I heard something today that I wanted to respond to.
While discussing gay marriage, someone said, "Okay, take your religion out of it and tell me why you are opposed to gay marriage."
Unfortunately, I wasn't the person who was asked this question. My response would have been as follows:
No.
I will *not* take my religion out of it. My religion is the single most important thing in my life. It is in every decision in my life, or at least I want it to be. Asking me to take my religion out of an issue like this is very much like asking me to take away my desire to live, and then explain why I'm opposed to nuclear war. It's like telling me to ignore my desire to provide my own livelihood, then explain why I'm opposed to Communism.
That's called checking my religion at the door, my friend.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has been very open and clear about our stance on gay marriage: we oppose it. I wholeheartedly embrace that stance. I will be honest that I do not know all the reasons behind it, but that hasn't kept me from obeying any other commandment (great example: why is coffee bad? I couldn't tell you--but I believe the church is true, and I believe it's a commandment to not drink coffee. Ergo, I don't drink coffee). From a religious standpoint, then, we believe that gay marriage is wrong, and furthermore that homosexual relations are wrong. In point of fact, we believe that *any* sex act outside of a marriage (between a man and a woman) is wrong--from porn and masturbation all the way up to sex outside of marriage. Somewhere on that continuum of things we do not support is homosexual activity. Allowing these people to marry one another is condoning those actions, which I cannot and will not do. It also adds a new and complex layer to our social fabric-what happens if they want to join our church? We do not support divorce (Call me old-fashioned if you must. I won't argue), and yet we would be forced to recommend it as a necessary action before baptism can happen.
From a religious standpoint, particularly in our church, I see no room to argue. We do not support it. Some of my friends in the church have spoken out in favor of it, and it pains me. I can see no way to reconcile that difference. I am trying very hard not to judge those people; I know they have trials and circumstances that are different than mine and of which I am unaware. If I'm honest, I have to admit that I see them getting sucked in to exactly what we were warned against all the way back in 1995, when our church released the Proclamation to the World on the Family.
Finally, since the question was asked, I do believe that there are reasons that are not exactly religious to oppose gay marriage. If people are concerned about gay couples not getting the same treatment as married couples in legal affairs, perhaps there is room for improvement in that part of the law. Perhaps two people who live together and depend on each other should get more legal benefits than they do now, regardless of their romantic connection with each other. That, I could support. If people are concerned about tax benefits for gay couples compared to married couples, I think there is a fundamental difference; one of the main things that distinguishes married couples from gay couples is the potential for children--even though this is a fading trend, I believe that the vast majority of marriages are intended to produce children. I think the favorable tax treatment given to married couples is intended to subsidize that, and I don't think gay couples should get the same subsidization. A case could be made for some tax credit being given to gay couples, but even that I would not support unless some help was also being given to other similar pairs or groups of people who live together and depend upon each other; for example, I know of a pair of elderly sisters who have moved in together. I would support giving them more tax benefits than they probably get, and I suppose similar benefits could be extended to gay couples. In my mind, this would fix the real issues that gay rights groups are trying to tackle with the marriage issue.
Finally, there is the prevalent argument that gay people should be able to marry those whom they love. I will admit that this is a difficult argument. I must first say that I don't believe for a second that the leaders of this movement actually have love in mind at all--political agendas and the tax/legal implications mentioned above have much more to do with it, in my mind (Don't get me wrong, the leaders of most groups are subject to the same sins, but that's for another post). Still, many of the rank-and-file supporters believe strongly in this argument. At the same time, there are a great many people I love that I should not be allowed to marry. Thankfully, I personally would not be interested in marrying most of them, but that is not to say that others might not want to, and if we allow people to get married based only on love, who is to say that they can't?
Marriage is for a man and a woman. It has among its foundational concepts and purposes the creation of children. Anecdotal evidence about specific cases of a child raised by same-sex parents aside, I believe a child has better chances of being more well-rounded and more adaptable when they have been raised by a mother and father, not two people of the same gender. Sex is not just for fun, it is the power to create life, and whether you believe in God or not, I don't see how you can take that power lightly. I don't support subsidizing relationships between two people of the same sex, so they can use the power to create life for nothing but personal indulgence. Old-fashioned? You bet it is.
So is Sinatra music.
Good job, Brett! Great to hear from you. Love the analogies about communism and nuclear war! The government should not even be in the business of licensing marriage. The whole marriage license thing started with attempts to prevent interracial marriage. Marriage is ordained of God unto man, and the government has nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteThe flaw with this argument is that not everyone knows the Church is true yet. If they did, it would be a no-brainer, BUT since this decision addresses not only members of the Church, but people of other faiths and atheists too. It wouldn't be fair for us to measure them against our belief system. They're not ready, and they don't believe in it. We wouldn't be letting them "worship how, where, or what they may." Yes, if you believe it, the Gospel has the answer to everything, but the rest of the world doesn't know that yet. That doesn't mean we should check our religion at the door. We should take counsel from our religion and then make a decision. BUT for everyone eles, the Gospel can't be the answer. They don't believe it. ...yet.
ReplyDeleteThe best explanation I think I've heard is this:
"...my personal opinion at this point is that accepting these beliefs about marriage to be true suggests that marriage is in fact “an establishment of religion” and is outside the jurisdiction of our government. Therefore, the government has no right to define marriage as one thing or as everything. It seems most appropriate to me for the government to recognize every legal, romantic partnership, whether hetero- or homo- sexual, as a “civil union,” permitting every person, group, church, etc. to believe, according to their wishes, that their union or another’s does or does not qualify as a “marriage.” If, in such a case, there are particular benefits extended to, or restrictions placed upon, a certain version of the “civil union,” such benefits or restrictions should be based upon empirical evidence of improvement or detriment to society caused by such a union."
In my opinion, that should be the only business the government has in the situation.
Abi,
ReplyDeleteI get that, I really do, but first of all, a lot of my argument is focused towards other members of our faith--I was talking about members of our church who are actively supporting gay marriage. I can't make a final decision about it without my religion being involved, and I think it's pretty clear what we've been asked to do. Even if it seems like we're not letting people worship 'how, where, or what they may,' we aren't actually taking rights away from anyone. Gay marriage won't have that big of an effect on their ability to live together, fall in love with each other, or do virtually anything else they would want together. All it comes down to is a piece of government-issued paper, a few more legal protections, and a few more tax benefits. Those things aren't connected to religion and maybe shouldn't be connected to marriage.
Secondly, our national 'moral compass' has always been, as I understand it, a compromise of the morals of every group of people who cares enough to vote. Sadly, I think this has been skewed in recent years by growing voter apathy and increasingly militant extremists (not on this issue, but on pretty much every issue on both sides of the line). But that means that we, as members who *do* believe the gospel is the answer to everything, need to stand up for it. If we don't say anything for fear of imposing our ideals on others, others' ideals will be imposed on us. That is guaranteed, in our current political climate.
Finally, , I think that the legal benefits (especially the tax benefits) granted to married couples really are, and really should be, directly connected to the potential for kids. We are trying to incentivize families. Like you said in the second to last paragraph you quoted-'benefits extended to a certain version of a civil union should be based on empirical evidence' of what they *do* in society. Bringing kids into the world is the job of a man and a woman, married. We also believe that kids have a better chance of every good thing when they are born and raised in that way. More well-balanced, loving input from two dedicated parents who have all the unique attributes that men and women have. In my opinion, that's where there's the most evidence that benefits are deserved.
I don't honestly expect my comments to sway anyone's opinion, least of all those outside of our faith, but I see worlds of difference between fighting for this and imposing my religion on someone else.
Getting the government out of something they already have their hands in? Pssh. You're funny, Abi. =P That would be lovely. It would also be, maybe, the first time in history that the gov'mt willingly gave up control of something?