The Same Sex Marriage Debate: "Discriminating" between logic and connotation
I recommend that before you read this article you first read "How Morality Proves the Existence of God", because a lot of the foundations for the arguments in this article come from that one. You will probably be able to follow this argument much easier if you have read the other article already.
As of the writing of this article, the issue of homosexual marriage or civil unions is a pretty hot topic in a lot of different arenas. New Jersey just decided to allow same sex civil unions. Virginia just voted in favor of a referendum for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. My own denomination, the PC(USA) is struggling over an "authoritative interpretation" that allows local ordaining bodies to decide that the requirement for ministers or elders to live either in chastity or in marriage between a man and a woman is "non-essential" (meaning they can ignore that provision and ordain people who openly live in defiance of it). So nobody can say this isn't a pretty volatile subject right now.
The point of this article isn't to promote animosity one way or the other. Instead, it is intended to clear up some of the logical mistakes made in the "propaganda machine." Because of everything else on this site you can probably figure out that Ten Minas Ministries is a pretty conservative Christian organization, so we are opposed to homosexual marriage. But one of the main points of this website is to make and evaluate logical arguments for the Christian position. I'm not going to tell anyone how to vote in any particular election because we are not a political organization and don't get involved in politics. However, I am going to defend the Christian moral position against homosexual marriage.
Almost universally, the main argument made against the Christian position is that it is discriminatory. For example, a letter to the editor in the November 4, 2006 edition of the Baltimore Sun said "Unfortunately, our society, with the encouragement of a political machine, has chosen to handle this the same way we have so often handled groups that make us uncomfortable - by discriminating against them" (11/04/06 Baltimore Sun, p. 13A, author Bryan Thanner). That's usually where the argument ends. It's discriminatory therefore it must be wrong.
There are a lot of terms in the English language that have taken on an extremely negative connotation, even if the actual definition does not necessarily support that connotation. "Discrimination" is one of them. "Prejudice" is another. In our society today, if you label something as "prejudiced" or "discriminatory", it is automatically assumed to be wrong. This negative connotation comes from the abominable institution of slavery that was practiced in our country. That practice was undeniably "prejudiced" and "discriminatory." It discriminated against people based solely upon their race. Race is obviously a completely irrelevant consideration to use to justify treating someone worse than everyone else. That is why racial discrimination even today is clearly wrong.
This negative connotation has even managed to creep into some definitions of "discriminate." For example, the Microsoft Word dictionary's first definition of "discriminate" is "to treat one person or group worse than others or better than others, usually because of a prejudice about race, ethnic group, age group, religion or gender" (emphasis added). Notice something about this definition. The first half of it says absolutely nothing about the motivation for treating someone differently from others. In fact, even the second half of the definition says that this different treatment is "usually" the result of the various motivations listed. It does not say it is "always" the result of them.
I am going to argue that we can treat people either better or worse than others, and therefore be "discriminating" against them, but do so with perfectly legitimate reasons. People in favor of homosexual marriage try to equate the "discrimination" against them with the discrimination based on race, ethnic group, religion or gender. My position will be that this is an inaccurate analogy, and the "discrimination" against homosexuals in regard to marriage is more akin to "discrimination" society undertakes in other contexts for reasons that are considered completely appropriate.
So what does "discrimination" really mean? In short, it means to treat someone or something differently based upon some class to which they belong. When that class is race, discrimination is atrocious. But is discrimination always wrong? No its not. There are some times when discrimination is entirely appropriate.
Let me give you an example. Do we treat convicted felons differently than people who are not convicted of felonies? Yes we do. Convicted felons get locked up in prisons. People who have not been convicted of crimes do not. So we "discriminate" against convicted felons. But I think most people would agree that in this context discrimination is acceptable. Why? Because the reason for discriminating is morally justified.
This is the problem with the argument against the Christian position on homosexual unions. Opponents only say that prohibiting same-sex unions is discriminatory, and leave it at that. The Christian would concede that point. Prohibiting these unions absolutely is discriminatory in the sense that it treats homosexuals who want to be married differently than heterosexuals who want to marry. It treats people differently (and denies them certain privileges) based upon the class in which they belong (in this case, the class is people who want to engage in same sex civil unions). The argument in favor of same-sex unions does not go far enough. It is not enough to just say that prohibiting same-sex unions is discriminatory. That much is obvious. You need to show why it is morally wrong to discriminate in this context. This part of the argument is usually missing.
Some people may try to make a distinction between discriminating against homosexuals and discriminating against felons because in the one case we are discriminating against someone on the basis of something they have no control over (i.e., sexual orientation) whereas in the other the discrimination is based upon a person's behavior, over which they have control. I do not concede that homosexuality is a predetermined trait. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. But I understand that many people will disagree with me on this point. So let's leave this aside for the moment and assume that attraction to members of the same sex is biologically pre-determined. This fact is completely irrelevant to the moral discussion because the basis for the "discrimination" is not what these people feel, but rather how they act on those feelings.
Many people who engage in behavior that is considered criminal, for example, have certain biological drives or temptations that they genuinely feel. But unless these drives amount to the legal definition of insanity, we still regard their behavior as criminal. Why? Because regardless of whatever genuine feelings they may feel, they still make a conscious choice to act on those feelings.
Even if attraction to members of the same sex is biologically predetermined, that fact is completely irrelevant. After all, morality, at least in part, by its very nature commands us to refrain from doing things that we legitimately want to do. A spouse who is considering infidelity is quite sincerely attracted to their potential paramour, but this real attraction does not make the affair morally acceptable. So the mere fact that we feel some biologically based desire to engage in certain actions does not make engaging in those actions correct. It is these actions that Christianity speaks out against.
This is the problem with homosexual marriage. You cannot divorce marriage from all it entails. In fact, in many (if not all) states, a marriage can sometimes be annulled as long as sexual intercourse has not yet occurred. Withholding sexual intercourse is also considered a ground for divorce. To claim that marriage, even in a civil context, does not come part and parcel with condoned sexual relations flies in the face of the facts. So permitting same sex couples to marry would be condoning sexual intercourse between them. It is this behavior (not any alleged biological predisposition) that is being "discriminated" against. So ultimately, there is no difference between this "discrimination" and other permissible forms of discrimination if the underlying behavior is morally impermissible.
So we have seen that sometimes it is right to discriminate. It is the justification for that discrimination that makes it wrong. So any meaningful conversation on this issue would have to be at the level of the justification. To try to convince people of your position by saying that your opponent's position is "discriminatory" is simply playing on your listener's emotions, capitalizing off the connotation that has come to embody a term without regard to whether that connotation fairly presents the issues.
So yes, prohibiting same-sex unions is discriminatory. But the proper response to this allegation is, "so what?" That's not the question we should be asking. Let's talk about the justification for that discrimination.
This is where this article starts to take a decidedly philosophical turn. The question of whether or not same sex unions are appropriate is a moral one. So we're going to evaluate it from the perspective of moral philosophy.
One of the big questions in moral philosophy is whether moral rules are objective or relative. This is a huge debate that is far bigger than what could reasonably be contained in this article, but I will present some general issues in order to illustrate how they impact the homosexuality question. For more details, see the article "How Morality Proves the Existence of God."
If moral rules are objective that means that there are universal moral rules that apply equally to everyone. If we want to decide who is right and who is wrong in any moral dilemma, we appeal to these objective moral rules for the answer.
If moral rules are relative, there are no universal moral rules to appeal to. Every person defines his or her own morality. As a practical matter, under a relative moral system there is no way to resolve moral dilemmas. No person's moral code is any more "right" than anyone else's, so if two people disagree, neither one is any more "right" than the other.
Christians believe morality is objective, coming from God's character. They also believe that God's morality dictates that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Oftentimes this gets oversimplified into, "the Bible says it's wrong so Christians think it's wrong." Very rarely do critics ever analyze why Christians believe the Bible is the foremost source of morality. Believe it or not, it's not just "blind faith." There are sound reasons behind it. If you want to understand how Christians come to this conclusion, first read the article "How Morality Proves the Existence of God", then "This Way, That Way, or Yahweh? Why You Should Believe in the 'Christian' God", parts 1, 2 and 3. The first article will teach you why Christians believe God is the source of morality, and the other three will explain why we believe that the Bible is an accurate statement of what God has told us. Therefore, if the Bible tells us something is immoral, then that is a direct statement about the ultimate source of morality, God Himself.
So if morality is objective, that leads to the conclusion that God exists and that He has spoken to us through the Bible. The Bible teaches that homosexuality is immoral, so it is immoral. The Bible gives us insight into the true objective moral law. Thus, objective morality would teach that "discriminating" against people who want to enter into same sex marriages is with a solid moral foundation. It is the type of discrimination we allow because we are limiting behavior that is morally impermissible.
So proponents of gay marriage certainly do not want to admit the existence of God, because to do so would doom their case. I've already explained in "How Morality Proves the Existence of God" that morality cannot exist without God. But let's pretend for the sake of argument that morality could exist without God. What would the two options be for those in favor of gay marriage? Either morality is objective (but we would need to come up with another source for morality other than God) or it is relative. But remember what is the leading explanation for the source of morality under both these systems...natural selection.
Natural selection supposedly weeds out moral rules that do not promote the survival of a society. So ask yourself "Does homosexual marriage promote the survival of a society?" No, it does not. A moral rule allowing marriage relationships that can never result in the propagation of the species certainly is not going lead to the survival of a society. So even under an atheistic worldview, there is no moral explanation for homosexual marriage. Natural selection should weed out any moral rule in favor of homosexual unions.
Finally, I would point out that there is an obvious biological design in the human body promoting heterosexual relations. Not only is the body designed for the physical compatibility of the male and female but there is a biological purpose served by this type of interaction. There is no such biological disposition for homosexual relations. Does this fact alone prove that homosexuality is immoral? No. But it does tend to show that our starting assumption should be one of skepticism. Then, when we combine that skepticism with the total inability to come up with any moral basis for permitting homosexual marriages, we are left with the conclusion that such unions are impermissible under either a theistic or atheistic worldview. The only arguments in favor of these marriages miss the issue. They argue that this is a matter of discrimination, but fail to go deeper to explain why such discrimination is impermissible. Whether you explain morality theistically or atheistically, there is no moral explanation for homosexual unions.
This article would not be complete without making one final point to any Christian out there who uses my conclusion to justify treating people who practice homosexuality abusively or as second-class citizens. Yes, homosexuality is a sin. But so are a number of other things, many of which I am sure you have committed. God teaches us that we are not to judge those outside the church. Our priority for them should be to teach them the gospel and invite them to come to Christ. We should always show them love, no matter what sin they have committed. Remember the saying "But for the grace of God, there go I." This is quite literally true. If it weren't for God's grace, you would still be stuck in your sins too, and I'm sure you would not want people to treat you with disrespect.
Obviously, unrepented homosexuality within the church is the same as any other unrepented sin. While we still must always show love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we also cannot shy away from calling a sin a sin. This is why we are all supposed to be accountable to the church for our behavior, and why Jesus tells us to confront fellow believers with their sin, first one on one, then with another member, and finally to bring the offender before the elders if he or she still does not repent. So while sin within the church must be dealt with, this does not mean we are to behave abusively toward others. Unfortunately, too many people use the lack of a moral foundation for homosexuality as a license for bigotry. Never fall into this trap. Remember, when we serve as representatives of our faith, we are to do so with "gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15).
God bless.
|