On Gay Marriage

"I have no control over my feelings, or what triggers them. Fortunately though, I also have a brain."
-Mike Rowe
Well, I'd been planning for this week's post to be about the upcoming Marvel reboot. However, in light of recent events, it looks like that topic will have to wait. The SCOTUS decision has opened a floodgate for topics that need to be discussed. I'm going to try to go over a number of them, but for this week, I'll be focusing on gay marriage. There are, however, several things that I need to mention first. One, this is not a political post. Two, I would remind you that disagreements are allowed, and to some extent even encouraged, on two conditions. The first, that you're respectful, and the second, that you have proper logic to back you up. If you disagree and don't say so, then neither of us learns anything. But disagreements based on how you feel about the issue don't mean anything, since everybody has different feelings. Finally, this is not a post about the LGBT community. This is a post about marriage.

Much of what I've seen in the recent media has been based on how people feel about the issue. In particular, Christians have had a wide range of emotions, with many crying that this is an abomination against traditional marriage, while others shout that we should love and tolerate the LGBT community even if we disagree with them. Everybody has emotions. Some emotions are that this is a negative thing, some emotions are that this is a positive thing, some emotions are that if it is negative, we shouldn't talk about it like that, and others are that we should be intolerant of anyone that's intolerant of gay marriage.

Because of this, most articles I've seen have been missing one important point. Marriage is a religious institution. Some animals mate for life. Some animals do not. But they don't need marriage. They either stay together or they don't. If there is no God, then there's no reason for marriage. You stay together, or you don't. We see divorce happening all around us as well. This is directly against the marriage vows, "till death do us part." The Bible says that God hates divorce. Makes sense. If the Bible is true, then He designed us to be one man and one woman, and for them to be married and stay together.

I've seen articles asking why we would expect non-Christians to follow Christian ideals- after all, we've been dealing with extra-marital sex for years now, they say. The answer is that we wouldn't, which is why there should be no gay marriage. With extra-marital sex, they throw the Bible to the wind, as we would expect them to do, since they don't believe in the Bible anyway. But gay marriage is taking something of religious origins and attempting to change it. I haven't yet covered the idea of the line in the sand, but I'll give a basic overview, since it's needed here. If you set a limit, and then move that limit, the limit becomes worthless. This isn't entirely accurate, but it's close enough that it'll work for a summary, which, I hope, is all we need in this situation. The point is, marriage is something specific. There's a limit. Over here is marriage. Over there is not marriage. When we move the line so that more is considered to be "marriage," it makes the line worthless. Because now we can move it again, and again, and again. Each time, there's still somebody who's feeling left out, somebody who wants the limit to change so that they're on the right side of the line. So what is marriage anymore?

Marriage is a religious institution with a set limit. To change that limit makes the idea worthless and attacks the original reason for the limit. As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is wrong. But that doesn't relate directly to marriage. Many other Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong, but that they should still have the right to marry. I believe otherwise, not because of my emotions or feelings, but because of the logic that I've laid forth. I believe that the recent decision was a poor one, not just because of how I feel on the subject, but because the decision goes against logic. I hope to be going over other related ideas in the future that will give more explanation on the line in the sand, as well as a few other ideas.
"You did not invent marriage. God did."
-Ken Ham

2 comments:

  1. I like your logic about how a moveable line might just invalidate he whole thing. In general its a good argument, but I only think that because I already agree that there was a good reason for the original limits, as you call them. I think you can take a cue from the tag that homosexuals have been using, 'marriage equality'. For the most part, you're up against a group which 1) doesn't believe marriage is a religious institution, 2) does believe that all lines should be moveable. They are extremely sensitive, vulnerable people who have been sold the idea that they are victims of discrimination along the lines of racism. They are collectively such an outcast that they have banded together to create a separate society, and have been using many influences (mostly Hollywood) trying to gain acceptance for decades. But each individual member is also heavily struggling for acceptance on a personal level.

    While your logic is simple and clear, I think you haven't anticipated or addressed their point of view. I think they would openly challenge, whether there is really a line at all, whether it should be moveable, and why anyone has the right to say so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see your point, but as you said, they're very sensitive and have the idea that they're being discriminated against, so I'm not really sure how to address their point of view more effectively.
      You listed two beliefs that they have, and three challenges they would make.

      The first belief is addressed to some extent in the third paragraph. Without God, there is no reason for marriage. This also applies to the first challenge they would make. No, there isn't a line for them. There's only a line within religion, and it's called marriage.
      The second belief and challenge are addressed in the fourth paragraph. If there's a line within religion, then, (considering the circumstances) it should not be moved. If there's a line outside of religion, there's no reason for it.
      The third challenge depends on where the line comes from. Outside of religion, nobody has the right to say there should be a line. Inside religion, God has the right to say. If they don't believe in God, then they don't have the line in the first place, since He made the line. This goes back to their first belief. Which is, no, there isn't a line. So there isn't marriage. So why are they worried about it again?

      Like I said, I do see your point, but I'm not sure how else to go about addressing it.

      Delete