Facebook and Same-sex Marriage
While I was on my blogging sabbatical, a lot happened. In particular, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of redefining marriage to include unions between same-sex couples. In the run-up to the Court’s decision, Facebook was awash with memes, articles and status posts about the issue.
I’d like to spend today’s post reflecting upon some of the things I saw online this past month…
Observation #1: Everyone’s “Homophobic”
Although it should go without saying, it has to be reiterated that one can be in favour of retaining the traditional definition of marriage, without being homophobic. However, from what I saw on Facebook, to express the opinion that marriage should remain between one man and one woman, automatically casts you as a religious moron incapable of independent, logical thought.
Speaking for myself, throughout my career I have worked with a number of men and women whom I have known to be in active homosexual relationships. I have counted among my friends a number with same-sex attraction. I worked in Hillcrest for five years, the “gay district” of San Diego, where there is a gay pride festival each year and virtually all the stores have a rainbow flag posted in the window somewhere. I subscribe to the traditional definition of marriage but I bear no fear, animosity or hatred towards any of these people in my life. In fact, I actually try and go out of my way to be extra caring and loving towards them, expressly because they believe that Christians hate them.
Observation #2: Unconvincing Flowcharts
Many of my friends spoke out against those not in favour of Gay Marriage. Now, I’ve got no problem with people engaging in argumentation in order to support their position, after all, free speech is a core component in any civilized society, but I did start to wonder about the intended audience for some of the media being posted. In particular, I saw lots of flowcharts being shared, such as the following one:
I couldn’t help but wonder, who’s this meant to convince?
(a) Non-Christians?
These flowcharts can’t be intended to convince non-Christians since they quote the Bible, a book which is only authoritative for Christians. Non-Christians therefore can’t possibly be the target audience.
(b) Christians?
However, I don’t see how it could be meant to convince Christians either, given the weakness of the Scriptural argumentation. The Scriptural knowledge presented in many of these flowcharts is pretty atrocious and also betrays a very poor understanding of the place of Old Covenant Law in the Economy of Salvation.
So, if it’s not meant to convince non-Christians….and it’s not meant to convince Christians…who’s left?
Observation #3: Caricatured Arguments
I’ve also got the impression from Facebook that most non-Christians think that the sum total of the argument against homosexual marriage is simply that the Old Testament says it’s bad.
However, the Old Testament is not the totality of the Christian objection to homosexual unions. Not only can a case also be made from the New Testament and the Early Church Fathers, arguments can also be made using Natural Law…which don’t rely on any religion at all.
The clip below is of Ryan Anderson during a Q&A session, explaining why he thinks that marriage should be an institution which remains between one man and one woman. You will notice that he responds to the gentleman’s question without making any reference to religion. I would invite you to watch Anderson’s complete presentation. He asks some really important questions which I think need to be answered by those who would wish to come up with a new definition of marriage. In particularly, I would also encourage you to watch the Q&A, where he responds to those who object to his position.
If you prefer an article to read rather than a video, I would invite you to read Brandon Vogt’s post in which he responds to the common arguments in favour of same-sex marriage. Again, although he is a Christian, all of Brandon’s arguments are made without the invocation of any religious text.
If we wish to have a better quality of dialogue, and if supporters of same-sex marriage wish to convince Christians of the validity of marriage redefinition, then I would suggest that they must speak to the best arguments being made, rather than to Christian caricatures. The Westboro Baptist Church is not representative of Christianity and they do not speak for the rest of us.
If you would like to respond to this article, regardless of your position in the marriage debate, I would encourage you to please leave a comment below. Disagreements and objections are more than welcome. However, the objections should respond to either what I have written or to the videos I have shared. Any comments containing disrespectful language will be blocked automatically.
Great article, David and welcome back!
I think the natural law argument as well as Ryan Andersons view both have strong merit. They make sense to me. However, if we are honest with ourselves as a community of Christ followers, we have to admit that our core objection to Gay marriage is biblical. Therefore, the counter argument of the pro-gay marriage movement has some standing: Why should those of us who do not embrace your religious world view be required to live our lives in accordance with it? That is a fair question.
I do think there are answers to that objection. I also think the ruling will have unintended consequences that the majority in our society will come to regret.
Thanks 🙂
I’ll be posting exciting news in the next few days… [gasp!]
I wouldn’t call it the “core objection”. I might say that it’s the most powerful motivator for our demographic. After all, if I hold the Bible to be the Word of God, then what the Word of God says about an issue is going to carry a lot of weight for me personally.
It’s a bit of a lame parallel, but here’s a comparison. If a girl is dating a guy, her friends may urge her to break up with him, giving her very sound arguments as to why. However, if her parents (whom she holds in high regard) also express disapproval, their powerful influence may well sway her. The friends’ reasons may be valid, but one can hardly blame a girl for paying attention to what her parents think. The parents’ disapproval may be for the same reason as the girl’s friends. The argument might be the same, but it has a more powerful impact depending upon who is saying it.
I would say that, if that was the only reason, then it would be a perfectly valid objection. However, it’s not the only reason.
To pick another example, many throughout the centuries have found the creation passage (“…in the image and likeness of God…”) as a powerful argument in favour of the dignity and worth of each human person. Now, nobody is going to say to me “Why are you making us live in accordance with your religious beliefs?” Why? Well, there are other reasons for thinking that each human being has value. An agnostic might reject the argument from the Bible, but reach the same conclusion via another route. In a similar way, someone can reject the Biblical argument against same-sex marriage, but arrive by other argumentation.
So, the only thing that really matters is whether or not our Natural Law arguments are valid (if those are the arguments being proposed). As in the abortion debate, I find it rather frustrating when I argue my case using only secular arguments, only to have them discarded out-of-hand because I am a Christian, a classic example of the Ad Hominem fallacy.
“So, the only thing that really matters is whether or not our Natural Law arguments are valid (if those are the arguments being proposed). As in the abortion debate, I find it rather frustrating when I argue my case using only secular arguments, only to have them discarded out-of-hand because I am a Christian, a classic example of the Ad Hominem fallacy.”
I agree here. It seems that most people could care less about the Natural Law argumentation, because they “know” that our real objection is biblical.
I watched the Q&A video. Great stuff.
Exactly, and that’s what I’ve found so frustrating since it means that arguments remain unengaged.
Anderson’s stuff is great. I’d thoroughly recommend the video of his presentation. He’s also got a book coming out.
Thank you David and welcome back. Please excuse my bad English, I am writing from Spain.
I think the only way humans can have a real sexual intercourse are between a man and a woman. Otherwise their sexual cells won´t join together.
No body will know it is a biblical argument if I don´t tell were I found that idea: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Thank you again. We always read your posts. God bless you!!!!