Religion and Marriage Equality

[VerseD]

A crisis of dating, then? Faith in humanity, perhaps. That's what you get for spending too much time on OK Cupid. Nothing can turn a man into a misanthrope like the Internet.

EDIT: This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand; I'll get back to you soon, Reverant.

[VerseD]

Originally Posted by Reverant

I feel on the edge of a pluralist trap that would render the meaning of religion void.

You have a lot to say, and I will try to address it all as plainly as possible, starting with this.

There is an important distinction to be made between cultural relativism and pluralism. It is important especially in America, where so many religious traditions coexist within a state that is secular, or at least impartial; and it is important in the context of this conversation, where to recognize the marital rights of homosexuals strikes some religious people with the implication that their definition of marriage must be incorrect.

Would we rather accept the proposition that one definition of marriage is good and one is amoral, or the proposition that marriage can mean different things to different people, in different communities, at different times in human history, and in ways that cannot be simply divided between moral and immoral or inspired and uninspired authors?

I am trying to bring the discussion back to the central topic, but this is a much wider question. I say that to acknowledge pluralism does not acknowledge relativism, but merely recognizes human fallibility: there is a truth, and although an individual can obtain the truth, he cannot infallibly know when. "To know is one thing, and to know for certain that we know is another," said William James. This kind of Socratic prescription inoculates us not against the principle of truth, but against a false and self-impeding certainty.

James described a pluralistic universe: it is both One and Many, a seamless unity and a collection of events and ideas, each expressing one minute and incommensurable aspect of a deeply pervasive and foundational truth. Christians, too, focus on the transcendent Unity of the Trinitarian God rather than the incomprehensible Oneness, because the paradox of pluralism heightens the mystery and allows us mortals to honor the limitations of human perceptions, intellect, and institutions, which can never contain, categorize, or communicate the entirety of what we intend to say.

We are never going to have a final answer on any question that really counts, because we are always asking these questions -- about the nature of truth, beauty, morality, God, love, etc. -- from different perspectives and with different interests in mind. To quote one historian of philosophy:

There can be no final word on matters even of the physical universe, because humanity is always examining it from different perspectives, directed by shifting interests of a varied and mutable character. There were times when we looked at it with the naked eye; there were other times we looked at it through a telescope, then a radio telescope, then from an Apollo capsule. At times its vastness will confer on it a spiritual character; at other times its vastness will invite exploration. Once we come to gauge and take the measure of these possibilities, yet new thoughts begin, yet new possibilities, new ways of regarding the cosmic order. And this is the case as much in physics as in psychology or philosophy of mind or political science, all leaving room for the great welter and variety of human experiences to dictate the next point in the stream of our consciousness.

The great sweep of religious and philosophical traditions serves a celebratory reminder of the living diversity of mankind. While affirming the truth that is represented in our own traditions or understanding, we must still honor all seekers of the Truth and lovers of wisdom, must humbly acknowledge that different people require different ways of relating to and conceptualizing God (or beauty, for that matter), and that it is not for any of us to place these perspectives into a sort of hierarchy.

Rabbi Heschel once said, "I suggest that the most significant basis for meeting men of different religious traditions is the level of fear and trembling, of humility, of contrition, where our individual moments of faith are mere waves in the endless ocean of mankind's reaching out for God, where all formulations and articulations appear as understatements, where our souls are swept away by the awareness of the urgency of answering God's commandment, while stripped of pretension and conceit we sense the tragic insufficiency of human faith."

And as for Islam and Sufism, Rumi has this to say: "Love, whether of this kind or that kind, ultimately leads you to the same king."

[Krispy]

A crisis of the sublunary. I am very enamored with this exchange and find my shallow interactions with people to be a disgrace.

[Ravenlock]

Originally Posted by VerseD

Rabbi Heschel once said, "I suggest that the most significant basis for meeting men of different religious traditions is the level of fear and trembling, of humility, of contrition, where our individual moments of faith are mere waves in the endless ocean of mankind's reaching out for God, where all formulations and articulations appear as understatements, where our souls are swept away by the awareness of the urgency of answering God's commandment, while stripped of pretension and conceit we sense the tragic insufficiency of human faith."

And as for Islam and Sufism, Rumi has this to say: "Love, whether of this kind or that kind, ultimately leads you to the same king."

Totally with you on this, but I don't think it squares terribly well with "Jesus said he's the only way, so he's the only way."

Which I suppose is part of why I won't count myself among that flock anymore.

[J Arcane]

I think if we are to fathom "God" at all, then the idea of there being solely one specific religious dogma that guides us to it, is so utterly small as to be insulting to the magnitude of that being.

With everything we know about the universe, with everything we know about the limitlessness of Creation, to fathom an omnipotent and omnipresent force in that universe that would somehow point to an infinitesimal spot within it, a spot that in scale is smaller than the tiniest quark against the magnitude of Deity and its limitless Creation, and say "You, you guys get the scoop?"

It seems absurd to me. Utterly and unthinkably absurd, and baselessly arrogant and ethnocentric.

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- Shakespeare

[Krispy]

I think making that statement reeks of an even more arrogant assumption. At least theologians have evidence for their claim even if you find it disputable. You just have a baseless assertion based on your own incredulity.

[J Arcane]

Originally Posted by Krispy

I think making that statement reeks of an even more arrogant assumption. At least theologians have evidence for their claim even if you find it disputable. You just have a baseless assertion based on your own incredulity.

The baseless assertion that an infinite being can't be defined solely by a single mortal conception of it?

I suppose, but I hold that mine may have no less basis than those assertions, at least it has the advantage of being accepting of other interpretations.

I think you may need to unpack your point a bit, all I'm saying is I just see a contradiction between so much speech about the limitlessness of God, and the dogmatic interpretation of God's supposed values.

I don't see how a limitless God even gives a flying fuck who sticks their dick in who, to be putting it more crassly.

[Reverant]

Yet Rumi was still nothing less than a student of the Qu'ran. That love he speaks of is a love that flows from God as revealed by the Prophet. There is very real doctrine underneath his teachings, as circuitous as it may seem. The story of the evil vizier and the stupid Christians in book one of his Masnavi is allegory, yes. But that's because Christians, in his eyes, were also blind and wrong. You also see the same thing in 'Attar.

Speaking of Rumi, he wrote a poem called the Importance of Gourdcrafting, in which two ladies have sex with a donkey. One lady understands how to craft a gourd in a way that she can use it to reduce the immensity of the donkey. The other lady does not, and she is subsequently exploded by the donkey's penis. The Master is not condoning bestiality here. It's a story about the necessity of Sufi sheikhs, who are experienced enough to handle the wholeness of God's love, whereas an initiate would be utterly destroyed by it. Similarly, poetry that describes the beauty of young men and the author's drunken love for them is not about homosexuality - that's still a sin in Islamic context - but about the loving relationship with God... revealed by the Prophet Muhammad in the Qu'ran.

I learned something useful about Rumi while I was in Istanbul- never get into an argument about his origins with a Turkish shopkeeper, even if they start it. The sudden price hike is not worth the trouble of explaining he was born in Khorasan.

I should not have used the word pluralist there. I meant relativist. My belief in the surety of my faith does not preclude me from living in harmony with others who don't share that.

Some of my favorite arguments for a society of religious pluralism actually come from an ayatollah. Restrictive, closed societies damage the good name of the faith by attributing evil and oppression to a religious facade. Furthermore, religious freedom is absolutely vital to the life of the faith. True conversion only comes from a willing heart. Forced (or any sort of false) conversion is a lie that harms both the individual and the religious community. Therefore, society must be an arena where the heart is allowed to freely encounter and process these ideas. Many voices claim they know the way to God. Fine. Tear down the walls of obstruction in society and let the truth make itself known. (Though I should point out that he believes this would naturally lead to a fully Islamic society governed by Qu'ranic rules. I personally believe in a permanent separation between church and state not just for the sake of the state, but for the church as well.)

I agree that with a billion minds struggling to grasp cosmological forces and reaching wildly different conclusions, something is up. I also understand and appreciate the multiplicity of religious practices. I am even in awe of some of them. The famed female Sufi saint Rabi'a wrote devotional poetry to God that is stunningly beautiful, for example. Heck, I listen to punk rock, and most those folks don't have anything kind to say about Jesus.

I acknowledge that throughout history, mankind has been adrift in this sea. Some are content to watch from the shore. Some tread water, satisfied with the beauty and warmth of the ocean. Some of us believe we have a treasure map and a ship. Each of those three positions has a challenge in regards to treating one another. The map-holders must not ensnare, enslave or harm and instead must invite, share, and shelter. Those adrift or ashore must allow for and appreciate the surety of the map-holders. The surety in the map, not the map itself, is what defines us.

As for how gay marriage fits into this, I've already agreed that marriage means different things to different people. For Christians, it's a husband and wife, united in Christ. The state just happens to record it. For others, it's just a state-recognized union that also grants ancillary rights, like hospital visitation. I don't think the question of marriage equality (as the OP puts it) is even a question of plurality. Our beliefs on the character of unions is simply not the state's business. It doesn't matter that Christians, Muslims, atheists or Mormons have different views on what marriage is.

The state doesn't get to tell me what marriage is, and the state doesn't get to tell you what marriage is. Personally, I'd prefer it if the church conjured up a new term for Christian marriage that would differentiate it from the common usage of marriage, which is "two people hitched by the court." That way we can say "Gamos is between one man and one woman!" and don't get all huffy when the state marries a couple that doesn't fit our definition. People just get hung up on words way too easy. Let marriage mean joining of two people by the state. (Sadly, gamos, the Greek word for marriage, is simply hideous. We'll have to come up with something else.) That way, it'll be more easily identified with other specifically Christian ceremonies like baptism. Few people are dumb enough to go to court to force the state to let everyone have baptism.

I suppose there's the common conservative line that gay marriage is some kind of poisonous evil that's destroying the country. It's certainly no worse than adultery and divorce, Newt Gingrich. I won't make any claims about how stable and healthy gay marriages/families compared to straight families are from a secular standpoint, because reliable statistics simply can't exist for that yet. I wouldn't begin relying on those numbers until perhaps a decade after gay marriage was legalized on a widespread basis, so we could have both a demographically diverse sample and some time for both society and relationships to normalize in that respect.

The only real research and discussion I've heard related to that topic is from the medical community. From a public health standpoint, homosexual male promiscuity is a massive issue, particularly among insular minorities. STD rates are astronomical, particularly HIV. That, however, is an issue of health education, testing, and social stigmas. Also, in that sense, it's not even an issue of homosexuality- many of these men don't even identify as gay or bisexual. For those men, it's not identity- it's just something they do.

So, I don't buy the argument that the state should ban gay marriage for the sake of the healthy of society. Our society has a lot of problems, and there's no evidence that allowing the state to grant full marriage licenses to homosexual couples will make it any worse. I don't buy the idea that allowing gay marriage will suddenly unleash a flood of loving, supportive couples that will be the heroes of orphaned children everywhere. Once the institution of gay marriage is normalized, we'll probably see the same pattern of marriage and divorce as with straight couples. That's why I say give it a decade. We have to get past that honeymoon phase.

How can Christians consider a loving, caring, and stable family "evil" just because the parents are the same gender? Like marriage, evil is a pretty loaded term. Set that word aside. It's really a question of spiritual brokeness, a quality endemic to all mankind. Any state without the salve of the Holy Spirit is a broken state. Gay parents. Divorced parents. Married adulterer parents. Married liar parents. Married parents that had a fight and haven't asked forgiveness from one another yet. Alcoholic parents. None of these are the condition that God wants for a family, but that's the on the ground reality for many. So we pray. We ask for forgiveness, guidance, and discernment. We pray that God makes us more like Him and less like our broken selves.

I think that returns us to whether you can be gay and Christian or if engaging in homosexuality is really against scriptural teaching. This may just be an infinite loop. I tried to tackle the latter in an above post. As for the former, if you choose to pick up the Cross and follow Jesus, you can be sure that the journey will somehow alter you. If you want to be like Jesus, God challenge you on any quality that is not Christ-like. That encompasses a vast array of things, including having sex with men or your secret porn collection.The important thing to remember is that God does not ask us to do these things by our own power. Phillipians 4:13- I can do all this through Him who gives me strength.

Can we "pray the gay away?" We don't control urges and inclinations anymore than we do the oxygen exchange in our blood. I'm being honest when I say that when I see some good cleavage, I still think "Daaaaaaamn." I can't control that. Lots of men can't. What I can do is remember the covenant I have with God and the sacredness of my marriage. I look away and keep my thoughts on my wife. Would it work the same way with same-sex urges and inclinations? It would be easy to say yes if homosexuality were purely a response of sexual appetite, which it's not. I won't pretend same-sex couples don't develop the same sort of emotional bonds as straight couples. I do think that a learned life in Christ would alter the trajectory of the relationship. Would he still feel a deep, loving connection to the other man? Of course. Over time, though, it would cease to be a worldly, romantic relationship and become a fraternal, Godly love.

I'm sad to say that I might be out of time for this topic for several days at least. I'm already running on borrowed time typing this post up. My wife is going to kill me if I'm still in pajamas when she gets home within the hour . Thank you everyone for the discussion and the consideration.

[J Arcane]

For Christians, it's a husband and wife, united in Christ.

This is the kind of certitude that bothers me about your posts.

Christians are not a single category with a single definition for anything.

And people who say things like this, are why I no longer even use the word "Christian" to describe my beliefs, because I feel I can't without being expected on all sides to cleave to some specific dogmatic interpretation of everything from metaphysics to theology to morality.

[Ravenlock]

That was a very well thought out post, Reverant. I don't agree with everything you said, but I enjoyed reading it and I thank you for taking the time to be deliberate in your wording and clear in your explanations.

When Christians send emissaries to the public discourse, they should look a lot less like Pat Robertson, and a lot more like you.

[Blue]

I'm kinda with J on this in that Christians should not be a blanket term. I'm a Christian and I don't believe marriage should defined as just man and woman, in the same way I don't believe women should be silent within the church.

[muddi900]

Wide use of Christians as a group is fairly recent in the States. If I were to go by Penn
Jillette it's because of politics.

[Krispy]

Originally Posted by J Arcane

The baseless assertion that an infinite being can't be defined solely by a single mortal conception of it?

I suppose, but I hold that mine may have no less basis than those assertions, at least it has the advantage of being accepting of other interpretations.

I think you may need to unpack your point a bit, all I'm saying is I just see a contradiction between so much speech about the limitlessness of God, and the dogmatic interpretation of God's supposed values.

I don't see how a limitless God even gives a flying fuck who sticks their dick in who, to be putting it more crassly.

Can you imagine a world where God gives a flying fuck who sticks their dick in who?

My point is you just gave an argument with proof by incredulity. "Surely, x cannot be the case!" This is even less dialectically sound than an argument by Biblical evidence which has thousands of years worth of academic writings attached.

[VerseD]

Originally Posted by J Arcane

I don't see how a limitless God even gives a flying fuck who sticks their dick in who, to be putting it more crassly.

No need to be crass. Because whatever scripture says, if you are anything like me, you are probably not impartial to the people you are intimate with: there are times where intimacy is a response to impulses that are base and depraved, and that there are also times where intimacy serves the more enlightened self-interest of love, through self-donation, self-transcendence, and self-completion.

Now let's introduce the idea that this same interest exists in those disposed by nature to seek out relationships of that deepest and most fulfilling kind with members of their same sex, and suddenly your goal is to enrich the institution of marriage, and even the core principle of human intimacy. What an argument that makes!

It is important to lay out a case on the same ground as one's opponents, I think: within a shared moral framework. Otherwise you can sound as if you are defending not just the marital rights of a minority of people, but the depravity of that minority, or of all people. Now I am not advocating laws against depravity; but if we want to have a constructive conversation about this, we should do it by expanding the religious ideal of marital relationships to include those groups it unjustly marginalizes, and not by seeming to add weight to the religious narrative about the sex-hungry homosexuals and anti-religious Berkeley types, etcetera.

This might seem like a bit of tedium, but it should be evident that when talking to people with radically different philosophies than one's own, about the issues that excite them to the greatest degree, one must chose words with great care and address those words to common understandings and common interests. And when we do, I think we will often find that our highest interests are far more similar than different.

To use a quick example, evangelical and feminist groups might easily combine their efforts to stop the sexual exploitation of women, except that one is redeeming "harlots" and "fallen women," and the other rescues "sex workers." Terminology and prejudice keep them from recognizing that, in the areas that really matter, they are after the exact same thing.

Originally Posted by Krispy

I think making that statement reeks of an even more arrogant assumption. At least theologians have evidence for their claim even if you find it disputable. You just have a baseless assertion based on your own incredulity.

The word "define" comes from a Latin word meaning to limit (or make finite). Now how should we respond to someone who presents an infinite power and proceeds to say, "Now let me define him." Incredulity, I should think!

Luckily, most theologians in every tradition recognize that this sort of definition is impossible.

Originally Posted by Krispy

A crisis of the sublunary. I am very enamored with this exchange and find my shallow interactions with people to be a disgrace.

Well at least you got to say "sublunary."

I suppose it is because most of my daily conversations, carried out in super-simple English and Japanese, leave me so unsatisfied, that my intellectual conversations can strike for the moon.

[J Arcane]

Originally Posted by Krispy

Can you imagine a world where God gives a flying fuck who sticks their dick in who?

My point is you just gave an argument with proof by incredulity. "Surely, x cannot be the case!" This is even less dialectically sound than an argument by Biblical evidence which has thousands of years worth of academic writings attached.

OK, I can see what you mean now.

Yes, I am incredulous as to my ability to swallow the aforementioned dichotomy.

The idea that a limitless God can be defined by so limited a dogma is to me as ludicrous an idea as if you were to tell me you can fit the Niagara in a pint glass.

There are a great many things about orthodox religion that strike that same chord in me. The idea that so flawed a work as a hand-written document recorded centuries afterward could constitute an infallible literature, for instance. Or the idea that one should subjugate one's reason and self-reflection on morality to that supposed infallibility, for another.

I apologize if I've been so curt with my points as to leave that incredulity the only backing but I wasn't attempting to put forth argument so much as to express my own viewpoint.

I've been walking around in a state of perpetual incredulity for weeks now, for reasons unrelated to the thread that you may well have noticed, and so I've at times found it hard to muster up more.

[VerseD]

Originally Posted by Ravenlock

That was a very well thought out post, Reverant. I don't agree with everything you said, but I enjoyed reading it and I thank you for taking the time to be deliberate in your wording and clear in your explanations.

I agree, Reverent, that you offer your perspective very clearly. Your humility and openness make it obvious that you are more inspired than argumentative. I only have a few things to add.

Originally Posted by Reverant

It's really a question of spiritual brokeness, a quality endemic to all mankind. Any state without the salve of the Holy Spirit is a broken state. Gay parents. Divorced parents. Married adulterer parents. Married liar parents. Married parents that had a fight and haven't asked forgiveness from one another yet. Alcoholic parents. None of these are the condition that God wants for a family, but that's the on the ground reality for many. So we pray. We ask for forgiveness, guidance, and discernment. We pray that God makes us more like Him and less like our broken selves.

To you, is God heterosexual, or does God transcend those kind of categories?

Or more directly, do you feel that God wants men and women to marry and make love and reproduce according to an inflexible and merely nominal form, or do you feel that God wants everyone to find a higher truth through the transcendence of love for one another, and that this kind of transcendence can be accomplished in human relationships of any configuration, wherever intimacy is not the end but a means to that higher state of being?

Forgive me for making that question so weighted, but I think you see the point I am trying to make: that the "spiritual health" of any relationship -- the part that glorifies God, as you put it -- is much deeper and more ultimate than the gender component.

Originally Posted by Reverant

Yet Rumi was still nothing less than a student of the Qu'ran. That love he speaks of is a love that flows from God as revealed by the Prophet.

You could say this to Rumi, and I imagine he would smile with the full force of his joy and say, "What you say is true." But it should be obvious, to anyone who reads his poetry, that he also carries a deep understanding of earthly love and beauty. How else could he write as he does? He was immersed in the life and tradition of Islam, and it was only because he was so immersed that he could so playfully reinterpret, subvert, and transcend those elements.

Originally Posted by Reverant

I learned something useful about Rumi while I was in Istanbul- never get into an argument about his origins with a Turkish shopkeeper, even if they start it. The sudden price hike is not worth the trouble of explaining he was born in Khorasan.

Yes the Turks are a proud race! Their nation once banned all of Youtube because a Greek put up a video that called Ataturk gay. (And on a similar note, I once got a discount from an Egyptian ferryman by agreeing with him that Barack Obama was a Nubian of the Upper Nile.)

[Ultima Thulian]

I understand J's problem. I never got past the problem of theodicy, either. I'm open to be convinced otherwise. As Voltaire once said, "The only certainty is that certainty is absurd." Certainty, of course, comes in degrees, and though I never consider myself 100% certain on anything, I'm pretty close when it comes to the question of theism.

edit: I will say, however, that Irenaean theodicy intrigues me, but I don't find it entirely convincing.

[Ink Asylum]

Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), told Dan Savage, advice columnist and gay rights advocate, he would debate him at a time and place of Dan's choosing.

Dan chose a dinner at his home with both families invited followed by a moderated debate. It's an hour long and viewable online.

[Ravenlock]

I watched every second of that video after intending to only start it - just couldn't stop watching. Dan Savage has hopped right onto my hero list.

Mr. Brown makes a couple of valid refutations of some of Savage's whitewashing statements about Biblical scholarship, but aside from that, it was painful to watch him try to hold his own. He will, of course, paint that as being bullied by elites, because that's his shtick (and I fear anyone who went in agreeing with him will agree with that too), but no. He just gives a really poor debate performance.

[Blue]

I did the same thing, just clicking on it and ended up watching all of it.

Brown was well out of his league in the debate as most of this retort ended up amounting to "this is wrong" or "it's intrinsic" which isn't an argument nor was there evidence for it. He seemed to skirt most of the points by partially addressing it (the section on the Council of Jerusalem, for instance, where he mentions that some laws were deemed unnecessary but then refuses to address the abomination of same sex partners and how that's cherry-picking) before really just saying "no" again.

I do think some of his points were interesting as Raven said but those too he seemed to bring up and then drop without really fleshing anything out. Savage did a much better job of making his point clear and even asking some point-blank questions which Brown more or less refused to address and just treating them dismissively which was frustrating. Much less a debate really for Brown than an "ehhhh... nah".

I mean, even at the end when the host (I forget his name) asked about the fallout of gay marriage and Brown just couldn't bring up examples. It was painful watching him spin in circles and the host having to reiterate the question again and again.