Would the recognition of same-sex marriage be fulfilling?

I read an excellent article today that precisely depicts what I've been thinking about: the proponants of same-sex marriage are not interested in any right that they don't already have, or in the ability to live their lives the way they choose.  Instead, they simply want to make their way of live accepted by society at large. 

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/06/3060

I'll summarize: 

Once upon a time, the gay rights movement only sought to not be persecuted.  Engaging in homosexual practices was illegal, and they sought to have such laws declared unconstitutional on the grounds that they wanted to live according to their own chosen lifestyle.  Essentially, they were asking for the right to pursue happiness in the way they believed morally acceptable.

Today, things are different.  No serious political actors want to return to the days of sodomy laws; indeed, it is distincly frowned upon to persecute homosexuals.  Homosexuals are tolerated, and homophobia is frowned upon.  Yet the LBGT movement has continued to press for same-sex marriage, despite the fact that this wouldn't affect gays' and lesbians' ablity to live their chosen lifestyles.  Instead, it appears that they only seeking same-sex marriage so as to confer upon their lifesyle social acceptance.

What Carson Holloway, the author of the above-cited article, is saying, is that this public acceptance won't give gays and lesbians any substantive good.  The strongest argument, he says, is one following the natural law theory: homosexuality is against nature and should not, therefore, be accepted.  If homosexuality is indeed against natural law, then accepting it, rewarding it, institutionalizing it, won't give anyone anything.  Indeed, it would end up hurting the people it seek to help by tricking them into an unnatural lifestyle.

If on the other hand, homosexuality is not against the natural law, then  accepting it won't make it any better.  It would be, as Holloway says, "...nothing more than a needless addition to a naturally fulfilling undertaking."  If homosexuality were so fulfilling, why all the fuss about whether it's accepted or not?

I like much of what Holloway says.  I've never been a uber-fan of natural law theory (I have no objections to it, I just haven't read much about it) but all of this seems to make sense.  Here are my thoughts:

Even among heterosexual couples, these days there is little that people can do in marriage that they cannot do outside of marriage.  The difference lies in what is done to them.  People can live together, have children, have a loving and even sexual relationship, write wills including each other, all without marriage.  The benefits that come with marriage are simply those that happen because society approves of and rewards that specific.  Individuals have the right to be able to do what his neighbor can do.  One does not have the right to have done to himself the same thing that is done to another who acts differently.  In other words, two people who act differently cannot expect to receive the same consequence.  Hence, gays and lesbians should not expect to have done to them (aka, be accepted) the same as if they acted heterosexually. 

In the end, it's a question of rights.  Individuals have right to be tolerated in non-criminal behavior; they do not have the right to be accepted in any behavior.  Society has a right to define its institutions to match the moral beliefs of the majority of its inhabitants.  No court can substitute the public morality for an alien, though tolerated one, without becoming the very tool of despotism.

John 11:35

Several times over the last two weeks I have come across this scripture, so I decided to share with you my thoughts. First, here is the verse in context:

“Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead...Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already...Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.  Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.  Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.  Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die…And said, Where have ye laid him?  They said unto him, Lord, come and see.  Jesus wept.  Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!  … he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.  And he that was dead came forth…” John 11:14, 17, 21-26, 34-36, 43-44. (KJV)

What I found most interesting is the fact that Jesus knew what was coming, yet he was still grief-stricken.  Consider this:

1.       It appears from previous verses that Jesus knew why He had tarried several days--so that Lazarus would die and Jesus would raise him up. 

2.      Jesus testified to Martha of His own role as Redeemer and Resurrector.  He knew very well His own power, and what God wanted Him to do.

Despite this, and knowing that he would within minutes raise Lazarus from the grave, Jesus wept.  Why is this?  There could be a number of reasons: perhaps He wept because He saw the people around him weeping, or because Lazarus was a dear friend.  In any case, I think we see that the Lord has such empathy with us that he will weep alongside us.  He sees far more than we do, but He will never dismiss our feelings as we sometimes dismiss the feelings of others. 

Isaiah wrote that the Messiah is: “…despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief…” (Isaiah 53:3 KJV)  Despite His divinity, despite His Sonship, despite the fact that He is so much greater than a man, we must remember that He lived as a man, THE Man.  He willingly hurts when we hurt, suffers when we suffer, not because He must (I suppose He could lounge around in heaven all day if He wanted to) but because He wishes to do the will of His Father. 

May we take solace in His capacity to feel our pain, and may we try to better understand the grief and pain of others.

What is the "right side" of history?

As I was reading on the Interweb today, I came across an article entitled: “Will Minnesota Voters Be on the Right Side of History?” The whole premise of this seems to encapsulate several assumptions that I have found in a large number of LBGT-agenda-driven arguments, so I'd like to respond to them, and by extension, to this article.  As I understand it, Ms. Chellew-Hodge is arguing the following:

1.       History has a “right side” and a “wrong side,” and we can determine ahead of time what arguments are on the “right side” of history.

2.       The debate about gay marriage is primarily concerned with the civil rights of gays and lesbians to marry whom they wish.

3.       Gays and lesbians serve their country and their communities with pride and distinction; therefore, they and their behavior should be accepted.

4.       Advocates of traditional values have no valid argumentation; all of their arguments detract from real “conversation.”

First, Chellew-Hodge begins her article with an assumption-ridden title asking if Minnesota voters will be on the “right side” of history.  What makes her believe that history has a right side?  Neither history nor culture is linear—if anything, it’s cyclical, a series of back-and-forth swings on a pendulum.  Thus, how can we be sure that culture will continue evolving as we currently see it evolving?  Even if it does, why does that mean that this evolution is a good thing?

The main problem with this argument is that it leads to moral cowardice.  Things that appear inevitable now become morally acceptable, regardless of their actual ethical content.  In Germany of 1930, the anti-Semitism and eugenics of the Nazi party may very well have appeared to be on the “right side” of history –yet they were still monstrously wrong.  In the deep South in the late 19^th century, Jim Crow laws and institutionalized segregation seemed culturally unchangeable—that doesn’t mean they were on the “right side” of history.

Second, the debate about the definition of marriage is not one of civil rights and especially not one of human rights.  Put simply, marriage is not a right—it is a social institution designed to perpetuate and reward behavior that society as a whole deems acceptable.  We do have a right to family: to live with whom we will, to love whom we will, and to have whatever children come from this relationship.  We have a right to whatever religious ceremony we wish to have performed (from those who wish to perform it), but we do not have the right to have this union recognized and rewarded by society as a whole.

Don't get me wrong-no one believes in the sanctity of the marriage covenant more than I do--as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I firmly believe that marriage for time and for all eternity is a blessing and the apex of the new and everlasting covenant with which we are saved (by the grace of Jesus Christ).  Nevertheless, when we are making public policy in a lone and dreary world and in a heterogeneous nation where many have divergent opinions, marriage must be treated as a social institution so that the morality of the majority can hold sway:

Therefore, when debating the definition of marriage, bemoaning the fact that some people aren’t accepted and cannot be rewarded for behavior that society disapproves of is not relevant.  Instead, we should approach the debate as one of pure morality: someone’s morality will be legislated, so we might as well be honest about it and legislate the morality of the majority, rather than obfuscate the whole debate with a smoke screen of “rights.” 

Third, while many gays and lesbians serve as model citizens and even heroes, this does not affect how homosexuality should be treated as a practice.  Chellew-Hodge infers  that since gays and lesbians are good people, we have to accept and reward their sexual deviances.  Using this vein of logic, I could also conclude that since plagiarism is conducted by many students who give to the community, that plagiarism should be rewarded.  Likewise, since many good parents eat their steaks very rare, that this behavior should be lauded and institutionalized.  Most gays and lesbians are good people: this does not mean that we have to reward (via marriage) all of their behavior. 

Finally, Chellew-Hodge falls into a trap that most gay-“rights” activists fall into: claiming that their adversaries have no part in any rational debate, and that any arguments they posit are simply homophobic:   “According to the Baptist Press, though, instead of a conversation, anti-marriage equality groups “will focus on two themes that have proven successful in other states: 1) children need mother and fathers 2)legalizing gay marriage will have negative consequences on religious freedoms and impact what is taught in elementary schools.”” [1] Rather than engaging these ideas on their own merits, Chellew-Hodge ignores the vast amount of data that support them.

Instead, she lightly dismisses these (and by extension, any argument favoring traditional values) as not part of any rational debate.  Of course, I can’t blame Chellew-Hodge specifically.  This instinct to demean all argumentation against her agenda is systemic: nearly all gay “rights” activists act this way.  This is because they wish to define “conversation” as meaning, “conversation with which I agree”. 

So what should we talk about in the debate about the definition of marriage?  In the end, the argumentation on both sides is normative, and the rational discussant will acknowledge the moral implications of all these points, recognizing that both sides have intelligent, passionate supporters.  This debate is inherently a moral one, and should be treated as such rather than as a group of intelligent, rational debaters lecturing a motley collection of hicks and ignorant religionists.

---