains some moral authority, that's still a long way from being convinced that churchians do not frequently, gratuitously, and seamlessly incorporate their personal and cultural biases into their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Beyond that, the whining about how people at large don't like them much for holding principled beliefs about the inherent ickiness of gay people is hard to sympathize with either. People don't like you because you choose being an asshole to people who are different than you and not hurting anyone, because even they can see you have a choice in the matter, and that continuing to choose intolerance and venom towards people who AREN'T HURTING YOU BY LIVING THEIR LIVES WITHOUT SHAME says a lot about what kind of person you choose to be and how just and noble and worthwhile your beliefs are, regardless of the stories you tell yourselves about yourselves. Even from out here, especially from people who used to be churchians like yourselves, we can see that unless you have love, all your culture war bluster might as well be a resounding gong or a clanging symbol.
Are beliefs that can not stand exposure to contradictory beliefs really that powerful or worth having? Isn't it possible that anti-gay doctrine undermines and is incompatible with the broader doctrines of love, humility and grace? Or would you rather just keep clanging that gong?
* Gay people aren't harmed by loving each other and being physically affectionate. Marriages between straight adults are not affected by the marriages of other people, gay or straight. Children aren't harmed by knowing gay people exist. Straight children aren't more likely to "grow up gay" because they've seen or met a gay person any more than gay children are likely to be "grow up straight" despite a lifetime of living and interacting with straight people. Gay is an orientation, not a "gateway drug" to behaviors like pedophilia or bestiality. In fact, the rates of pedophilia among the gay population is roughly the same as the rates in the straight population. The state is not in the business of protecting people's immortal souls, so it doesn't matter if gay sex is, highly arguably from all angles, technically a religious sin from a civic point of view. Conservatives are losing because they have yet to challenge any of the above statements with compelling logic or evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment