But
often the truth of the matter takes a bit longer to unpack than can be offered
in a thirty-second sound bite. A false assertion can be uttered in seconds,
while offering a well thought out response which exposes the problem or
mistaken assumption requires clear thinking, patience, energy, and time, virtues
and luxuries many people either can’t afford or don’t want to.
The
issue of same-sex marriage is a hot topic that is not going away anytime soon.
Christian apologists need to be persistent in clarifying the issues, especially
in the face of saucy slogans such as this.
So
what’s wrong with this oft-repeated cliché?
Problem #1: It Frames the Same-Sex
Marriage Debate as an Equal Rights Issue
“Denying
equal
rights…”
Indeed,
we are a culture obsessed with “equal rights” and “fair treatment.” A few weeks
ago I posted a blog titled Same-Sex
Marriage: Anne Hathaway, Reason, and Rhetoric. The post contained part
of a speech given by actress Anne Hathaway in which she appealed to the notion
of “equal rights” as justification for same-sex marriage. It is completely
understandable why defenders of same-sex marriage want to make it an equal
rights issue. After all, the public is much more likely to be sympathetic
toward a particular cause if they feel there is unfair or unequal treatment.
So
what’s wrong with framing same-sex marriage as an equal rights issue?
First, same-sex
marriage is not a right. No one has the right to demand their relationship be
sanctioned by the government. Melinda Penner of Stand to Reason states,
The real issue
is whether or not marriage is a right. It’s not. It’s no more a right than a
drivers’ license is a right…The only obligation to rights the government has is
to treat equally all citizens who meet the qualifications. If you pass the
driver’s test, you get a license. If you meet the qualifications for marriage,
you also get a license and recognition from the government. And in that
respect, everyone – heterosexual or homosexual – has exactly the same access to
marriage: Each is equally free to marry one person at a time of the opposite
sex.[1]
This
leads us to the second point.
Second, everyone
already has equal legal rights when it comes to marriage. This point cannot be
overstated and needs to be continually emphasized in this debate.
You
will often hear it said, “Homosexuals are not allowed to marry.” Actually, yes
they are.
Homosexuals
can
get married, and they do! They just can't marry someone of the same sex. And neither can a heterosexual. In
other words, there is no unequal protection under the law,
no
violation of the equal protection clause. The same law applies to all equally.
The same
definition of marriage applies to all, regardless of your sexual preference. Everyone,
whether heterosexual or homosexual, shares the same rights and restrictions,
including the restriction to define marriage as they see fit.
In
addition, many states already afford homosexual couples the same legal
rights, protections, and benefits through same-sex civil unions and
partnerships. They just don’t call it “marriage.”
The
fact that we all have equal legal rights when it comes to marriage is a very
important point which unfortunately is either ignored or overlooked by same-sex
marriage advocates. Same-sex marriage is not about equal rights, plain and
simple. It is about the redefinition of marriage and the desire for social
approval and promotion. It is an effort to convince a culture that same-sex
relationships are just as legitimate and natural as long-term, monogamous, heterosexual
marriage. This is something even prominent gay activists admit:
The trick is,
gay leaders and pundits must stop watering the issue down—“this is simply about
equality for gay couples”—and offer same-sex marriage for what it is: an
opportunity to reconstruct a traditionally homophobic institution by bringing
it to our more equitable queer value system,…a chance to wholly transform the
definition of family in American culture…Our gay leaders must acknowledge that
gay marriage is just as radical and transformative as the religious Right
contends it is.[2]
Third, we should
remember the concept “equals should be treated equally, and unequals
unequally.” Greg Koukl sums this up nicely:
The key to answering the claims of same-sex marriage
advocates is understanding the basic rule of justice: Treat equals equally. If
parties are not equal in a relevant sense, then there is no obligation of justice
to treat them the same.
When someone demands the same recognition for homosexual
unions as for heterosexual unions, remind him of the rule of justice. Then ask
if homosexual relationships are really equal with heterosexual ones. Does he
actually believe there is no essential difference between the two? If there are
essential differences, then the two are not equal and there is no moral
obligation to treat them as if they were.[3]
Heterosexual
marriage and same-sex marriage are unequal in numerous ways, including their
societal value and benefit.[4]
The government has a vested interest in promoting long-term, monogamous,
heterosexual marriage because these relationships produce the next generation
and are the best environment for raising children. There is no other two-person
relationship equal in societal value and benefit, including same-sex
partnerships, and hence, no other that should be labeled “marriage” or promoted
equally by the government. Jim Wallace explains:
We simply have to be honest when we evaluate the value of marriage to
our society. If all same sex relationships were eliminated from our society,
there would be NO impact on our society. On the other hand, if all traditional
opposite sex relationships were eliminated from our society, there would be no
society at all. There is a value difference between same sex relationships and
opposite sex relationships and this difference is marked by the word “marriage”.[5]
Furthermore,
defenders of same-sex marriage have no grounds to complain of injustice since
they have abandoned objectivity in seeking to define marriage as they see fit:
The only way a
claim of injustice or unfairness can stick is if we have a moral obligation to
view all sexual or emotional combinations as equal. But that depends on an
objective standard, and that is a concept already jettisoned when society is
asked to define marriage as they wish. If there’s a moral standard of fairness
to appeal to, then there’s a moral standard for marriage to appeal to, as well.[6]
Problem #2: It Relativizes Religious
Truth Claims and Relegates Them to Mere Belief
“…based
on your
religious
beliefs…”
This
statement reflects an attitude characterizing the way many people approach the
topic of religion: there is no rhyme or reason, no evidence or argument, no
proof in the pudding. When it comes to religion, you have your beliefs and I
have mine. Our religious beliefs are nothing more than personal preference and
subjective opinion.
Characterizing
your opponent’s position as “religious” is another powerful rhetorical device. In
our culture it allows you to dismiss the point of view without ever having to
engage the arguments, assess the evidence, or examine it seriously. This is
exactly what happens in the same-sex marriage debate. Notice three problems
with the “based on your religious beliefs” mentality:
First, it assumes the
only reason a person would oppose same-sex marriage is because of “religious
beliefs.” It also assumes religious beliefs are illegitimate in public
discourse or should be considered second-class to “secular beliefs.” Moreover,
it does not take into account the fact that there are numerous other arguments
against same-sex marriage, including those based on natural law, the societal
value and benefit of natural marriage, and the importance of promoting
two-parent biological parenting.
But
what if someone only has “religious” reasons for opposing same-sex marriage?
Does this automatically disqualify them from voicing their view in the public
square? Not at all. This leads us to the next two problems.
Second, it relativizes
religious truth claims, committing what is known as the subjectivist fallacy. When
Christians make claims such as “homosexuality is a sin” or “the Bible is the
Word of God,” it is not uncommon to hear people respond “that’s just your
view.” But this commits the subjectivist fallacy: treating objective truth
claims as if they were subjective preference claims.
So let’s be clear: when we as Christians
make truth claims about Christianity, morality, and the world we live in, we
are making objective truth claims, i.e., we are purporting to describe the
way the world actually is irrespective of personal opinion. Feel free to
disagree and muster your best arguments if you like, but do not take the
intellectually lazy and fallacy-friendly approach of simply dismissing them
without giving them the proper consideration they’re due. Recognize the nature
of such claims and avoid writing them off as mere subjective preferences, i.e.,
“that’s just your view” or “that may be true for you, but not for me.” If it’s
true, it’s true for you and me.
Third, it relegates
religious truth claims to mere belief. In other words, it assumes that religion
is not something that can be known to be true. It is only something that can be
believed. Religious truth claims can never rise to the level of
knowledge. While this mentality has unfortunately worked its way even into the
Church, it is not in line with historic Christianity.
Historically,
Christianity has not been regarded as a “faith tradition,” something that is
merely believed blindly absent good reason, but rather as a “knowledge
tradition,” something that can be known to be true based on adequate grounds.
This is an important point for Christians to grasp unless they want their views
to be continually marginalized in a growing secular culture. J.P. Moreland
elaborates:
Christianity
claims to be a knowledge tradition and places knowledge at the center of
proclamation and discipleship. The Old and New Testaments, including the
teachings of Jesus, claim not merely that Christianity is true, but that a
variety of its moral and religious assertions can be known to be true…If, then,
Christians do little to deflect the view that theological and ethical
assertions are merely parts of a tradition, ways of seeing the world from a
Christian “perspective” that fall short of conveying knowledge, they
inadvertently contribute to the marginalization of Christianity precisely
because they fail to rebut the contemporary tendency to rob it of the very
thing that gives it the authority necessary to prevent that marginalization
(i.e., its legitimate claim to give us moral and religious knowledge).[7]
He
goes on to state,
Given the crisis
of knowledge in our time, it is crucial that the church recover her confidence
that she is in possession of spiritual
and ethical knowledge in Holy Scripture primarily, but also in the history
of her thought about God, moral issues, the spiritual life, and other important
topics.[8]
So let’s be clear again: when we as Christians
make truth claims about Christianity, morality, and the world we live in, we
should be advancing these claims as knowledge claims, not mere beliefs. The
ability to claim knowledge in these areas comes with familiarizing ourselves
with the justification for our beliefs, the adequate grounds they are based on,
which in turn comes from cultivating the life of the mind. In other words, we
need to know what we believe as Christians and why we believe it. This will
help build our confidence and strengthen our faith, as well as restore
Christianity as a knowledge tradition in the Church and public square.
Problem #3: It Resorts to Name-Calling
“…is
still called bigotry.”
Assuming
that opposition to same-sex marriage is based on bigotry is not uncommon.
Again, this is rhetorically powerful. If you are able to vilify your opponents
through name-calling it further marginalizes their view and prevents their
voice from being effectively heard and reasonably considered. It automatically
shuts down civil debate and equates the raising of any moral criticism with
hate, preventing meaningful dialogue from ever taking place.
This
tactic was seen clearly in 2008 in the state of California. That year,
California voters went to the polls on a proposition which would define
marriage as between one man and one woman. The proposition was “proposition 8,”
conveniently turned into “proposition hate” by same-sex marriage supporters. Up
until Election Day, proposition 8 protestors held signs reading “No on H8,” “Love,
Not H8,” “End H8,” and the like. In their minds, that proposition 8 was
motivated by hate was a given. Likewise, the recent controversy surrounding Chick-fil-A and President Dan Cathy's statement in support of natural marriage resulted in protestors urging consumers not to buy "hate chicken."
Ironically,
as is often the case in moral issues, those who cry “tolerance” are often the
most intolerant. They tolerate you of course, as long as you agree with them.
But this isn’t “tolerance” in any meaningful sense of the word. Tolerance means
“to put up with” and therefore implies disagreement, otherwise you have nothing
to tolerate. Furthermore, tolerance applies to people, not ideas. All persons
are created equal, not all ideas. Treat other persons with
respect, but be intellectually intolerant toward bad ideas. That’s
true tolerance.
Contrast
this with labeling someone a bigot because they disagree with your view. This
fails to give them the proper respect that is due. It assumes all ideas are
equally true and valid. It amounts to nothing more than good old-fashioned
school-yard name-calling. It turns true tolerance on its head. Strangely
enough, it is the quintessential example of intolerance and bigotry par
excellence.
Conclusion: Setting the Record Straight
“Denying equal rights to another group
of human beings based on your religious beliefs is still called bigotry.”
Let’s
set the record straight:
- No one is being denied equal rights when it comes to marriage.
- Christianity is a knowledge tradition which makes objective truth claims.
- Name-calling is not an argument.
As
the controversial topic of same-sex marriage is debated, let’s remember to keep
these things in mind so meaningful dialogue on this important moral issue may
continue.
[1]
Melinda Penner, “Same-sex Marriage Arguments,” available at http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/same-sex-marriage-arguments.html.
[2]
Michelangelo Signorile, “I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO,” OUT, May 1996, pp. 30, 32 (emphasis in original), as quoted in
Glenn T. Stanton and Bill Maier, Marriage
on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 35.
[3]
Greg Koukl, “Treating Equals Equally,” available at http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5678.
[4]
Jim Wallace has done an excellent job of articulating some of the societal
values and benefits of natural marriage, especially with regard to children, in
his article “Should Government Recognize and Legalize Same Sex Marriage?”,
available at http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Should_Government_Legalize_Same_Sex_Marriage.
[5]
Jim Wallace, “Responding to Those Who Support Same Sex Marriage,” available at http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Responding_to_Those_Who_Support_Same_Sex_Marriage.
[6]
Greg Koukl, “Same-sex Marriage,” available at http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/01/samesex-marriage.html.
[7]
J.P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 76-77.
[8]
Ibid., 114 (his italics).
1 comment:
Awesome article! Thank you for writing it.
Post a Comment