Is Anti Same-Sex Marriage Rhetoric A Barrier To Peace?

The following is the result of having discussed same-sex marriage on a couple of conservative blogs. Not all conservatives overstated their case against same-sex marriage; but some did. What follows is for them.

Until the latest terrorist attack, same-sex marriage had become a focus of attention again. This time, it was because the Supreme Court just heard arguments in support of its legalization. Those who were opposed paraded a host of analogies they say could really happen if same-sex marriages are allowed. All of these comparisons live down the same slippery slope from one another and their purpose is to infuse fear for what the future could hold. However, each of the comparisons made seem to unveil more about the mindset and priorities of same--sex marriage's opponents than to inform us of the effects of legalizing these marriages.

We are told that if same-sex marriages are legalized, then comparable events, like the legalization of bestiality, the legalization of adult-child marriages and other relations, and the legalization of polygamy could happen. Of course, all of these predictions are voiced in the interrogative. It goes like this, if we legalize same-sex marriage, what will stop us from legalizing _____________? The implication being that our current laws against same-sex marriage is the last line of defense before we are totally occupied by unrestrained sin. The logic employed here  is that same-sex marriages represent one of the most base human relations people can have.

However, there are both logical and Biblical reasons why we should at least question the thinking mentioned above. First, let's take a look at the logic of the analogies. On the one hand, by asking if we will legalize bestiality, adult-child partnerships and similar kinds of relationships, and polygamy once we legalize same-sex marriages, many are implying that either same-sex marriage is more similar to these practices than heterosexual marriage or equal to it.

In either case, those who make these comparisons cannot get past, and are thus fixated on, the sexual dynamics of same-sex relations. The fact that the domination, abuse, violence or the threat of violence that exists in some these other relations take a back seat to gay sexual dynamics is an indicator of that fixation. In addition, that they see same-sex marriage as being more comparable to bestiality than heterosexual marriages is another such indicator. If someone was trying too hard to impress people, we might be tempted to say that person is overcompensating for something. And overcompensation is what we see here in the comparisons. It is as if just saying what the Bible says about homosexuality is not enough. So some are eager to go well beyond.

What do the Scriptures say? Certainly the Bible does not have a favorable view toward homosexuality. In fact, it speaks against it in the most serious way. According to Paul, homosexuality, along some very common household sins, can disqualify one from the Kingdom of God (I Cor 6:9-10). But does that justify the range of talk from hyperbolic rhetoric to hate speech against same-sex marriage?

Paul also wrote about homosexuality in Romans 1 when he spoke of those who decided to worship the creature rather than the creator. He went on to say that God gave them up to an unclean heart. But as much as he spoke against homosexuality, Paul tells us that Romans 2:1 is a coming. And just as he listed a host of other sins that comes from worshipping the creature rather than the creator and merits God's judgment, Paul tells us that Romans 2:1 is a coming. What does Romans 2:1 say? It says that all who judge others condemn themselves because they too practice the same sin. See, Romans 2:1 makes Paul's statements on homosexuality and other sins personal about ourselves rather than informational about others. Romans 2:1 demands that, after reading Romans 1, we stare in a mirror to see our own sins rather than judging the failures of others from a far. And this is another problem those who use inflated rhetoric against same-sex marriages have.

Yes, homosexuality is wrong, says Paul; but he writes this in a section of Romans where he calls everybody a sinner. So we cannot preach Romans 1 to homosexuals without first reading how it condemns us. Thus, those who are honestly referencing Paul to condemn homosexuals cannot distance themselves by overstating their case. Any attempt to do so is an exercise in self-righteousness. For the message of Romans 2:1 is that we cannot use what Paul wrote in Romans 1 to judge anybody without first condemning ourselves. This is because we are all sinners and we all deserve condemnation. We cannot distance ourselves from homosexuals or other sinners because we are all in the same boat.

So what does how we speak against same-sex marriages have to do with peace? How obvious the answer is depends on which end of the whip we live. For if we are among or benefit from the persecutors who have power, we will be clueless. But if we are among the persecuted, it cannot get anymore obvious. When we see how mere sinners like homosexuals can be talked about, we realize how much worse it is for those who pose a real threat. We see that already in our action movies. The enemy is always depicted as this irrational monster who must be destroyed at all costs if we are to survive. For our enemy attacks for no sane reason and we are saved solely through some display of anger injected hyper-masculine display of force.

Just as how some avoid describing homosexuals as people who have hurts, grievances, dreams, contributions to make, and legitimate issues to address, we rarely portray our enemies as being human. This is because both groups are all too often painted as demons who must be exorcized and destroyed rather than be understood. And in shutting our ears to what they would say to us, we slam the door on all possible peaceful resolutions. For peaceful resolutions often require that we first look into a nonmagic mirror that tells us how we might have contributed to the conflict as opposed to conveniently regarding their attacks on us as the first strike. When we can't handle that truth, we use hyperbole to describe our enemies and give ourselves the energy and permission needed to do far worse to them than they might have done to us. What we don't realize is that the more enemies we slaughter, whether with  words or weapons, the more we fall from humanity. And that affects how we relate to our families and neighbors. Many of those who have actually had to kill an enemy soldier or combatant know this, they live with this. They have forever crossed a chasm for which there is no bridge to return.

WW II veterans Gene Larocque and Howard Zinn have said that our country has learned the wrong lessons from WW II and thus makes war the rule rather than the exception. And tribalism (a.k.a., patriotism) makes us so gullible that we easily follow any flag waving opportunist into the next war. And in so doing, we engage in a perpetual, king-of-the-hill battle. And history has always told us that nobody stays king forever.

The language that many of us use on our enemies inspires hate and maintains the status quo of constant war. That is because our choice of words are often designed to distance ourselves from them. The more we distance ourselves, the greater license we give to our emotions. So when we are far enough away, we are both able and required to take extreme actions against them with inner impunity, or so we think.

Perhaps, if we focused on our own faults more than we point, with animosity, our finger at the sins of gays or other groups we dislike, we would do the same with our enemies. And perhaps, the more we also acknowledged our own faults when we accuse our enemies of wrongdoing, we would be more inclined to negotiate to resolve differences nonviolently rather than to shoot first and forget to ask any questions. After all, addressing our own sins first is a fixed cost of knowing God. And perhaps if we acknowledged the vast contributions that gays and others have made to us as individuals and our society, we would also see the valid concerns of our enemies that we would be more inclined to reach out in peace. After all, seeing only the sins of the other was what the pharisee in Jesus's parable on the two men praying did and he went home condemned.

The U.S. Of Chick-fil-A

Chick-fil-a's President, Dan Cathy, started another episode of Stereotypes Gone Wild with his comments on gay marriage. By decrying the national acceptance of gay marriage as both rejecting God and inviting judgment, and then by proudly describing himself and his partners as still being married to their first wives as well as supporting the traditional definition of marriage, Cathy did more than just call homosexuality a sin. He both invited the nation to scapegoat gays and he prayed a version of the Pharisees' prayer saying, "I thank God that I am not like those sinners over there." In doing all of this, Dan Cathy did more than meet the minimum requirements for what gays have sadly come to expect from their Christian opponents.

The response of who were offended also did more than enough to reinforce what many Conservative Christians' have come to expect from gays and their supporters. The response showed the typical recalcitrant sinner who is rejecting the message. Such Christians are happily oblivious to the fact that the messenger has deliberately become more offensive than the actual Biblical message.

The result is that these stereotypes continue to live happily ever after as co-dependents. That is each stereotype needs the other to be brought back to life.

To my fellow Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin, we must ask if Cathy's original statement shows more concern for gays or for himself. Note that within Cathy's statement is a concern that he might be a victim of God's collective punishment on the nation. In addition, there is Cathy's boasting of his marital accomplishments as well as that of his associates.

But not only that, there is Cathy's unawareness of his country's sins.  Cathy's statement shows an assumption that our nation's current state of blessedness is deserved and that our past actions such as the ethnic cleansing of American Indians from the land, slavery, the days of Jim Crow I & II, our military and economic empire, and whatever other sufferings we have caused were, at the most, tolerable sins that did not merit God's judgment. And here is the heart of Christian Fundamentalism's failure in preaching the Gospel; it shows gross selectivity in determining which sins to rebuke. Killing, maiming, and oppressing others, especially when done by those in uniform, get a free pass from the righteous indignation of the Conservative Christian but the sexual sin does not.

So what the above shows is a cold-heartedness by Conservative Christians. For they seem unconcerned by the suffering gays might experience if they are held responsible for future tragedies by their fellow citizens and unfazed by the destruction caused by violence Conservative Christians support. This cold-heartedness could be because the ultimate concern of Conservative Christians is their own individual selves. We might call their theology a Meology. And here, Cathy is concerned about paying for the sins of others, especially when he is doing what is right, than he is about the sinners he singles out.

Thus, what gays sense when they hear people like Cathy speak is more than just a call to repentance; it is antagonism. He uses the language of intolerance to preach repentance.  So when gays and others point this out, Christians like Cathy chalk it up to sin and rebellion. At the same time, Cathy, and others like him, are unable to see their own faults. They are too busy showing off their own righteousness to feel good about themselves.

Certainly, not all Christians who preach repentance to gays follow Cathy's example. But it does seem that all who have a public forum do. And it is wrong. We need more dialog than paternalistic finger pointing.

On the other hand, not all reactions against Cathy's remarks are do solely to the speaker. None of us, Christian or nonChristian, like to be told that we are sinning. So some of the reaction is simply because people are rebelling against God's Word. But this does not let Cathy off the hook. When he did not identify with gays as a sinner, not as a gay, then Cathy is telling gays that rebelling against God is their problem only, not his. Such a message is a lie and is just as sinful, if not more, as being gay.

In the end, Cathy is to gays what the U.S. has become to the world. Both Cathy and the U.S. are forever pointing out the faults of others in ways that indicate they are above reproach. Both Cathy and the U.S. blame others for rejecting accepted an authority that brings judgment. And both are oblivious to their own sins, even if their sins are far worse. While Cathy wants laws to control the behavior of those who, because they merit God's judgment, threaten him, the U.S uses force to control the behaviors of those countries that do not benefit it. In a sense, Cathy's hyperbolizing of sin and his intolerance of others is a microcosm of America's relationships with other countries. For neither one wants to relate to others as equals. Rather, they think that they deserve to call the shots.