Less Shouting, More Talking

It doesn't get any better than Solo500's: "You may be kinder and gentler and even respectful in tone. But there is no way you can say "your marriage means less than mine" to a fellow citizen and have it actually BE respectful."

My open letter to Dr. Mouw (part 1):

I would say that, as your fellow citizens in a pluralistic society, gays and lesbians have the right to ask you, rhetorically, what right you have to impose your "sincerely held convictions" on their personal lives, and to tell you, forcefully, to mind your own business, which their decisions to contract civil marriages with one another most certainly are not.

You state that your opposition to "normalizing" same-sex marriage is rooted in concerns about the raising of your children and grandchildren. The problem is that those concerns are implicitly rooted in the malignant lie that sexual orientation is a choice. You ask what children will be taught about sexual and family values in our schools. If they are taught that sexual orientation is inherent, that a minority of people are born homosexual, and that their desire is in no way inferior to that of the majority born heterosexual, then they will be taught the truth, and the truth will make them free: the straight ones free of bigotry, and the gay and lesbian ones free of the self-hatred that, along with rejection by peers and parents, so often leads to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/01/rejecting_homosexual_children_.php">psychological illness and even suicide among homosexual youth</a>.

You ask whether you will be allowed to "counter those influences" without being accused of hate speech. The answer is that, if you teach your children that homosexuality is a choice, and a wrong one, instead of an inherent trait about which people have no choice, and a morally neutral one,* then you will indeed be guilty of hate speech, whether anyone accuses you or not.

My open letter to Dr. Mouw (part 2)

You asked to hear from folks who worry about your views, and I, being one of those folks, was moved to reply. I would not have used some of the intemperate language some others have ("fascist," "worst kind of fundamentalism"), but then my rights, as a heterosexual, are not directly threatened by your opposition to gay marriage -- although as a polyamorist, who may someday wish to contract a plural marriage, I am of course somewhat oppressed by your and the majority's opposition to that. For the proponents of marriage equality, Prop 8 represents a different kind of slippery slope, leading back to an era when gay people in most places had to stay closeted for fear of discrimination and even violence to which they were routinely subjected with the tacit or explicit approval of the state and society in general. People like you, as you put it, do not frighten me, but you do often irritate and occasionally infuriate me. For me, you see, reason -- which does not merely include scientific investigation but is synonymous with it -- is not <a href="http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=101">one point of a Wesleyan quadrilateral</a>, but the summit of a pyramid, subordinating both experience (a.k.a. anecdotal evidence) and tradition (including the Bible and all other supposed "holy books). Experience and tradition are unreliable sources of knowledge, which must be tested with the tools of reason before it can be accepted as true or rejected as false. And if reason alone is insufficient for evaluating a question of ethics, it can be paired with empathy to determine the right course. Seeing the world through the twin lenses of reason and empathy, it becomes obvious that racial justice, gender equality, peacemaking, care for the environment, and equal rights for gays and lesbians, including the right to marry, are all right on their own merits, regardless of whether the Bible supports them or not.

My open letter to Dr. Mouw (part 3)

My vision of a flourishing pluralistic society can be seen in many of the more optimistic works of science fiction: the world of Tellus Tertius from Robert A. Heinlein's <i>Time Enough for Love</i> for example, or Beta Colony in Lois McMaster Bujold's "Miles Vorkosigan" novels, or Beowulf in David Weber's "Honor Harrington" series. The Federation posited by <i>Star Trek</i> comes close, but Roddenbury was overly optimistic, I think, about the potential of secular humanism to replace religion altogether, and was limited by the rules of broadcast television in the 1960's from fully exploring the possibilities for sexual liberation inherent in such a free and secular society. Moderate evangelical Christians such as yourself fit into such a society as an eccentric minority, viewed with bemused tolerance by the secular majority as long as your beliefs do not interfere with their lives or lead you to abuse your children.

* I make this point because a trait which is inherent may incline a person to behavior which truly is morally wrong. It may be (I don't think there's strong evidence one way or the other) that pedophilia is as inherent and unchangeable as homosexuality, but that does not give pedophiles the right to have sex with children, who by their nature cannot give informed consent and are far more likely than not to be harmed by the experience.

I appreciate that Mr. Mouw would like to have a rational discussion without the blinding rage that often clouds the path to a common understanding. In his article he raises the concern that if same-sex marriage were to be made legal, parents would have to worry about what their children would be taught in schools. I would argue that when given the choice between teaching kids that homosexuality is normal and teaching kids that it is wrong, the latter does much more harm than the former. Whether people opposed to same-sex marriage like it or not, many children, including some of their own, will realize that they are gay while they are still in school. Most people will also agree that schools should be safe, discrimination and hate-free environments where kids learn how to interact with other people. To teach that same-sex marriage or homosexuality is wrong or abnormal has the double negative effect of making some children believe that they are wrong or abnormal, and teaching other kids that it is ok to judge someone based on their sexual preference. Our schools should teach young people to be loving (not just tolerant) towards themselves and others ??? not doing so will only perpetuate the close-mindedness that Mouw is so rightfully trying to combat. The public school system should remain a place where all children ??? gay or straight ??? can feel welcome. Even in the case of young children who may just be discovering their sexuality, teaching them that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality will probably save them from inner anguish in the years to come. I wonder how many suicides could be prevented if young people could count on schools to be safe, accepting places to learn, even if their homes are not.

I appreciate that Mr. Mouw would like to have a rational discussion without the blinding rage that often clouds the path to a common understanding. In his article he raises the concern that if same-sex marriage were to be made legal, parents would have to worry about what their children would be taught in schools. I would argue that when given the choice between teaching kids that homosexuality is normal and teaching kids that it is wrong, the latter does much more harm than the former. Whether people opposed to same-sex marriage like it or not, many children, including some of their own, will realize that they are gay while they are still in school. Most people will also agree that schools should be safe, discrimination and hate-free environments where kids learn how to interact with other people. To teach that same-sex marriage or homosexuality is wrong or abnormal has the double negative effect of making some children believe that they are wrong or abnormal, and teaching other kids that it is ok to judge someone based on their sexual preference. Our schools should teach young people to be loving (not just tolerant) towards themselves and others ??? not doing so will only perpetuate the close-mindedness that Mouw is so rightfully trying to combat. The public school system should remain a place where all children ??? gay or straight ??? can feel welcome. Even in the case of young children who may just be discovering their sexuality, teaching them that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality will probably save them from inner anguish in the years to come. I wonder how many suicides could be prevented if young people could count on schools to be safe, accepting places to learn, even if their homes are not.

I hope Mouw understands that not all of us want to raise our children to be ignorant and detached from the society around them. I want my children to understand that we as Americans believe that all men are created equal. Just because a portion of our society buys into the delusions of religion does not mean that the rest of us should be limited by their "do's and don'ts". If gay marriage is legalized, nothing negative will occur. I promise your children will be safe, and will hopefully grow up to be accepting, loving adults, unlike Mouw. Equal rights now!

I live in a neighborhood which is very tolerant of gays. It is an area of single-family houses within the city. The local churches are gay-friendly. Maybe 50% of my neighbors are lesbian and gay. They are mostly in committed relationships and have children. They revere the "family traditions" Mouw speaks of. They go to church. We have block parties. We have annual Christmas caroling together, with lots of the children. The children seem well-adjusted and happy. One of my friends is a doctor, one is a schoolteacher, all are happy and productive (and rather well-off, to live in this neighborhood). Certainly I don't think parents of the children taught by my schoolteacher friend have anything to worry about, since he is "out" and happy with his partner. I and my other straight neighbors get along with the gays very well - they are pillars of the community. Someday, I hope the entire country can be this way.

As an African-American, I am glad to see that using the bible to justify racism (i.e. The Curse of Ham, etc) is no longer acceptable. As a gay man, I am disappointed that anachronistic theocratic strictures continue to relegate gays and lesbians to second class citizenship in our own country. Thankfully, prejudice against gays and lesbians will no longer be acceptable within a generation. The progress that is being made is inexorable. In the meantime, for those of you who do not think that racism and homophobia is each bigotry, perhaps you should listen to the few of us who understand all too well what prejudice feels like whether it is 'whites only' or 'straights only'.

As an African-American, I am glad to see that using the bible to justify racism (i.e. The Curse of Ham, etc) is no longer acceptable. As a gay man, I am disappointed that anachronistic theocratic strictures continue to relegate gays and lesbians to second class citizenship in our own country. Thankfully, prejudice against gays and lesbians will no longer be acceptable within a generation. The progress that is being made is inexorable. In the meantime, for those of you who do not think that racism and homophobia is each bigotry, perhaps you should listen to the few of us who understand all too well what prejudice feels like whether it is 'whites only' or 'straights only'.

The author doesn???t wish to "impose his world view on others" and yet that is exactly what he and others did when they chose to "define" marriage between one man and on woman. And yes, I'm angry, very, but I don't shout. Before the election I simply walked a corner with a sign ready marriage equality for all. Those whose view were similar honked and shouted in support, those that opposed also honked, sometimes confuses us, as we would look at them and smile and then we would see angry ugly looks on their faces, some even flipped us off or shouted profanities at us. My girlfriend started to shout, but I suggested she stop, and just smile. By smiling, through the pain of this very painful discrimination, I believe we are elevating ourselves to a more positve place. Let's show the world not an angry lesbian, which adds fuel to the fire, but rather a woman who is happy to have a right to demonstrate, a professional woman who is an asset to her community, and just so happens to be gay and really really really wants the right to marry.

The writer doesn't wish to "impose his world view on others" and yet that is exactly what he and others did when they chose to "define" marriage between one man and on woman. And yes, I'm angry, very, but I don't shout. Before the election I simply walked a corner with a sign ready marriage equality for all. Those whose view were similar honked and shouted in support, those that opposed also honked, sometimes confuses us, as we would look at them and smile and then we would see angry ugly looks on their faces, some even flipped us off or shouted profanities at us. My girlfriend started to shout, but I suggested she stop, and just smile. By smiling, through the pain of this very painful discrimination, I believe we are elevating ourselves to a more positve place. Let's show the world not an angry lesbian, which adds fuel to the fire, but rather a woman who is happy to have a right to demonstrate, a professional woman who is an asset to her community, and just so happens to be gay and really really really wants the right to marry.

This argument seems to me to easily boil down to two separate but intertwined issues:

Religious: From a religiious standpoint, churches should be allowed to do (or not do) whatever they like when it comes to this issue. No law should force churches to marry (for example) two men. This is a spiritual matter and should not fall under the purview of legislation. The converse of that statement is true, though, that no law should forbid churches from marrying (for example) two men.

Legal: Since the government is tied up in the institute of marriage (which it should get out of, IMHO, but that's another post), just about all arguments fall to equal protection clauses. You would need to show some compelling public interest in forbidding marriage between any willing partner (or partners) to ban it. Gay marriage opponents need to be careful here, though. By whatever metric you define (say divorce rates), gay marriage may turn out to be better and then you're stuck with the problem of advocating for making heterosexual marriage illegal.

I'm afraid that Mr. Mouw has missed the entire point. The United States has given him the right to live his life according to his moral, ethical values. Yet he favored and voted for a Proposition that denied others the right to do the same. Mr. Mouw bases his entire argument on the premise, implied if not spoken, that his interpretation of morality and ethics is correct and that those who favor same sex marriage are somehow "wrong". Like far too many people in this country, Mr. Mouw seems to believe that freedom means the right to agree with him. His citation of concerns for how our children and grandchildren are raised is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover his desire to impose his value system on others. Rather than asking us, "Can we talk?", Mr. Mouw would be better served by asking himself, "Can I listen?"

The argument that gay marriage distorts a child's view on marriage and committment is completely flawed in the society we live in today. Divorce is so rampant in this country that there is no such thing as the sanctity of marriage anymore. A member of my family recently got divorced and now my nephews go around talking about Mommy's boyfriend and Daddy's girlfriend. They are parents are constantly fighting with each other and the psychological change I have seen in these boys is heartbreaking.
Marriage does not mean the same thing in our society today as it did when the bible was written.

Being accused of "the worst kind of fundamentalism" would certainly be hurtful. It is hard to have sympathy for Mr. Mouw, however, when says little to demonstrate that he is NOT guilty of the same.

Arguing for racial and gender equality, "peacemaking," and environmental responsibility is easy when society has, by and large, agreed that those are noble causes. Now the front has changed, and the controversy surrounds homosexual equality. Mr. Mouw argues for a fundamental approach to same-sex marriage-- that is prohibited by the bible and, as such, cannot be allowed. He invites his gay and lesbian fellow citizens to the discussion table, but only so he may teach them "what [his] sincerely held convictions mean for how they pursue their way of lives."

Mr. Mouw, that is just it. A religious conviction, no matter how sincerely held, DOES NOT give you the right to determine how another human being lives his or her life. I agree with JHud, there has been no strong or convincing secular argument against homosexual marriage. I have often heard it said that the United States is a "Christian country" or was founded on "Christian values." Regardless of how much truth there is in either of those statements, our Church and State are seperate entities. Just as government must not force churches to marry gays, a religious group may not prohibit officials such as judges, JPs, or other churches from doing what they have decided is right.

Mr. Mouw gives only one secular argument for his position: fear. Fear of how equality will affect the younger generation. He, and those echoing his beliefs, may uphold what principles they will in their homes and churches. Public schools, as government institutions, have a duty to promote equality. So yes, Mr. Mouw, we can talk. Would you like to start by telling US what it is that frightens YOU about a government that does not base its laws on religion?

The problem I have with Bible quoters is that there are all manner of oddball things in the Bible, not to mention all the erors in translation that must have occurred over the years. The Bible and three of the major religions (Jewish, Christian and Islamic) were all developed by primitive people for primitive people living in a small part of the world we call the Middle East. Many of the people living there are not much further along today than they were 4,000 years ago. The Bible itself is a description of near continual trible warfare, frequently controlled and directed by "God." Does this sound familiar?

If someone from the Middle East came along today and started spouting that they had talked with God or that they were sent by God, would we pay them any attention? Of course not! So why do so many people then believe that questionably translated words written thousands of years ago for a primiitive society have relevance for today? I am not trying to be a smart aleck, but I just don't understand how thoughtful people (like Mr. Mouw) convince themsleves that "God" wrote the Bible.

Excuse all the misspelled words in my comments...I was typing fast to get the thoughts out.... TF