Tuesday, August 16, 2011

FINAL THOUGHTS: Why I do not support same-sex marriage

The goal of my last article was to motivate friends to read a couple of books that describe a variety of reasons why same-sex marriage should not be legal. It did not go as well as I hoped.


There were about 150 views of the post, but only three people accepted my offer to send them free copies of the recommended books. To that precious few, I say... thank you! However, several other friends read a small portion of Defending a Higher Law, viewable online, and told me over Facebook they were unimpressed. Friend 1: “Wow. What uneducated garbage. Every tenuous, religiously fueled link of un-reason flew in the face of everything I know to be true about homosexuality and about the gay folk I know and love.” Friend 2: “I cannot get beyond the indiscriminate reliance on Catholic principles and Christian Morality scattered throughout the introduction” Friend 3: “The reduction in the price of printing has allowed incredibly minor and invalid viewpoints to be published.”


Some of this criticism is unfair. The book raises legitimate points backed by over 200 references - many of them from pro-gay organizations and writers. On the other hand, I can understand how condemning the writing may come across. In hindsight, I made a terrible mistake recommending something so polarizing for a diverse audience to check out. I have edited the second article to remove Defending a Higher Law and in its place am recommending a very different kind of book entitled, Born to Love: Gay-Lesbian Identity, Relationships, and Marriage (1). It presents a fictional dialogue between a Catholic priest, a gay man, a lesbian, and a heterosexual couple readying to marry. I think everyone will find it insightful and much friendlier in tone. You can preview it by clicking on the book cover at the Amazon listing, and I suggest you begin reading at “The Setting of the Dialog.” I would also like to send you a free printed copy or Kindle edition. If I haven't burned a bridge with you, please ask for the book.

My previous post also peeved some people and earned me labels. I was counseled by friends and family about my stance. I lost a number of Facebook friends, including two relatives. The Facebook comments describing social conservatives like me turned negative. Friend 4: “Ironically it is the Christian Right who is making the work of Christians more difficult.. by being jerks.. and not showing the love and understanding that Christ is shown.” Friend 5: “I respect your beliefs, Terry, but ultimately you are coming down on the side of hate and divisiveness.” The lowest blow came from a buddy who said I reminded him of KKK members he once met. Good gravy! Is that what I have become?


Even though I oppose gay marriage, I resist these characterizations of me. I know what I have done to benefit several people who live with homosexuality. The rest of this article focuses on one of these friends, an extraordinary man I have known a long time. Please read and then pass judgment on me, if you must.


(Clarifying point: In what I am about to share, my intent is not to link homosexuality or bisexuality with crime. My purpose is only to show my willingness to help people regardless of their sexual orientation.)


Roger and Me


“Roger” (not his real name) and I became friends about 17 years ago. He lives with bi-sexual attraction. A few months after our meeting, he was arrested because of a sex crime I won’t detail here. His family had no money, so I found him a lawyer and paid all the fees out of pocket. This was tough on me, because I was still a graduate student and dirt poor.


Roger was convicted and quickly lost contact with his family once he was locked up. I became his primary lifeline during his 15 year prison stay. I paid all of his legal fees, bought him clothes and other essentials prisoners need, wrote him letters, and accepted his collect calls to my home. I also visited him every few months, driving three hours one way to get to the maximum security facility where he was held. He sometimes told me about his homosexual life with other inmates, but I never condemned him for it. I gently encouraged him to avoid the contact if possible. More importantly, I did not let his sex with men prevent me from helping him out. It was clear to me that I was put in his life to give him practical support and brotherly love.


What bothered me for years is what would happen to Roger when he eventually got out. Where would he go? How would he start his life over again? I worked for months to find a rehabilitation program to receive him when he was released. None of the secular half-way houses would accept him because of his sex crime. The only open door was a conservative Christian organization which assists recently freed sex offenders to begin to lead responsible civilian lives, whether they are gay, straight, or something in-between. They gave Roger his first home back in the world.


After a very rocky start, Roger is now doing pretty well. He has his own apartment. He is active in a church. We talk regularly and occasionally get together. Over the last year I have seen him grow tremendously, and he no longer seeks out homosexual sex. He sometimes talks about marrying and raising kids some day. Best of all, Roger has reunited with his existing family and they support him better than I can. Roger is absolutely delighted to have them back and we both consider it a miraculous answer to prayer.


The Christian organization that helped Roger has asked me to join their leadership board. Yesterday I attended my first meeting. The community benefits from their work and I am glad to be a part of it. Every month over 30 sex offenders are released from prison into our metropolitan area. Most of them end up homeless unless charitable organizations are there to assist. It is prudent to lend them a hand before they get back into trouble.


Sometimes I reflect on why I befriended Roger. Hundreds of hours - gone. Thousands of my dollars - spent. I’ll never get any of it back. So why did I do it? Quite simply, because I was compelled by God. So many times when I have asked God who should I pray for or who should I help, Roger’s name would just pop in my head. The Spirit moves in mysterious ways.


Nevertheless, I am no saint and Roger knows it. He is well aware of my weaknesses and has told me when I need to shape up. This mutual honesty is why we get along. On that note, I asked Roger whether he views me as a hater, a clansman in plain clothes, because I believe same-sex marriage is wrong. He had a lot to say: “Me, I don’t hate all these (gay) people. I have to forgive them because God forgives me. If I hate them, then I hate myself... But everyday we see it on TV. We hear it on the radio. They are saying it is ok for men to marry each other, women to marry each other, and have sex with each other. Come on, people, we don’t want to see this stuff! But we can’t get away from it. They are (even) teaching this lifestyle in schools! It makes me mad that people don’t understand what is going on. (Terry) you are not a bigot. You are just trying to reach and educate people. Something very wrong is going on.”


Please contact me directly if you would like to talk about this article or previous ones I posted. It turns out Facebook commenting is not a very good way to have important discussions. A phone call or meeting would be better. Thanks.


References


(1). Born to Love: Gay-lesbian identity, relationships, and marriage.

http://www.amazon.com/Born-Love-Gay-Lesbian-Relationships-Marriage-Homosexuality/dp/1432742426/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1313250847&sr=8-2

Monday, July 25, 2011

FOLLOW UP: Why I do not support same-sex marriage (revised)

As a first-time blogger, the attention given to my article exceeded my expectations with over 100 views in one week. Google tells me there are readers from the US, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway. When I linked the article on Facebook I received many comments and an extended dialogue ensued. Rather than continue the discussion on Facebook about the article, I would like to summarize the conversation to date and perhaps redirect it.

I will first answer a question you might have been asking: Why did I write the article? In short, Oprah made me do it. I chose the topic of same-sex marriage because it is the current crusade for the media and entertainment industry. Many if not most news outlets and television networks actively promote and defend same-sex marriage and the gay lifestyle. Too often when I watch a TV show, read a newspaper, or see a popular movie, I am force-fed an advocacy message. On the other hand, those who are concerned about same-sex marriage are less often heard. To check if my perceptions are accurate, I conducted an analysis of the editorials and letters to the editor of the most widely circulated newspapers across the country. Over the past twelve months, only 25% of these op-ed articles were critical of same-sex marriage (1). What I cannot tell however is if the mass media is suppressing the voices of same-sex marriage opponents or whether they have taped their own mouths shut.

In response I wrote a counterpoint to the overly positive view of same-sex marriage portrayed in pop-culture. I argued that the redefinition of marriage will not end when gay marriage is normalized. Rather, legalizing same-sex marriage will provide solid footholds for a range of fringe groups to assert legal recognition of their unique marital preferences and sexual persuasions.

Some Facebook readers said my reasoning is flawed: “So flawed, I’m tempted to be flippant and say this argument only succeeds in proving that no marriage should be legal, as it is all a slippery slope.” Others agreed with me: “Great piece Terry... the ever evolving definitions (of marriage) are always trouble… the line in the sand ever shifts.” A third group urged us to live and let live: “I don’t believe (that) in a free society consenting adults should be prevented from living as they would choose. We are either free or we are not free.” Yet another set of readers approached the topic from a religious perspective: “I tend to keep things more simple in my mind and go back to the concept of Who created marriage in the first place. He (God) certainly has the right to define it.” There was a lot of discussion about what the Bible teaches concerning homosexuality and marriage. A final theme blended religious and legal considerations: “In this culture, there are two aspects to marriage: the legal one and the religious one... However, in this country we don't make laws based on religion so while you are free to believe that, it's not a legitimate basis for legislation.”

This last viewpoint underscores why there is so much disagreement over legalizing same-sex marriage within the US. Broadly stated, one group of people (which includes myself) thinks we need to look to a divine source for guidance on what is and is not acceptable coupling. According to religious traditions, the practice of homosexuality contradicts God’s will and the natural order, and therefore homosexual unions are a grave offense and should be illegal. The other group does not agree we should legislate based on a religiously derived set of morals, particularly in the sexual arena, which is private. We should let freely consenting persons express themselves in intimate relationships however they are inclined, and we should extend to homosexuals the same honors and benefits of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

As I said earlier, my motivations for writing about same-sex marriage are to bring balance back into this public debate by giving a renewed voice to social conservatives. My first article was a beginning and I would now like to recommend a couple of publications to fuel the fire. The first is entitled Born to Love: Gay-Lesbian Identity, Relationships, and Marriage (2). It is available to preview online for free at Amazon by clicking on the image of the book cover. The book was produced by a Catholic organization and includes religious and secular reasoning which challenges the thinking of gay marriage fans.


The second book is called The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom by David Kupelian (3). This national best seller uncovers the monumental role the popular media has played in advancing same-sex marriage and otherwise transforming America from a historically strong Judeo-Christian culture into a secular society. Author David Kupelian “explores the reasons why so many Americans accept ideas and behaviors today that would have horrified them only a generation ago.”


Surprisingly, the Bible is only one of several sources consulted in both books. Significant space is devoted, particularly in the Marketing of Evil, to the history of the gay rights movement, the general decline of family in America - including Christian families, constitutional law, moral philosophy, and even the scientific understanding of homosexual inclinations. The is important reading for both opponents and supporters of legalizing same-sex marriage, as I will explain.


In this crucial hour, those opposing same-sex marriage really need this material to answer the arguments of gay marriage advocates. Think of the continual drone of pro-gay marriage messages from the media every single day and how quickly public opinion has shifted on same-sex marriage in recent years (4).

Why would supporters of same-sex unions want to read either book? A very good reason is to become better equipped for civil discussions with friends and family who do not agree with you. A large proportion of Americans are still opposed to same-sex marriage, and understanding their point of view can bring about better understanding and perhaps a consensus on how to resolve this cultural crisis. To this end, I ask same-sex marriage supporters whether you have read any material produced by a conservative group (Christian or otherwise) on the issue of same-sex marriage? I don’t mean the five-word sound bites occasionally leaked and parodied on The Daily Show, but a complete treatment on the subject?

I believe people of conscience on both sides of the debate will profit by reading these books and I am putting my money where my mouth is. I will purchase a copy of both Born to Love and The Marketing of Evil for up to ten Facebook friends who are willing to take a look at them. You can receive whatever version you prefer and is available (hard copy, Kindle, or audio book). My only request is that you commit to reading whole chapters. They will help you to better appreciate the priorities and legitimate concerns of a sizable group of religiously-inclined Americans. I guarantee it.

References


(1) Based on 43 articles indexed on a Google news search using the search terms “same sex marriage editorial” between the dates of July 24, 2010 and July 23, 2011. Top newspapers categorized based on nationwide circulation: http://www.thepaperboy.com/usa-top-100-newspapers.cfm.

(2) Born to Love: Gay-lesbian identity, relationships, and marriage. http://www.amazon.com/Born-Love-Gay-Lesbian-Relationships-Marriage-Homosexuality/dp/1432742426/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1313250847&sr=8-2

(3) The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom by David Kupellian http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1581824599/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

(4) how quickly public opinion has shifted on same-sex marriage in recent years http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Why I do not support same-sex marriage (revised)

In a recent Miami Herald opinion column, Leonard Pitts (1) makes light of statements made by President Obama that his views on same-sex marriage are “evolving.” He urges the President to “evolve faster,” so that marriage equality is extended to gay men and lesbians. Mr Pitt’s emphasis of the word “evolve” is important and we need to explore it further. The word means change over time. Science teaches evolution is not a one-time event. It is a continuing process. Before we deliberately evolve marriage in our society, we need to take a longer view of where this process of continuing change will ultimately lead us.


The goal of same-sex marriage supporters is to redefine the traditional marriage formula. Instead of one man and one woman marrying, the formula would be altered to allow two men to marry, or two women. As recent opinion polls have shown, an increasing number of Americans think same-sex marriage is fine (2). However, there is every reason to think the evolution of marriage will continue long after same-sex marriage wins the day. Once you change one parameter of the traditional marriage formula, other aspects of the formula will eventually be challenged. Here are a few possibilities; each them has a cultural history and a popular base of support.


Polyamory (group marriages): If we evolve the marriage formula so two same-sex people can marry, it is reasonable to ask why can it only be two people marrying? Why not three or four or more? A great many societies have embraced polyamory its various forms (3) and if a multiple-partner family moved here, would it not be culturally bigoted if we failed to recognize the union? There are advocacy groups within the US claiming: “Freely-consenting, adult, non-abusive, marriage-committed polygamy is the next civil rights battle” (4a, 4b). Watch this video about a Reality-TV family in America fighting for the right to multi-marry (5). On what basis is this version of marriage any less valid than same-sex marriage? Everyone involved is fully consenting and happy.


Incest: If we open the marriage formula to same-sex partners, then we may be forced to consider marriages between members of the same biological family, such as father and daughter, mother and son, sibling and sibling (6). Many countries already allow first-cousins to marry and Sweden allows half-siblings to marry (7). The same or more may be demanded here in the USA. Consider this personal appeal: “You can't help who you fall in love with, it just happens. I fell in love with my sister and I'm not ashamed ... I only feel sorry for my mom and dad, I wish they could be happy for us. We love each other. It's nothing like some old man who tries to f*** his three-year-old, that's evil and disgusting ... Of course we're consenting, that's the most important thing. We're not f***ing perverts. What we have is the most beautiful thing in the world." (8) How many times have we heard the same plea from gays and lesbians?


According to an author at Slate, we cannot dismiss incest too quickly: "The easy answer—that incest causes birth defects —won't cut it. Birth defects could be prevented by extending to sibling marriage the rule that five states already apply to cousin marriage: You can do it if you furnish proof of infertility or are presumptively too old to procreate. If you're in one of those categories, why should the state prohibit you from marrying your sibling?" (6).


Married Children: It is more of a stretch, but consider another evolution. If same-sex people can marry, then we may be asked to amend the marriage formula so that not only adults can marry, but so can children, or a mix of ages, such as a middle-aged man and a nine year old boy or girl. It is legal within Saudi Arabia and Yemen (9), and there was a recent high-profile marriage in the US between a 51-year old movie star and his 16-year old girlfriend. Former Lost and Green Mile actor Doug Hutchison says "We're aware that our vast age difference is extremely controversial... But we're very much in love and want to get the message out there that true love can be ageless." (16) Hmm, in the spirit of ageless love, could we lower the age of consent any further like some other nations have done? Consider these points:


1. Girls already have adult-level privacy rights: In Bellotti v. Baird (1979), the US Supreme Court ruled a minor can have an abortion without parent consent if she is sufficiently mature: “many, perhaps a large majority of 17-year olds are capable of informed consent, as are a not insubstantial number of 16-year olds, and some even younger.” (10) By extension, if a girl 15 years or or younger can make a life altering decision whether to bring a life into the world, as as a matter of privacy, then perhaps she can also make a life altering decision of who and when to marry.


2. Adult-child sex may not cause cause psychological damage: According to a new book summarizing a range of research studies on survivors of childhood sexual abuse, most victims grow up with few or no psycho-pathological consequences (see myth #37 in 11). This implies marriage of adults with minors may not cause damage to the psyche of a youngster, particularly if it is consensual within marriage.


3. If same-sex intimacy is now ok, then adult-child sex may be ok, too: The Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that same-sex intimacy can no longer be punished simply because it is was once considered immoral. Morals regarding sexual behavior have changed over the years within the US and the court decided to be lenient as a result (12). On this basis, if the American public became comfortable with adult-child sex, the Supreme Court imply they could be swayed to permit it. The success of the same-sex marriage movement shows Americans will relabel something as "good" they once considered "evil" if they are continually blasted with supporting messages over a several year period.


Now, I realize not every possible marriage scenario will see the light of day, but it is clear the definition of legitimate marriage is dramatically shifting. If same-sex marriage is ok, there are few robust reasons to dismiss all the other types of unions I mention above. Each is an alternative lifestyle and another variation to the traditional marriage formula. Supporters of same-sex marriage argue for individual freedom over tradition and government control. If individual liberty becomes the new standard, then we should extend the same liberty to any other people wishing to marry even if the particular version of marriage violates deep-seated cultural taboos. One could argue that any marriage arrangement is justifiable if all parties involved give their consent. If we permit same-sex marriage, then proponents of polygamy, incest, or adult-child marriages may insist they also get their way in the spirit of liberty and justice, for all. Imagine the future civil rights battles that could ensue if these fringe groups garnered as much manpower, money, and media support as the same-sex marriage movement.


This is greatly troubling to me, and as a result, I do not support same-sex marriage because it provides a strong legal precedent for other groups (polygamy, etc.) to bolster their positions. I am a firm believer in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (13). DOMA provides a protective hedge against nationwide recognition of many kinds of marital unions that threaten the integrity of the family as we know it. DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton after passing in both houses of congress by large majorities. My hope is our elected leadership and a majority of US States will continue to recognize the wisdom embodied in the DOMA marriage formula.


If you do oppose same-sex marriage, please make your voice heard in concert with others There are several organizations you can contact and become involved (14a, 14b, 14c). Be sure to share this article with your friends, too!


If you still support same-sex marriage, know that the same arguments used by same-sex marriage supporters also serve the causes of a other sexual orientations and marriage preferences. Before you dismiss this article as "slippery slope" rhetoric, understand there are many family law professors who deliberately support same-sex marriage to create a legal wedge for legalizing polyamory, which is their ultimate aim (15). If distinguished professors of law from the following universities see the connection, you should, too: Harvard University, New York University, Cornell University, University of Michigan, University of Southern California, American University, and University of Utah.


References

(1) http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/28/2289798/obamas-semantic-con-job-on-gay.html

(2) http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/

(3) http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf


Advocacy groups within the US claim: “Freely-consenting, adult, non-abusive, marriage-committed polygamy is the next civil rights battle”


(4a) http://www.pro-polygamy.com/


(4b) http://www.nationalpolygamyadvocate.com/ (be sure to watch the video)


(5) http://abcnews.go.com/US/s​ister-wives-polygamist-pla​ns-suit-challenge-polygamy​-law/story?id=14051846


(6) http://www.slate.com/id/2081904/


(7) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424337.stm


(8) http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2002/jan/09/familyandrelationships.features103

(9) http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Saudi-court-confirms-validity-of-marriage-for-eight-year-old-girl-15000.html


(11) http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140513111X,descCd-tableOfContents.html


(12) http://pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/The-Constitutional-Dimensions-of-the-Same-Sex-Marriage-Debate.aspx#1

(13) Defense of Marriage Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_marriage_act


If you do oppose same-sex marriage, please make your voice heard in concert with others.


(14a) http://www.frc.org/


(14b) http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3479573/k.E2D0/About_NOM.htm


(14c) http://www.cwalac.org/about.shtml


(15) http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?page=3


(16) http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/21/lost-actor-marries-16-year-old-girlfriend/