I was looking up the “hot quote” where Mike Huckabee -potentially ruining his hopes to become president…bad Mr. Huckabee, bad! we like you!- discusses amending the constitution to fit God’s Word -I’ll be blogging on that later- when I came across a post titled, “Huckabee: Gay Marriage Could Lead To Pedophilia, Bestiality, Polygamy“ from In Repair.
What I’m about to say may come across cold, so I will let you decide if you want to read further, but this is where I am.
I don’t think that defining marriage is a horrible thing to do. The reason I oppose the gay marriage issue, is because the same argument you can use in support of gay marriage you can also use in regards to a marriage between a brother and sister, a brother and brother, an adult and say a 15 year old.
We would think that marriage issues involving incest and children would obviously be off limits, as one commenter points out, but how many years ago could the same be said about a marriage between two members of the same sex?
Where is the line? We don’t want lines, we don’t like lines, but don’t we need lines? If we move this line is it not possible to move it again? Couldn’t we argue that a thirty year old man and a thirteen year old girl could fall madly in love and should also have the right to express that love in the form of a lifetime union with all the legal benefits that come with a legally recognized marriage? What about a brother and a sister who fall madly in love because they “compliment” one another, and they are just so “a like”? Shouldn’t they have the same right?
So where is the line, if today the line is between two consenting unrelated adults today, will it be two consenting unrelated people tomorrow, and then two consenting people? Where is the line?
We don’t like lines. We hate lines. They cripple our own personal freedom, but what if your personal freedom does extend beyond the other man’s nose? Don’t we then need these lines at some point. Many discussions and debates become very myopic; we want what we want and that is all we can see, but we don’t -or don’t want to- look at the larger picture.
Maybe this goes beyond marriage to a greater issue, that it is not only about us. Maybe it is more than just what we want, but about considering others, considering the bigger whole. Maybe it is about recognizing that what we do has an impact on everyone around us.
I hope that my heart came through in this, but with the various filters we use, I’m sure that I must have hurt some one with these words. I’m sorry that I have hurt you.
18 January 2008 at 10:48 pm
I understand what you’re saying, but I respectfully disagree. We have lines now and allowing another group of consenting adults to participate does not mean that all lines should or will be obliterated.
A child cannot sign a legal document. An animal cannot sign a legal document. Incest is illegal, homosexuality is not. Pedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is not. Bestiality is illegal, homosexuality is not.
I think this line of reasoning is often used to justify banning gay marriage by those who are opposed to gay marriage for personal reasons, but don’t want to come off as a religious fanatic. It’s a very weak argument, in my opinion.
19 January 2008 at 2:06 am
If only he left out the bestiality part, he would have been OK. I don’t think he’s far off, but as one person noted, animals can’t sign contracts. Some folks will be offended but they are mostly the same folks who would be offended by his opposition to gay marriage. All of the arguments I have ever heard for gay marriage could be applied in support of the other marriage types which he mentioned.
19 January 2008 at 3:16 am
Seems like for most of society, marriage has just become another social contract–like the right to own property or to form a corporation–rather than something that’s sacred. In the end, it’s all a spiritual issue. How do we defend something sacred in a culture that is rapidly losing its sense of the sacred?
19 January 2008 at 5:46 am
For the majority of history, marriage has been treated as a social contract and not as something sacred. The same is true for many cultures around the world today. Marrying for love is a relatively modern concept.
Anyone wishing to get a good overall history of marriage should watch the documentary entitled Tying The Knot.
19 January 2008 at 11:07 am
First, I would like to thank everyone who took time to read and consider my post. Most importantly I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts and your words because the conversation is the most amazing part of this whole process.
Brian- Disagreement is quite alright. This wonderful country of ours is built on the foundation of faith and freedom. Faith in ourselves, and in our respective deities; freedom to think and act according to our spirits so long as we are not infringing on another’s freedom.
I understand what you are saying, but again I look at the direction our culture has been heading. Increasingly it is becoming a “me, me, me” culture. We want more and more. If you give me a cookie, I’ll end up wanting milk, and then a crayon, etc., etc.
Those things you mentioned are illegal now, but why could they not use the same arguments that support gay marriage for themselves? And in time if they push the issue in the public view long enough the rest of us have the potential of becoming numb and sympathetic to their cause. Perhaps we will learn that we need to be “tolerant” of those issues, and allow them the same privileges afforded others.
Right now you are right in that those things are illegal and frowned upon -in general- by our culture as a whole, but it was not too long ago when the issue of homosexuality was also frowned upon by the general population. Could that not happen with these other issues? The media portraying polygamy as an exotic and cool alternative. We have that portrayal -in a limited way- already with incest when it comes to “hot twins” -male or female.
It is a slippery slope that we have to consider, but is quickly too often dismissed as an excuse used by the religious right to shoot down gay unions. That’s true, it is a quickly referenced excuse for many religious right who don’t know their faith and need something to hide behind when their pastors aren’t around to protect them, but it is a very strong and potential slippery slope that we must look at despite those who cheaply throw it out as a defense. Because as it is just as quickly referenced by those who are afraid of homosexual unions, I think it is also just as quickly dismissed by those who are afraid to look at the possible ramifications. Neither side wants to really consider the issue, only remain in themselves happy and satisfied. I merely want to consider the larger picture.
I hope that I came across gentle because that is what is in my spirit. Personally, if the slippery slope argument wasn’t a valid one, I probably wouldn’t care about the issue. I think there is too much focus on banning gay marriage and ending abortion by “contemporary” Christianity -wrapped up in so much religious anger that doesn’t belong to them- that we forget to first love in truth and discernment. We forget to show Christ to the outside world by our actions instead of our words. We are so quick to come in with sledge hammers and beat people down that I’m not sure if anyone remembers how to pick people up. I know I get harassed by my own for keeping homosexual friends, or defending them when someone says we need to keep them out of our churches -or worse explains how they should be stoned to death. In fact, I think you just inspired another post.
Brian, thank you for coming by and reading and leaving your thoughts. It is a great discussion that needs more attention by more than just us, but we’re a start.
Blessings,
Michael
19 January 2008 at 12:24 pm
Luke- How do we defend what we call sacred? Society is caught in a myopic relativism where precedence is defined by their own desires. Where to feel part of a larger whole they heap up for themselves the likeminded.
I think that all we can do is pray, speak, and vote according to our own convictions, but even moreso I think that we must walk according to the teachings of our Faith no matter what happens. Where Christians and churches are prone to fall in with the latest trend or stand as screaming madmen holding signs on the corner condemning those on the outside, we need to continue as disciples of Christ walking the path that He has laid before us no matter how enticing the other roads may seem.
Perhaps we will not be able to protect the sacred, but in the same breath, maybe that is not our job. Maybe it is to continue in Love and Truth -which must act as one. Maybe what our job really is continually growing in Christ, going where He leads, and revealing Christ to the world through our own actions more than just our words.
Maybe it is ours to simply show His Love to those who need it most -and those we would least like to give it to.
Blessings,
Michael