Less Shouting, More Talking

NEWSWEEK

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

That hurt. I have spent several decades of my life trying to spell out an evangelical alternative to "the worst kind of fundamentalism." My friends and I have argued that the Bible supports racial justice, gender equality, peacemaking and care for the environment—views that often draw the ire of the worst kind of fundamentalists. But none of that seems to matter to folks who don't like our views about same-sex relations. Because we also believe that the Bible frowns on sexual intimacy outside of marriage between a man and a woman, we are being relegated to the margins of the civil dialogue.

I refuse to go to the margins. As my fellow citizens in a pluralistic society, gays and lesbians have a right to ask me what my sincerely held convictions mean for how they pursue their way of lives.

While my views about sexuality are shaped by my religious convictions, I know that I cannot simply quote the Bible in arguing for public policy. Not every sin ought to be made illegal. But in this case, the issues go deep. For many of us, "normalizing" same-sex marriage comes down to deep concerns about the raising of our children and grandchildren. What will they be taught about sexual and family values in our schools? How will they be affected by the ways the entertainment media portray people with our kinds of views? And will we even be allowed to counter these influences in our homes and churches without being accused of "hate speech"?

And, fair or unfair, "slippery slope" concerns loom large. Are there limits to what we can be asked to tolerate when it concerns matters that violate our convictions? If we were to accept mutual consent and deeply felt convictions as a sufficient basis for allowing the legalization of same-sex relationships, what would keep us from extending marriage to a three-partner arrangement?

But I also want to hear from folks who worry about my views. What is it about people like me that frightens you so much? What would you need to hear from us that would reduce your anxiety? What is your vision of a flourishing pluralistic society? Where do people like me fit into that kind of society?

Maybe I am unrealistic in thinking we can have this national conversation. But the alternatives are frightening. Posing this question has worked at other times when people seemed hopelessly at odds. So let's try asking it now as a nation, and in a gentle tone: Can we talk?

Mouw is the president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif.

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: aaroncase23 @ 11/23/2009 12:43:18 AM

I think the whole thing is wrong. A vast majority of Americans shouldn't be voting on rights that will be given to a meager minority. I hope that the federal court in California realizes the mistake they made by allowing the public to change their constitution by just a 4% margin. The opposition to Prop 8 is "shouting" because they're sick of feeling depressed every time a state announces that the love they share with their partners means nothing in that particular state. And that's happened a good number of times. It's simply maddening.

The Church of Latter Day Saints should be ashamed for using their millions to support a cause that will hinder regular people that just want to have their love recognized, rather than using it toward something more enlightening. How could anyone vote yes on this bill and not subconsciously feel like a complete douchebag?
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: stevewh @ 08/19/2009 12:04:39 PM

What I hear you saying is that you're afraid of living in a world where being gay is o.k., where gay people get married, raise kids, and aren't bullied in school for being different. Because gay marriage would do a lot to "normalize" being gay in society, you oppose it.

This is a fair way to phrase your opposition, correct?

So you can see why people think you're hate-mongering. You're opposition to gay marriage rests on your opposition to being gay. You don't want your kids to think it's ok to be gay and decade (as if it were a choice) to be gay.

I think when you take a long look in the mirror you'll realize that what you believe comes down to an opposition to being black. You don't like black people so you want to punish them and deter future black behavior. I replace where gay should go with black to get something across--if you understand why those beliefs are offensive to black people you should see why gay people are equally angry with that being your motivation (and the beliefs you want to impose on them)?
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: PurplePeopleEater @ 08/19/2009 11:17:04 AM

I agree with Mr. Mouw on one thing and one thing only: we can discuss this in a civilized way. That being said, if I must shout to be heard, then I will shout.
Mr. Mouw mentioned a "slippery slope" of what people could be asked to tolerate. In my view, that argument works both ways. Now that the voting public has asserted its power to strip the rights of a minority, what other rights can be stripped from what other minorities when citizens cast their ballots. As a gay man, what other rights can I expect to be denied by my fellow citizens? That, my friend, is a slippery slope we ought to avoid but it is the slipper slope we find ourselves on as more and more evangelical groups push for a federal ban on gay marriage or for states to prohibit adoption by gay couples. .

Mr. Mouw also suggests that the children of evangelical families may suffer from the media's liberal bias against them. I ask Mr. Mouw to consider how traumatic it might be for a gay youth to grow up in a society that frequently, through popular votes, tells him that he is less valuable and less deserving of fundamental rights because he is gay. That is extremely frightening and disheartening.

While I respect Mr. Mouw's right to speak freely and openly about his religious beliefs, I also ask him to remember his history of the United States of America. Before this country had even been born, the people who emigrated from Europe were in search of freedom from religious persecution. For Mr. Mouw to suggest that, by voting yes on Proposition 8 he is not imposing his religious views on the rest of society, is blatantly and obviously false because that is exactly what has happened. This great nation has thrived on religious freedom, and, again, we would venture down a very slippery slope to allow laws to be passed based on the religious views of some, even if they are the views of the majority. Make no mistake, it is not infringing on anybody's religious freedom to allow gay marriage. Nobody would be forced to practice it or to see it in the aisles and pews of their own church if the law is interpreted correctly. We can all enjoy our full rights as citizens and still live side by side.