The NR commenter Starfox and I had a bit of a friendly debate over “gay marriage” over on his LiveJournal blog. Excuse the point about insurance costs: he gave me an argument, and I ran with that rabbit trail to its end. My main point in that argument is that marriage’s definition is outside government control.
Josh S quipped on the Boar’s Head Tavern: “Also, none of us social conservatives are any more or less against a woman giving herself to another woman in marriage than we are against circles having corners.”
If we want to talk about the state’s role in “marriage” as a legal corporation that allows resources to be pooled and people to visit one another in the hospital, then let’s call it that, a social partnership or corporation, but calling it “marriage” confuses the issue as to what marriage is.
Marriage is a divine institution, not only revealed in the Bible but also in the nature of things. Regardless of how one feels about who is attracted to whom, the observation remains that we are created male and female. There are mating parts. They generally work together in the service and pleasure of both, and they are the only natural means of creating children. These are the world’s clues. Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed may not have a marriage certificate, but a monogamous relationship with two kids seems pretty darn close to a natural marriage, even though they hold they aren’t married.
When we view the world, we recognize that we are only seeing a part of what God has created, through a “mirror dimly”:
Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. — 1 Cor. 13:8-12
As I mentioned in the LiveJournal debate, the Bible gives us further clues and much good news regarding God’s institution of marriage, such as that it was given so that we may not sin sexually, that it’s a representation of Christ and us as his church, and that we leave our parents to start our own families.
I understand the mantra to keep religion separate from the state. This is a good and bad defense. It is a good defense in that people should not be subjected to the truth claims and proscriptions of false religions, including the error of universalism. It is an unfortunate defense because God has given us his revealed Word in part (although not the main purpose) to show us the intended order of what he has given us.
We have seen the secular effects of adultery and no-fault divorce. At this point in time these have done much more harm to societal order than homosexuality. The Bible has warned us that sex outside of a marriage is a bad activity to engage in, and we are reaping the fruit. The Bible also warns us that homosexuality is not good for us, and we are going down that road. Some of the effects of the abandonment of the order of creation are on the horizon, such as the advance of cultures that are outgrowing the majority population and seeking to subdue the rest of us. Hopefully that is a very long coming, and we can show them that freedom and classical liberalization will make their lives better.
At the present, I feel that if the state can’t get marriage right, then it should get rid of the marriage business altogether. Filling out two 1040s instead of one might be a pain, but it’s better than the state lying about who is married and who isn’t.
I understand the mantra to keep religion separate from the state. This is a good and bad defense. It is a good defense in that people should not be subjected to the truth claims and proscriptions of false religions, including the error of universalism. It is an unfortunate defense because God has given us his revealed Word in part (although not the main purpose) to show us the intended order of what he has given us.
So, you’re saying you’re all for the union of church and state, so long as that religion is Christianity? Which particular sect? The founders would disagree.
At the present, I feel that if the state can’t get marriage right, then it should get rid of the marriage business altogether. Filling out two 1040s instead of one might be a pain, but it’s better than the state lying about who is married and who isn’t.
Ok then, since you are arguing for a libertarian point of view, and have also denoted the futility of libertarian policies, if the government is not going to renounce this power, then isn’t it an injustice to essential enshrine inequality in the government?
Replace “gay” with “inter-racial” and I’m not so sure you’d argue against it quite as adamantly. It’s the same thing.
So, you’re saying you’re all for the union of church and state, so long as that religion is Christianity? Which particular sect? The founders would disagree.
Inability to distinguish abrogated Mosaic law, the desire to make people more “Christian” by first forcing the law on them, and the lack of recognition that we cannot keep God’s law perfectly would disqualify many Christians from this responsibility. There is a world of difference between the enforceable “he slept with the secretary” and the ratcheting up of adultery in Matthew 5.
Denying Biblical revelation in discourse, though, is a lack of willingness to use the true tools we are given. Do embryos only get rights at the point we can save them from the womb, or can we use Psalm 51:5 in a majority of Jews and Christians and call the matter good?
Replace “gay” with “inter-racial” and I’m not so sure you’d argue against it quite as adamantly. It’s the same thing.
Now, you’ve mentioned this twice, and I let the first time on your LiveJournal pass. It really sounds like you’re calling me a racist, and I don’t see anything I’ve written which would lead you to that. Both natural revelation and Biblical revelation don’t seem to prohibit marriages of people from different races. If it was good enough for Moses…
Hey, Starfox, let me tell you about how this was voted in my mostly black neighborhood. Most folks were against it. It doesn’t work when white folks tell black folks “this is just like getting lynched”.
Before you throw the “it’s like racial” thing around, maybe talk to the folks you are supposedly helping.
Secondly, if this was put on the ballot as just couples getting property rights or visitation rights, most would have voted “yes”. But when liberal white fools try to tell a community (that is already suffering from family destruction on an amazing level) that all of this is the same, it doesn’t work.
A few years ago, I went to a “triad” neo-pagan wedding. Is that the next level? Or does the number stay two as the limit?
–LuLu, who is in the San Francisco arts community, doesn’t flinch when she sees “gays” at all, and plans on documenting the attack this weekend on the Mormon church in my town that I know is being planned.