http://www.commercialappeal.com/videos/detail/pastors-speak-out/
I tried to think of ways to improve the level of discourse on this subject. The pastors should know that their Bible arguments are meaningless unless the other party shares their religious beliefs. The supporters of the new policy could try to shout louder, but unless the sides can first negotiate a common reality, they will have no basis for understanding each other.
So, I thought about it.
I couldn't think of any secular reason to oppose gay marriage and gay rights. So I googled, "are there any reasons to be be against gay marriage that aren't religious". Sure enough, there were some lists. Not a good reason among them. These people came off as more homophobic than the religious crowd. I need to learn that if a person or pastor has a good reason for an argument, he will tell me right off the bat. (This isn't the first time I've taken the responsibility of trying to justify irrational arguments.) If there is a good objective reason, it must be in the category of unknown unknowns, because no one seems to know what it is. Just to be fair, someone in the crowd tried to bring up the question of whether the county could afford this change. No one wanted to talk about that. Certainly the pastors didn't care. They opposed the policy change on "moral" grounds - not economic.
So why is this matter so important to some religious people? No one is making them change anything. They can continue to believe what they have always believed. They can continue to preach against homosexuality in their churches. What are they afraid of? Because that is what it is - fear.
Ms. X who was never concerned that her children saw her lie, steal, cheat and pursue other un-Christian goals, would become consumed with self-righteous rage over the issue of homosexuality. She would cry, sob, wail - I'm trying to describe how extremely emotional she would get over something that did not affect her life one iota. What she most feared, what she was most upset about was, "What if my children see?"...The answer is obvious. "Nothing" happens - even if she maintains her belief, as she has every right to do, that homosexuality is sinful. All she has to say is that not all people have the same beliefs as they do.
If I ask myself, "What would Jesus do?" I'd say that he wouldn't be worrying about the sins of others, he'd be telling those Pharasees to get the beams out of their own eyes, and focus on the spiritual needs of their flocks - and themselves. I can't think of a single time Jesus, or Paul for that matter, tried to change the behavior of a non-believer. If anyone has an example, I'd like to know about it. I can't think of one. The Jews had laws, but they didn't expect non-Jews to abide by them. Jesus pretty much surrendered to secular law and authority when he was executed, not for breaking any law, but for being a threat to religious tradition.This is the sort of thing that happens when religious authority controls secular authority. Crucifixion.
I know what those fundamentalists believe: homosexual or not, every person who isn't saved is going to hell. I have a hard time imagining why it would even matter what a non-believer did if it did not affect them or harm them. Controlling what children see in public is a slippery slope that will lead straight to "What if my children see those gargantuan phallic crosses erected so they can be seen from the highway?" They are scary. Or what if my children ask why the church on the corner has all those little crosses planted in its lawn? I might have to explain abortion to my three year old. Claiming that children will be damaged is silly. And it is un-Christian to worry about a person's behavior before that individual's heart is changed.
But for the people to have such impassioned feelings, they must feel they are losing something or will be hurt to accept this change. What could it be? The only thing I can tell is that they are afraid of losing their scapegoat. By focusing on the sins of others, they can feel superior. They can avoid looking into their own hearts. They will lose part of their identity if the way they live their lives becomes as legitimate as the sinners they feel morally superior to.
Homosexual rights do have parallels with civil rights and racial equality. There has never been a rational reason to deprive any individual of the full benefits of the larger society for no reason other than skin color. Yet this was codified in our laws for many years, changing slowly over time. Racial bigotry persists for the same reason these pastors resist gay rights. Some individuals have a need for a scapegoat and somebody they can compare themselves favorably to. These people experience equality with those they are scapegoating as a put down. I'll bet most of us have encountered people who have difficulty relating to others from any position other than a superior one. This type person will take umbrage when asked to accept certain others as equals or expected give the same consideration to others' ideas as he/she expects others to give to their own beliefs. Identity issues are serious business to human beings. We don't easily give up our ego attachments. But reason, over time, wins, it seems to me. Even the old segregationists like George Wallace, Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd gave up their obsolete ideas eventually. Now, people who hold overtly racist beliefs are marginalized. I remember when these beliefs were the norm. People change - individually and collectively.
The issue of civil union versus marriage is notable for being largely one of nomenclature rather than substance. The word "marriage" carries a cultural meaning that isn't easily changed. Most Americans feel strongly about government intrusion into their private lives. I've noticed that a lot of people who have no problem with homosexuals or civil unions resist defining gay unions as "marriage". The word itself has power. I think, too, the meme that marriage is a sacred union between man and woman has deeply roots in our cultural identity.
There can be no rational discussion with an irrational argument. Unfortunately, this has come to mean that often, the supporters of gay rights are put on the defensive. I noticed in the video the word "hate" was tossed around a to describe the pastors protestations. The pastors did not like this label. It's wrong to presume to know how others feel. The emotion I see being expressed by the pastors is fear, not hate.
So, what to do? One thing is to stop arguing and require the pastors to support their case. Ask them questions. If you are informed, it isn't all that hard to point out the problems with their point of view. When someone says to me, "Because the Bible says", I usually say, "The Bible says a lot of things." The Bible is against divorce, too. It isn't hard to find that the Bible says to do and not to do a lot of things that the pastors regularly ignore.
Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Bible doesn't say, "Thou shalt not give homosexuals (the Bible doesn't acknowledge homosexuals - just homosexual acts) civil rights." It says to kill them. Bible says! Take it literally! Don't cherry-pick to support your prejudices!Have to believe it ALL!
However, I think the word "marriage" goes beyond religious belief. I think it is cultural. The only solution I can imagine, until the culture changes, is to give the sacred instution back to the church (or whatever spiritual authority the individual chooses). The government can get out of the marriage business entirely. There are proponents of this idea. It doesn't seem to be catching on. The whole rights issue needs to be framed in different way. Why should the law grant advantages to people who "marry" and deny these advantages to citizens who are't in man/woman union? If, instead of a ceremony, couples had to fill out a form for civil union and choose to be married to sanctify the union they might end up taking the relationship more seriously than they now do. In this sense, gay couples have been getting married for years. Lots of churches will sanctify gay unions. What has been denied gay unions is legal status.
We can't coerce those who don't share our private beliefs to behave according to our beliefs. This is a boundary violation and not what Jesus would do. I've learned something here today. I no longer believe that the issue of gay rights is primarily a religious issue. I think its a cultural identity crisis that some religious figures are exploiting.
That's all I've got to say about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment