Friday, May 15, 2009

A Conservative Christian argument for politically accepting gay marriage -- (reemphasize politically)

Sept. 10, 2009

I think I have a problem with wanting to start arguments for no reason, and tending to support contrarian positions. But anyways... the idea i've been getting at is this: for any issue that does not directly threaten the well-being of other citizens, whether the issue is religious beliefs, substance abuse, adult content in media, and even polygamy, regulation and control make more sense than a complete prohibition or ban. (The soul is never enriched by blindly following rules or “codes of proper behavior.” This is precisely why Jesus condemned the Pharisees.)

Sept. 4, 2009

Okay, so my original argument was extremely naive. (It happens, I guess.) There are valid arguments for allowing homosexual marriage without legalizing group marriages. (It comes down to "Should government put restrictions on how people organize their personal relationships?" Valid affirmative arguments can be made in the name of social stability.)

A better summary of the issues than my original post--

I really should have just found a message board that discusses this topic, but whatever. And
here's a site that makes a few of the points I was getting at (although it endorses polygamy religiously as well as politically.)

Final thought: Banning polygamous marriage tranquilizes the objectification of women into a socially acceptable, stable form. But is this a good thing or not? Wouldn’t Jesus say not? “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart,” right? (Matthew 5:28) The objectification of women (or men) in any form is as much a sin as adultery.

Original -- May 15th, 2009

--Why We should have Freedom of Marriage in the same way that we have Freedom of Religion--

The key idea is to realize that Freedom of Marriage is a technological change, and not necessarily symbolic of a changing morality in our culture.

Methods for controlling STDs and STIs have changed dramatically over the past 60 years. According to Wikipedia: “Sexually transmitted infections have been well known for hundreds of years” and “Prior to the invention of modern medicines, sexually transmitted diseases were generally incurable, and treatment was limited to treating the symptoms of the disease.”

Due to these factors, the values of traditional marriage, in addition to encouraging healthy community-oriented attitudes, have historically been used to control STIs. (funny WWII poster)

For obvious reasons, defining sexual expression as only appropriate during marriage decreased the amount of STIs within society—this is the rationale behind abstinence-only sex education. Now, of course, there are other effective methods for controlling STIs, which have made sexual activity far less dangerous to an individual’s physical safety. Sexuality is no longer the threat to physical safety that it once was.

Safety and Freedom
Government must balance physical safety with individual rights. Certain freedoms should be restricted in the interest of ensuring our physical safety—i.e., laws against hard drugs or owning bazookas. However, in cases where physical safety is not endangered, government should allow freedom for individuals to gather information and make their own choices. Crack cocaine still threatens people’s physical safety—sexuality now no longer does.

Still, traditional marriage is an ideal that I believe in—traditional marriage and the values that it represents are an important part of the moral health of a community. I am against my church or pastor performing gay marriages. As it currently stands though, churches that speak against gay marriage politically are positioning themselves to be perceived by the rest of society as discriminatory, because they are trying to use politics to impose their views on everyone else.

Standing up for traditional marriage and the values it represents is not discriminatory—trying to use politics to impose your view on others, when there is no longer a threat to the physical safety of individuals, is. Just as Christianity survived the idea of freedom of religion, traditional marriage and, just as importantly, the values that it represents, will remain strong after freedom of marriage.

Churches recognize the rights of atheists to be treated politically as equal members of society—rights regarding marriage now should be given to homosexuals, and to poly-amorous families as well (and no, James Dobson, this does not have to extend to brothers and sisters—that risks the physical safety of potential offspring—or to people and animals—that's still just ridiculous.)

Conservative Christians need to understand this—need to see that Freedom is not contrary to conservative principles. God gave his creation free will for a reason—because freedom creates the best possible forum for moral development to take place.

“Community” vs. “Job Market”

All this talk about “the values of traditional marriage” may seem outdated and obsolete—in today’s America maybe so. The benefits of traditional marriage are diminished outside of strong, personal communities, and (as all of us college graduates know by now) in America, the idea of community has been replaced by the idea of the “job market"—the fight for social justice should come first and all... So bottom line, basically, thank God for people like Ralph Nader.

—Okay, so, if you’re a conservative Christian who believes in the principle of Freedom, how can you disagree with any of that?