28/08: Same-Sex Relationships as a Matter of Public Policy
Category: Same-Sex Marriage
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Last week, the Okie Gardener posted a detailed and thoughtful essay exploring the issue of the Church, biblical authority and same-sex marriage, "Same-Sex Practice and American Christianity." Based on his "engagement with Scripture," the Gardener argued that the Church should welcome and minister to same-sex-oriented individuals as part of the fraternity of fallen humanity--but not condone same-sex sex (and certainly not extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex partners).
In the comments section, I agreed but added that his "excellent essay in no way change[d] my view that our scripturally based morality in re same-sex relationships should not dictate public policy.
"For example: of the Ten Commandments, only three are regularly codified as public policy. Same goes for the instructions of Christ: the word of God doesn't always translate into human law.
"I maintain, and I think you [Okie Gardener] agree, questions of public policy require an almost completely different set of assumptions and perspectives."
To which, "Tocqueville" replied:
"Farmer, your post sounds like classic Orwellian "double-think" to me.
"I firmly believe that X is true. Therefore, I am (naturally) in support of a law that rejects x, that is, a falsehood. And in supporting that law, I support radically upsetting the cake of tradition and human history. Which is to say that I don't really believe that society is "an eternal contract among the living, the dead, and the unborn." Screw the dead--they weren't nearly as sophisticated as we are. Why should we continue their benighted view of marriage? Oh, and screw the unborn for that matter, who will have to grow up (and suffer) in this permissive culture that promotes, endorses a false reality of human flourishing (which, by the way, I firmly believe is false).
"Either homosexuality is antithetical to human flourishing or it is not. If it is, as you say, then stamping it with the ancient and holy imprimatur of marriage only contributes to the further unraveling of the social and moral fabric.
"Even the most ardent champion of pluralism need not countenance or endorse an acknowledged falsehood that is admittedly "not God's plan" for human happiness. I for one cannot imagine standing behind a holy and righteous God on the day of judgment to account my willful and deliberate complicity and moral confusion manifest by the promotion and endorsement of giving legal sanction to an abomination. If the falsehood prevails, so be it. But it should do so without our assistance and endorsement.
"This is not even a question of where the radical change has already taken place and we simply throw our hands up because what's done is done. This is a case where you are preemptively and proactively attempting to turn the status quo upside down on its head by abandoning tradition and the wisdom of the ancients."
End Quote.
"Tocqueville" crafts a cogent and articulate critique of my position and an eloquent restatement of his argument--and worthy of a more prominent place. Also, I think it highlights our basic disagreement.
Tocqueville argues: "Either homosexuality is antithetical to human flourishing or it is not."
My position is that homosexuality is not antithetical to human flourishing. My position, as "Tocqueville" reminds us, is that homosexuality is "not in keeping with God's plan" (ergo my agreement with the Gardener's post). My position is that homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle. As I have stated previously, I intend to teach my children that homosexuality is condemned by the authority of God's word. I intend to attend churches that approach homosexuality in the way the Gardener's post recommends: welcoming and loving same-sex transgressors--but never condoning the transgression.
Having said all that, I remain convinced that the future of our civilization does not hinge on maintaining our traditional collective condemnation of, and hostility towards, homosexuality in the public square. An important distinction: I can view homosexuality as wrong, on one hand, without seeing it as a lethal threat to humanity. It is a truism that our society could not "flourish" as a predominantly homosexual culture. However, the homosexual community remains on the periphery of our greater community, and is likely to be there for as long as traditional Christianity reigns in America. (As I have argued before, the real fight for Christian civilization is within our churches; homosexuality as a public issue only distracts and divides us.)
In our system of government, one may/should accept the rights of others who reject one's own worldview as long as those actions do not pose an unacceptable threat to society. So, in a matter of public policy, the question for a Christian American is: what are the risks of sanctioning same-sex marriage as a public institution? Do the risks outweigh the individual's right to equal treatment under the law?
I have yet to see compelling evidence that same-sex unions threaten the larger American fabric. Is same-sex marriage wrong? From my way of thinking, yes. Dangerous? Or "antithetical" to our freedom as Christians or Americans? I remain unconvinced.
As for answering to God on Judgment Day:
The Old Testament and the New Testament agree that the greatest commandment is to "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." I truly believe that is our most important obligation to God and the key to our temporal and eternal happiness (much more important than battling with sins of the flesh). However, I would never suggest we codify that commandment into public law.
In the comments section, I agreed but added that his "excellent essay in no way change[d] my view that our scripturally based morality in re same-sex relationships should not dictate public policy.
"For example: of the Ten Commandments, only three are regularly codified as public policy. Same goes for the instructions of Christ: the word of God doesn't always translate into human law.
"I maintain, and I think you [Okie Gardener] agree, questions of public policy require an almost completely different set of assumptions and perspectives."
To which, "Tocqueville" replied:
"Farmer, your post sounds like classic Orwellian "double-think" to me.
"I firmly believe that X is true. Therefore, I am (naturally) in support of a law that rejects x, that is, a falsehood. And in supporting that law, I support radically upsetting the cake of tradition and human history. Which is to say that I don't really believe that society is "an eternal contract among the living, the dead, and the unborn." Screw the dead--they weren't nearly as sophisticated as we are. Why should we continue their benighted view of marriage? Oh, and screw the unborn for that matter, who will have to grow up (and suffer) in this permissive culture that promotes, endorses a false reality of human flourishing (which, by the way, I firmly believe is false).
"Either homosexuality is antithetical to human flourishing or it is not. If it is, as you say, then stamping it with the ancient and holy imprimatur of marriage only contributes to the further unraveling of the social and moral fabric.
"Even the most ardent champion of pluralism need not countenance or endorse an acknowledged falsehood that is admittedly "not God's plan" for human happiness. I for one cannot imagine standing behind a holy and righteous God on the day of judgment to account my willful and deliberate complicity and moral confusion manifest by the promotion and endorsement of giving legal sanction to an abomination. If the falsehood prevails, so be it. But it should do so without our assistance and endorsement.
"This is not even a question of where the radical change has already taken place and we simply throw our hands up because what's done is done. This is a case where you are preemptively and proactively attempting to turn the status quo upside down on its head by abandoning tradition and the wisdom of the ancients."
End Quote.
"Tocqueville" crafts a cogent and articulate critique of my position and an eloquent restatement of his argument--and worthy of a more prominent place. Also, I think it highlights our basic disagreement.
Tocqueville argues: "Either homosexuality is antithetical to human flourishing or it is not."
My position is that homosexuality is not antithetical to human flourishing. My position, as "Tocqueville" reminds us, is that homosexuality is "not in keeping with God's plan" (ergo my agreement with the Gardener's post). My position is that homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle. As I have stated previously, I intend to teach my children that homosexuality is condemned by the authority of God's word. I intend to attend churches that approach homosexuality in the way the Gardener's post recommends: welcoming and loving same-sex transgressors--but never condoning the transgression.
Having said all that, I remain convinced that the future of our civilization does not hinge on maintaining our traditional collective condemnation of, and hostility towards, homosexuality in the public square. An important distinction: I can view homosexuality as wrong, on one hand, without seeing it as a lethal threat to humanity. It is a truism that our society could not "flourish" as a predominantly homosexual culture. However, the homosexual community remains on the periphery of our greater community, and is likely to be there for as long as traditional Christianity reigns in America. (As I have argued before, the real fight for Christian civilization is within our churches; homosexuality as a public issue only distracts and divides us.)
In our system of government, one may/should accept the rights of others who reject one's own worldview as long as those actions do not pose an unacceptable threat to society. So, in a matter of public policy, the question for a Christian American is: what are the risks of sanctioning same-sex marriage as a public institution? Do the risks outweigh the individual's right to equal treatment under the law?
I have yet to see compelling evidence that same-sex unions threaten the larger American fabric. Is same-sex marriage wrong? From my way of thinking, yes. Dangerous? Or "antithetical" to our freedom as Christians or Americans? I remain unconvinced.
As for answering to God on Judgment Day:
The Old Testament and the New Testament agree that the greatest commandment is to "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." I truly believe that is our most important obligation to God and the key to our temporal and eternal happiness (much more important than battling with sins of the flesh). However, I would never suggest we codify that commandment into public law.
Tocqueville wrote:
Most people believe that the principal objections, or even the only objections, to the drive to legalize homosexual “marriage” spring from religious faith. But that is simply not true. Most objections have nothing to do with any religion at all, except insofar as the great religions of the world happen to reflect the nature of mankind. These objections spring from three sources. The first is a commonsense observation of man -- his needs, his shortcomings, and his aspirations. The second is a consideration of history: our own recent history, and the history of those who once committed the mistakes we are committing now. The last is logic, that relentlessly honest instrument of thought. The objections are such as should make everyone in our world uncomfortable, both those who call themselves conservative and are busy destroying the heritage of western civilization, and those who call themselves liberal and are busy curtailing and denying every freedom but that of the zipper.
The legalization of homosexual “marriages” would enshrine the sexual revolution in law.
Forty years ago, we were advised by popular singers that we needed to open our hearts to love, meaning a free and easy practice of sexual intercourse, without what were called “hangups”. Modesty was decried as prudishness, and chastity ridiculed as either impossible or hypocritical. Experimentation abounded: the so-called “open marriages,” public intercourse, intercourse under the influence of psychedelic drugs. A few of the experiments fizzled out for a time, though they are now resurging, as witness the sewer of websites devoted to “swingers.” The sexual explosion shows no sign of abating, having been given its second life by the internet. In what they discuss and the salaciousness of their photos, the magazines that women buy at grocery store checkout lines are as salacious as anything put out by Hugh Hefner in the 1950’s.
Is there any honest observer of our situation, or any political partisan so intransigent, who dares to argue that the results have not been disastrous? We were told that the legalization of abortion would lead, paradoxically, to fewer abortions, and fewer instances of child abuse. Instead it led to far more abortions than even the opponents ever imagined, and it so cheapened infant life that child abuse spiked sharply upward. It has remained so high that no one is surprised to hear, on local television, an account a child chained to his bed and allowed to starve in his own filth, or a baby bludgeoned to death by a boyfriend, with the mother as accomplice.
We were told that the legalization of contraceptive drugs would lead to fewer unwanted children -- certainly to fewer children born out of wedlock. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the human race should have known otherwise. Whatever one may believe about contraception, one must admit the historical fact: by reducing the perceived risk of pregnancy almost to zero, contraception removed from the young woman the most powerful natural weapon in her arsenal against male sexual aggression. She no longer had any pressing reason not to concede to the boyfriend’s wishes. So she agreed; and we now have one of three children born out of wedlock. The sexual chaos has touched every family in the nation. Who does not know at least one family whose children require an essay merely to describe who under their roof is related to whom, and how, and why they live together, and why others they call their father or mother or brothers or sisters do not?
Some people reckon up the losses from this revolution in terms of percentages: of unwed mothers, of aborted pregnancies, of children growing up without a parent, usually the father. It will take artists of the most penetrating insight to reckon up the losses as they ought to be reckoned, in human misery.