Today ThinkProgress (among many other sources) reports the Presbyterian Church has modified their definition of marriage:
The nation’s largest Presbyterian denomination voted on Tuesday evening to change their definition of marriage to “two people,” cementing the group’s formal embrace of same-sex marriage. … The new language doesn’t require Presbyterian ministers to officiate same-sex unions, and pastors can individually decline to perform a marriage — just as they can with any straight couple. In addition, although the vote has crossed the threshold for ratification, presbyteries will continue to vote until June, when it is expected to take effect. As of Wednesday morning, the tally stands at 87 presbyteries in favor, 41 against, and one tied.
This serves to remind me of my own thoughts on the issue, which oddly enough I have not discovered voiced elsewhere. First, context: having had gay friends for years, I’ve never had a problem with gay marriage; not being religious makes that easy. I was absolutely delighted to vote against the proposed Minnesota amendment banning gay marriage a few years ago, and was thrilled as the survey results showed it slowly slipping over the line into defeat, ringing in the right of gays to enter into marriage. However, that’s hardly a reasoned position. I choose to ask, Why deny homosexuals the right to marriage? I’ve run across the following objections, briefly, excepting the last:
- It’s against my religion. This, of course, is the abandonment of reality-based reason in favor of the dictum of a divinity, and as such is difficult or impossible to counter. I join the great mass of folks on both sides of the issue in agreeing that no church should ever be forced to host such a marriage; but then, who would want to use an institution hostile to a fundamental part of themselves. It is not always impossible to counter such claims, as sometimes the internal logic of the institution can be turned against such an argument. Yet, in the end, it doesn’t matter: we are a secular nation and should not employ purely religious proscriptions that lack any basis in rationality.
- It’s unnatural. Sorry, define natural. OK, now, is humanity natural? Yes, it is; every year scientists make another discovery that diminishes our perceived uniqueness; someday, we’ll measure ourselves only quantitatively against other species, and not qualitatively. As a part of nature, then, we can then identify other species in which same-sex sexual activity occurs, with long time pairings, and say, well, that appears to be natural. There are numerous examples, such as giraffes.
- It’s immoral. Immorality is a societal consensus, without a doubt; it evolves over time. It’s evolving right now: if you disagree and consider yourself Christian, then I must ask if you approve of stoning witches, or keeping slaves; both were at one time acceptable, but no longer. Morality evolves as we learn more and more about running successful societies. Making the immorality argument puts you in quicksand, not on the mountaintop.
- Marriage is designed for children. Now this argument was new to me, but I’ve come to realize this is actually an opportunity for the pro-gay marriage side. Let’s skip semantic squabbling over evolution vs purpose. Let me draw an analogy. I’m a software engineer, and over the years, I’ve had a few instances where I’ve written some code for some problem, applied it, had it work fine – and then someone takes it, applies it to a problem with little in common with the first problem, and again it works fine. Whether something is tangible (fire, for example) or intangible (marriage), it’s putative purpose is not a limitation. Consider fire, which we can theorize was first used to cook meat – but then someone discovered it worked great for smelting iron; glass, first for windows, then for microscope lenses. Did the original design intent restrict later uses? One of the great hallmarks of humanity has been its ability to take something, tangible or intangible, and apply it to a problem in another domain successfully. The originally advanced argument is not really an argument, it’s simply a statement about an original design purpose, with no relation to new purposes to which it might be applied. In the end, assessment cannot be made against the original purpose, but on how well the new purpose is fulfilled. To that end, a careful statement should be prepared. Perhaps “gay marriage will bring greater stability to a subpopulation which historically has been persecuted, engaged in unsafe sex, and suffered terrible illnesses because of those activities.” If those ends are not achieved, then there might be an argument against gay marriage. Of course, a similar statement for heterosexual marriage could also be formulated; one wonders what an honest assessment might find.
