When I saw the reaction against Chick-fil-A last week, I was moved to come out of hiding in regards to the “gay marriage” debate.
I could not remain silent after constantly seeing the mindless connection of bigotry with the widely held Christian position on marriage. It is becoming more and more common to portray the Christian view of marriage as bigoted. This is a deeply flawed point of view. And it is extremely dangerous because it violently polarizes good people on both sides and endangers the religious freedom of Christians.
This is not how the issue should be framed.
I wrote about “gay marriage” and this flawed logic on my blog last week and I am still reeling from the aftermath. Heated arguments with friends on Facebook. New Twitter followers who keep tabs on hateful people like me. Yikes. I am not the kind of person who likes to get involved in these things. Or, ok, maybe I am. But I am not the kind of person who likes to get involved in this particular issue.
I think there are a lot of Christians out there who feel the same way. Like me, you probably pulled up your oars for a while and thought, “Heck, there is a lot of discrimination and hatred against homosexual people. I’m against that and I am glad that people are fighting to change it. I know in my heart that the Christian teaching on marriage is true but why talk about that when homosexual people are fighting for the right to be treated fairly and with dignity?”
But this past week, I suddenly realized that I, along with many other Christians, have stopped rowing for way too long. We are all on a boat, clutching our oars, heading straight for the precipice of a waterfall. If we do not begin to speak out in love, our point of view on the beauty and value of marriage is going to become one for the history books. Christians will be unfairly counted as the new racists of the 21stcentury and the criminalization of teaching the Christian view of marriage will not be far behind.
So, what should we do?
Here are some ideas to get the discussion rolling:
1. Don’t Mix Issues – Young people are not on board. The Christian point of view has been successfully connected with bigotry and they aren’t joining us on that boat. I don’t blame them. We need to work on framing this in a way they understand. To me, that means we must stop conflating the issue of marriage and the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. We are not against same-sex marriage because we believe homosexual behavior is a sin. We are against same-sex marriage because we believe marriage excludes any other human relationships, sinful or not. Marriage speaks for itself.
2. Introduce Nuance and Subtlety – gasp! – How can we ensure that same-sex attracted people are not discriminated against while at the same time protecting marriage? That’s right, I said it. We should be concerned about their rights too. Christians cannot just be on the defensive. We need to promote a resolution of this issue from a uniquely Christian point of view. There is a reason the “gay rights” movement happened and it was not to just legitimize homosexual behavior. It was a response to violence and hate against a marginalized group of people, many of whom have been wounded and have suffered very much. If we can’t see that, then we are missing a very important part of this issue. As Christians, we are in a unique position to promote the human dignity of all.
3. Suggest Possible Solutions – If not marriage, what? What do we propose to address this very real problem in society? Should there be some kind of legal recognition of homosexual relationships? We may not agree with people who become involved in these relationships but that does not mean that, as a society it, makes sense to pretend they do not exist. It would make our argument a lot more effective if we put forth viable, realistic solutions.
4. Silent Christians Need to Start Talking – We need the silent Christians. The ones who snuck off to Chick-fil-A on Thursday, not because they like fast food, but because they sense something is starting to go wrong, very wrong. The ones who have homosexual friends and love their homosexual friends. The ones who don’t want to talk because it might offend. These are the people who are going to bring balance and gentleness to this discussion. You do not have to know all the right answers. In fact, it is better if you know you don’t have all the right answers. All you need is humility and love – this will be much more powerful than the right answers.
—
Nothing is more difficult than to be seen as a bigot. It is everything antithetical to being a Christian. But if we continue to pull our oars up and keep coasting, then the Christian point of view on marriage will be criminalized in the future. It is already happening all around the world. In Canada, Scotland, Spain, and many other countries priests and ministers who speak in support of the Christian view of marriage are under the threat of lawsuits, and jail time.
So, are we ready to put down the oars? Let’s bring balance, love, peace, and truth to this vitriolic debate.
[author] [author_image timthumb=’on’]https://ignitumtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/tnoble2.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Theresa Noble is a postulant, aka nun in training, with a religious congregation of sisters in the US. She left her job in California with eBay to follow God two years ago. She currently lives in a convent in St. Louis where she prays, evangelizes, bakes bread and blogs at pursuedbytruth.blogspot.com.[/author_info] [/author]
29 thoughts on “At the Precipice: “Gay Rights” & Religious Freedom”
While I agree with you that no one should be hated, your attempt to re-define the issue is one of metaphysical solipsism. Marriage is both a religious (sacramental, I believe RC’s would say) and civil/legal. These are separate institutions and flow from separate authorities. Catholicism flows from biblical precept and magisterial tradition. Civil/legal/governmental authority flows from rights of the constitution and intention of the founders. The founders were clear that the US is not a Christian nation.
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” Signed by President John Adam and voted by the US Senate in 1797. Hence, separation of church and state. Massachusetts allows and solemnizes gay marriage as a civil right.
So the issue properly phrased would be: The RC Church has every right and obligation to insure that its adherents not enter into gay marriage, It, generally, does not bless gay marriage or gay union. Some Christian denominations are beginning to bless gay unions. But it s the right of the Church and its authorities to maintain and enforce their beliefs. On the other hand, it is the right and the obligation to enforce and allow gay marriage as a civil institution. Even DOMA has been declared unconstitutional in a number of lower courts. So, each institution is separate and each institution should be allowed it beliefs are rights.
The state has NO right to demand that the RC Church approve or recognize gay marriage; the RC Church has no right to tell the state how to define marriage as a civil matter. Bigotry rears its ugly head when competing institutions attempt to impose their beliefs on the other institution. If people respected others beliefs there would be no bigotry, less hatred and less judgement. Bigotry stems from a belief that one group is better than the other, that one god is better than other’s gods, that one belief is superior to be belief of others.
The Chick-fil-A debacle is ridiculous because it is an attempt to infringe on others 1st amendment rights to free speech; it is also ridiculous because it makes each side more entrenched in their beliefs. People need to leave each other alone. Let the religious believe as they must; let the civil believe as they will … that is the foundation of this country and a flight from bigoty.
I have attempt to frame my beliefs with respect and I hope I was successful.
Phil – This is a common argument and a way that secular people try to push Christians out of the public sphere. However, it is an erroneous portrayal of our faith. Christianity is a faith based on the foundation of reason. Reason that we believe is accessible to all. Therefore, we make arguments about the nature of marriage that are based on logic and reason, as well as faith. This is not disingenuous or a cover-up. This is our faith.
The reasons Christians are against same sex marriage are varied but they spring from reason and what we believe are important values in any society, Christian or otherwise. People may disregard our opinion but it cannot be because we are people of faith.
I’m fed up with the accusation of bigotry and we do need to speak out with clarity, firmness and charity. Gay Rights groups have successfully legislated to get the US government out of their bedrooms, but now seek to convince society their way of life is equivalent to the dominant heterosexual norm. It is not. Until religions and traditional families (in public schooling) can be protected from this proposed legislation the culture wars will continue. It is cultural suicide through social engineering and once the definition of matrimony is changed there is nothing to prevent further deviations that harm society like polygamy. There are even groups lobbying to overturn historic incest laws and lower age of consent.
Something to think about….interesting article at the link.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15172&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&u
@Theresa
To say that the Abrahamic religions are based upon the foundation of reason insults everyone of us, including me. This type of reasoning is the basis of bigotry. Faith is faith and quite an honorable attribute; reason is based up the human mind, research, the sciences and numerous other factors. The Westboro Baptist Church people based their beliefs on supposed faith and reason…which I assume are beliefs we would both reject and probably condemn…does that make us bigots?
Phil, This might be an interesting read for you: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
Pure opinion: “Encyclicals are authoritative, not to be criticized or rejected lightly by members of the church, but they are not infallible.” Rev. John Langan, S.J., of Georgetown University and the Catholic Word Book. But, thanks for the reference
Phil, I was not suggesting it to you as dogma. I was suggesting it to you because it speaks of the relationship between faith and reason, which is something that you seem to be interested in and think is not related. I would be interested to know how you think John Paul II’s ideas are wrong, rather than all too easily dismissing them as opinion….
OK, will read because you have been kind and will give you feedback, but it will take me some time before I get back with my analysis. Thanks…
Pingback: St. Dominic Cultural Malaise Blessed John Paul II Presbyter | Big ☧ulpit
Thanks Phil, I look forward to hearing what you think.
Well, as promised, I did read JP2’s Fides et Ratio (1998) twice. I do admit a bias upfront which I will explain in my last paragraph. Frankly, I was left quite unimpressed by the rationalization that faith and reason are likened to two wings of the same horse. This encyclical is JP2’s opinion about the compatibility of reason and faith in very Thomastic metaphysical solipsism. It is not writing which is accessible to the common Catholic without an extensive background of philosophy, theology, cosmology, etc. JP2 (or his ghost writer) attempts to have us believe that faith informs reason and vice versa….well.
There is an insipid attempt to deride those who demythologize Catholicism and JP’s writing understates and rejects the profound effects of the ancient mystery religions of Alexandria and the church’s destruction of those writings in the early centuries. He fails to reveal that much of Catholicism was based on the incorporation of the underpinnings of the Church from earlier paganism and Gaia. He fails to note the deviation of the role of matriarchy and its transition into a patriarchal structure.
Reason is based on science, research use of evidence and logic. Faith is inspired by Scripture and tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium. History informs us that Scripture was a product of numerous revisions and standardized by Constantine. History and research informs is that Scriptures leaves out the many writings which were identified in the Nag Hamaidi finds . History and science of scriptural research is refuted by science.
To asset that the Magisterium is the arbitrator of truth as JP does in Chapter 5 (49-63) invalidates the notion that reason is compatible with faith. Anyway, his reliance on Thomism is what is most deeply troubling to me. Again the Summa T and Summa Contra Gentiles are writing inaccessible to the common man and also riddled with error. I am reminded of Aquinas’ theory of ensoulment which is guided by his faith and reason, He deduced that the fetus-child was ensouled somewhere between 7 and 40 days after birth, so infanticide was more grave or less grave depending on if the child had a soul. Reason and faith then are soundly rejected today.
I don’t want to go on because JP rejects sound philosophy, intermingles faith and reason and allows the magisterium to triumph reason…hence invalidating his original premise. The encyclical was written to placate modern theologians, period. It provided nothing to the common man.
Personally, I reject any notion of an anthropomorphic god, reason and examination of ancient mystery religions have led me to this conclusion. I have knowledge but no faith. Knowledge has been informed by reason. I am sure you are aware that there were 30 dying-rising gods prior to Jesus beginning with Horus, son of Isis and Osiris in the Eqyptian Book of the Dead about 2000BC. All 30 had nearly identical stories and all based on astro-theology…all born at the winter solstice, all in caves, poverty, all visited by wise men, all led by a star, all of virgins, all teachers of truth, all crucified either on stakes, trees or crosses and all rising after three days. Knowledge informs reason, reason rejects faith.
One does not need a god to explain anything. I care 24/7 for a totally disabled son and I mean totally, not because of a god’s will, not because of faith, but purely because my species is meant to take care of its children. I reject being considered good or virtuous and I get insulted when people tell me they will pray for me. I do what is required of me as a primate and I do it with joy…life is simpler this way.
Further, I have much difficulty with JP. He praised and held as a model Marcel Maciel , founder of the Legion of Christ, who paid off the Vatican has numerous wives and children, abused seminarians and the Regum Christi schools who led in the officious abuse of potential numeraries. JP2 knew about Maciel and covered it up…thankfully B16 intervened. As notorious was his support of the “saintly” Agnes Bojaxhiu who knowingly cavorted with the Duvalier’s of Haiti and Charles Keating who scammed the elderly. No wonder the one miracle attributed to her intervention was disavowed by the woman’s doctor and her husband. People are known by the company they keep.
I said I would respond and I did. Feel free to refuse to post, delete or refute…I will not be offended.
Theresa, thank you so much for this post. It is clear to me that many of my peers associate themselves with the gay rights movement out of a simple sense of justice; the bigotry (that apparently and unfortunately exists) is obviously wrong, and they react against that. They have energy and good will, but they haven’t been exposed to credible Christian witness on this subject. A number of liberal Christians of various denominations have spoken out, but the silence of conservative Catholics in particular has been harmful to the overall image of Christianity on this subject. However, even when they do speak out, it is all too easy to fit their words into the caricatures that are perpetuated by various media. In order to make the defense of the Sacrament of marriage a credible one, it will be necessary to speak up loudly not only in defense of marriage, but in defense of our brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction.
As for faith and reason, Pope Benedict XVI has spoken frequently and eloquently on the subject. The Regensberg lecture (which can be found at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html ), which is probably best-remembered for inspiring riots in various parts of the world, is actually an exploration of the topic. The influence of Greek philosophy on the development of Christianity is profound and undeniable.
@Phil – I appreciate that you read the document and gave me feedback. That effort is more than most people would put forth, and it shows your desire to be open to another’s point of view, (although I agree with you that you came to the document with a good bit of bias and I think it may have led you to read motivations into the writing that were not there).
However, the point is that you stick by your original assertion that faith is unrelated to reason. You state that Science is reason. But I would suggest to you that there are many atheists who have come to faith through Science and many scientists who are people of faith. They are people of faith, not because they see their field as completely unrelated to faith but because they see the ultimate Logic in the logic of Science. Reason certainly does not lead us all the way to faith, otherwise what is faith? But reason leads us to the point where we can make that leap. You have not made that leap because your reason has not led you to a place where you can make it. I respect that. You are being true to what you have discovered thus far and you remain open to what others believe – you are an honest atheist in my opinion.
As for your situation with your son, saying that you are doing your duty as a primate is bit underselling yourself. Many people would have done otherwise. People leave their spouse, and children all the time when tragedies strike. Something has kept you there, and something has given you the ability to find joy in the difficulty of your situation. Perhaps it is your recognition that it is the moral choice. For me, I could only credit God if I behaved as you have because I know that by myself I would do otherwise and escape the sacrifice. I understand if you reject that assessment but I also think there is more to your situation than doing your duty as a primate. Many primates would have acted otherwise. This post came to mind when I thought about this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html
@Tim – I agree with you completely. If we do not marry (forgive the pun) our respect for the human dignity of gays with our message on marriage, we will not be taken seriously and already are not taken seriously by younger generations. The silence on the part of Christians on this subject is really a shame. We should have been at the forefront of this movement, only from a Christian perspective.
Thanks for your respectfulness, it is a rare quality in our world…one correction, I am not atheist, rather a quite sincere pantheist!
Ah a sincere pantheist then! 🙂
Thank you for this article! It helped put a lot of my thoughts in coherent structure! I think point #2 you mentioned is the one most easily missed by Christians.
Welcome to White Martyrdom. “The state has NO right to demand that the RC Church approve or recognize gay marriage; the RC Church has no right to tell the state how to define marriage as a civil matter.” This comment and the thesis of this article are *patently incorrect*. Societies are bound to respect the natural law of God and right reason whether there is separation of church and state or not. Not to do so is to incur the fall of society. You need only look at history to see that. Both of you need to go to the Vatican website and read: The Holy See: Effects Of Alternative Unions On Society, PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY, MARRIAGE AND “DE FACTO” UNIONS. Also I recommend The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. This has already been studied and done for you–no need to form your own ideology.
That Hat Lady, I am really not sure what thesis you are responding to in my article.
Thank you so much, Theresa! This resonated so well with conversations I’ve had with friends secular, Catholic and Protestant alike. And I think you hit the nail on the head with points 1 and especially 2. Oh and 3 and 4 too. Thank you
You are welcome Addie! I was hoping to give voice to those sensible, kind dialogues that many of us have with friends on this issue.
Theresa,
You write quite well, but I must disagree with you on a number of issues.
“To me, that means we must stop conflating the issue of marriage and the sinfulness of homosexual behavior.”
Sorry, but that can’t happen. The reason why two people of the same sex cannot marry is precisely because of the sinfulness of that behavior. Sex and marriage go together and cannot be separated. As you know, a marriage is not complete until the couple have consummated it. If a couple pronounce vows before the Church’s minister (or any minister or the JP or whomever) and two witnesses, but then never have sexual intercourse, that marriage is invalid. The purpose of that sexual union is two-fold — to unite the couple in love and to be open to the possibility of children. And since homosexual actions are, of necessity, sterile, that is one reason why their sexual activity is immoral, so they can never have valid “marriages.” Separating sex from marriage is like separating the two H’s in H20 — you get something else other than water.
“How can we ensure that same-sex attracted people are not discriminated against while at the same time protecting marriage?”
Discriminated against, how? Look, if I own a day care center, I’m not going to hire a couple of women with same-sex attraction to look after the kids. What kind of influence are they going to have on those children? If I run a Scout troop, I’m not going to let a man struggling with same-sex attraction look after them because I don’t want to set him up for temptation or set those kids up for possible abuse. This kind of discrimination is perfectly just. It’s like you don’t hire a convicted bank robber to be a bank teller. If they want to get an espresso at a coffee shop, buy groceries, work in a factory, then let them. But if they are going to be in a position where they can wrongly influence children or the general good of society, then it is not unjust to discriminate against them in holding those positions.
“If not marriage, what?”
Nothing. The question implies society must give some recognition to make an intrinsically moral evil valid. But we do not recognize a 32-year-old man claiming to “love” a 12-year-old girl. We do not recognize three people claiming to “love” one another. We do not recognize a man claiming to “love” his dog or any other beast. But if we base our idea of marriage solely on the whims of loving feelings, then anything goes and we are going to be forced to recognize these relationships as having validity.
Homosexual behavior is not something society should recognize as valid. It is not, as Oscar Wilde claimed, “The love that dare not speak its name.” It is the disordered lust that proclaims itself to be supreme, which is why you are running into the problems you’re citing. If two men or two women want to live with each other, sin with each other and give each other their property in private, that’s up to them. But there is no need for society to grant it any recognition since it offers absolutely no benefit for the common good — instituted sin never does.
I know that I will instantly be branded a “hater,” but that actually illustrates my point. I am clear that I am talking about actions being wrong and actions wrongly influencing society, not persons being inherently bad or evil because of those actions. But in general, homosexual activists cannot separate their actions from their persons. Their identity is caught up in what they think they are impelled to do. This seeming impossibility, this incapacity to see themselves as anything more than sexual urges that must be satisfied and given justification at all costs — this is what is causing the division in our society over this issue and it is not something to which we should yield.
I believe that a recent article in Public Discourse by Robert Oscar Lopez (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065) illustrates what I have said quite well.
@ Thomas
Too many non sequitur arguments in your post….
(1) no marriage because of sinfulness of behavior. If you are a Roman Catholic this is true; if you believe in other faiths and systems of belief…it’s untrue. The American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Assn, American Psychological Association would also say this is untrue. The church changes its mind too..remember when the world was dogmatically flat? Physical and cultural anthropologists would say say same sex behavior is common in the primate kingdom of which we are members. The state does not define marriage and consummation (in your definition) in the same way you do. Catholic doctrine does not rule nor supercede state rights unless you’re a Catholic.
(2) re: you’re not hiring two lesbians to work in a day care center is pure nonsense. Gays or lesbians are not attracted to young children. Pedophiles and ephebophiles are attracted to young children or younger adolescents. Most peds and ephebs are heterosexual, as evidenced in the Catholic Church abuse crisis and psychiatric research. You would not allow a pedophile to work in day care or the scouts…but, those are usually hetersexuals.. This is the epitome of a non sequitur.
(3) If not marriage what? Well, the RC Church is the final word on what constitutes marriage in the Catholic faith. The state is the final word on what constitutes marriage in the public sector. The state would never have the RC Church accept gay marriage; America is not a Christian nation and should be dictated by the Constitution and the will of the people not a church.
I do not write to condemn your beliefs or to brand you as a hater. I write because I treasure the first amendment “freedom of religion and freedom from religion.” There was a valid reason for the Jeffersonian separation of church and state. I line in a state (MA) which allows gay marriage. I am a heterosexual and long married man, but I believe in freedom of expression and freedom of worship. Also if you notice, Jesus never spend much (any) time taking about homosexuality which was rampant in his day…I guess he had many more important things on his mind. Paul spoke about it, but in true translation he spoke about “call boys” which were a problem in Ephesus. Forget Leviticus, because those words condemn everything including eating shellfish, pork and espousing slavery….
Please let Catholics be Catholics, let others be whomever they need to be! I believe in dialogue not name calling!
@Phil: I believe that you are well-read and very thoughtful. However, I believe that many of our points that you label ‘non sequitur’ really have another response for you; yet, so few Catholics are well read + sadly, few are very educated to further discuss w/you. I believe that something spiritual is stirring in you to even be here, and I wonder if the very popular Father Robert Barron you-tubes and blogs may have the “meat” that you are seeking to digest. Best wishes.
@Thomas – “The reason why two people of the same sex cannot marry is precisely because of the sinfulness of that behavior.” – This is not true Thomas. We do not exclude gays from marriage because their behavior is sinful, just as we do not exclude cohabitating men and women from marriage because that is sinful. We exclude gays from marriage because the definition of marriage itself excludes partners of the same sex. We believe this definition to be the most beneficial to society, therefore we oppose redefining it. Speaking of sin to a secular world makes the basis of our message sound purely religious and easily dismissed. I am not saying it is not important, I am simply saying it is logically unrelated and not necessary in this debate. See my other post for more detail: http://pursuedbytruth.blogspot.com/2012/08/shame-on-america-magazine-and-all-of-us.html
As for your second point, I believe this is where Christians lose credibility. We have lost the ability to have true compassion for people who struggle with SSA and to see how they truly have been the subject of hate, violence and true bigotry. Your inability to separate a person’s behavior from their SSA is the very same mistake that gay rights advocates make – a person is not defined by their sexual attractions. I have good Catholic friends who struggle with this – should they be excluded from ministry or work in the Church simply because they struggle with these attractions? This is where true prejudice does play a role in the views of many Christians, and that is discrimination from my point of view. As for your third point, I appreciate your point of view and was not suggesting any sort of solution but raised that as a discussion point. I wonder if there are any Catholics who have analyzed the specific rights that gay couples desire and if it is really plausible, or reasonable, to deny all of these rights on the basis of reason and natural law. I do not know myself, so I do not pretend to be an expert. But we do live in a secular, pluralistic society and we need to be able to frame things from the standpoint of reason and natural law, otherwise we lose credibility.
I linked to the incorrect blog post in my response:
http://pursuedbytruth.blogspot.com/2012/08/im-christian-not-bigot-thanks.html
I am in support of full CIVIL rights for everyone (which would include marriage between 2 same gender people) and I think we Christians are arguing from a position of weakness when we see that half of our Christian Heterosexual marriages fail. As much as I want to live in a decent, respectful and moral society, I am embarrassed by those who seem to have to goal of creating a Theocracy.
The issue that really frightens me, however is the militant fringe people who will not be happy to live as they wish and allow me (as a Catholic) to live as I wish with Catholic marriage having a narrow definition.
I have never before been as “gloom and doom” about a social issue as I am with this. I am just finishing reading “Catholic Martyrs of the 20th Century” and the stories all over the world over the course of a hundred years have repeating themes…that elements of devout practice were outlawed and clergy were imprisoned and killed for following the faith. I am convinced that there will be those who will say “I have a RIGHT to a Catholic wedding” (the same way that militant non-Catholic in DC demanded communion at her mother’s funeral) and when Priests refuse, they will be arrested and imprisoned and the access that Catholics have to sacraments will dwindle to non-existant. I hope Im wrong but I fear that Im not.
Perinatal Nurse,
Christians are not opposed to gay marriage solely for religious reasons. Many Christian truths can be supported by natural law and reason, not just through faith. Your stance is a common stance and one that I was tempted to take. Unfortunately, many good-hearted Christians like yourself do not want to be considered bigots so they choose this path of reasoning. But, opposition to gay marriage is neither bigoted nor unreasonable. My last blog post addressea the accusation of bigotry:
http://pursuedbytruth.blogspot.com/2012/08/im-christian-not-bigot-thanks.html
And an article in First Things addresses the claim that opposition to gay marriage is religious, not reasonable:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/08/opposing-gay-marriage-is-rational-not-religious
You are certainly correct, we have lost credibility as Christians because divorce, even within couples of faith, have increased dramatically. Our human fallibility and mistakes, however, does not affect the truth.
In conclusion, I think your fear that this is going to affect religious freedom is well founded precisely because this is being falsely framed in terms of civil rights. There is no distinction made between behavior and person. The Church believes homosexual behavior is wrong, not being homosexual. Very few note this distinction or think it is relevant. I don’t foresee the government forcing churches to marry gay couples in the near future. But I do believe it will affect other things, hiring practices for example.
“many Christian truths can be supported by natural law.” This is absolutely untrue…Natural law is a function of human interpretation of nature supported by science. There is much same sex behavior among primates. Cultural anthropologists and physical anthropologists affirm that same-sex behavior among primates, human are primates. Science does not support a homosexual prohibition, research does not support such a taboo…Catholic scripture prohibits “call boys.” Christ spent NO time talking about homosexuality, so it wasn’t an issue for him.
I fully accept the Catholic prohibition…you cannot extend it to natural law. Historically, there are few cultural taboos…homosexuality is not presented as a taboo. The RC Church may believe same sex behaviors are wrong, and that’s ok; don’t attribute the prohibition to natural law….that’s a non sequitor.
Phil – Your views are certainly representative of many. However, there is good basis for what I claim. The First Things article may interest you.