Contrarian Viewpoints on Hot Topics

Part 1: Gay Marriage

Part 1: Gay Marriage

by Brian Worley

Do you remember those adolescent years when the rednecks that needed to publicly bully others to stroke their self-esteem went searching for easy prey? Easy prey were those that caught the brunt of the flaunting of their brutal immature machismo. Such things that they might exploit were individuals that wore glasses (“4 eyes”) or guys with higher pitched voices (“gay boys.”) No matter what the instigating cause might be, these people had to show the attitude it seemed to distance themselves; lest someone else have the mistaken idea that they might share commonalities with the victim. These xenophobic attitudes have a tendency to get more sophisticatedly disguised as people age. These attitudes morph into public identity groupings and needlessly divide society. I will proceed to discuss ones that pertain to religion and faith.

Must secularists automatically disagree with people of faith on social issues? Do secularists HAVE to differ on an issue merely due to the association that the issue has with Christianity? Society in general has a tendency to see issues as if it were only a two-sided coin (heads or tails and that’s it!) But most issues have three or more options, not just two! This is a recurring theme around religious issues and secularists need to be wise to this by adverting the two-sided tactic! It’s an effective way to neutralize better options by framing two opposing politically charged options together and let them fight it out! The spectacle of the fight usually is a sufficient way to silence voices of a more reasonable approach, or help the idea get lost in the scuffle! Issues when reduced to a two-sided coin approach limit and divide people! But just like a coin, this way of thinking is narrow!

Clumsy rhetoric can easily turn into political polarization fodder when used for coalition building. This builds parties but divides people. Truly progressive societal forces must employ honest pragmatic evaluation by asking, “Is what we are doing working?” If not, then “the coin” approach needs re-evaluation!

In the clearest terms: faith doesn’t need reason; science doesn’t need faith; and secularists have no need of the faithful’s revelation. No need to build bridges between ideologies where none are desired! But humanity is better served when a bridge spans the gulf between the saints and the secularists. Please note the distinction! The brotherhood of man should be an important concept that we dare not reject! We need each other! But are we too independent to admit it?

The cornerstone of the bridge over troubled waters must first get into the water before it can anchor. This is another way of saying that we need new approaches because the old models don’t work! This involves deeper thinking and taking risks that one might get one mistaken as a compromiser or uncertain to which side of the fence that they belong to. But this mindset of being on a certain side is exactly what needs challenging! Free thought is healthy for our community and much more interesting than static non-pragmatic ideas. I will proceed to address these through brief discussions, this being the first of three “hot topic issues.”

GAY MARRIAGE

What if I were to ask you, “Which type of issue would gay marriage be?” Would it be: 1) civil rights issue 2) religious issue 3) cultural/tradition issue? I would love to see the polling results, if anyone has asked this question! Does your classification choice of the three above options have any “authority/legitimacy” behind it?

Some would claim all three have authority, I would say that legitimately only two of these could justify their viewpoint. This issue becomes clearer when illegitimate arguments are tossed aside! Clearly, religious proponents are the most visible opponents to gay marriage…but they have NO authority backing their view! The faithful bring a childish, immature argument that is not worthy of discussion. Besides, the First Amendment has already set the guidelines that religion should have no say in this matter!

However, the powers behind Christianity have made a brilliant tactical move by turning this into an either/or “two sided coin” issue hinging upon one’s view of religion which serves to protect their interests! The church doesn’t want gay marriage and impedes progress by intruding where they truly have no jurisdiction. They have succeeded in hoodwinking the general public by making an otherwise civil rights vs. cultural/traditional matter into a religious allegiance matter. They know that the faithful will fight and the secularists will resist and this battle should be sufficient enough to thwart any progress for gay people.

Ultimately, in my view, the issue of gay marriage should be a question of civil rights vs. a cultural/tradition interpretation and which of these deserves preference in the matter. While these could be debated into a spectacle or a draw, who really wants that? I have written upon this subject before (in depth.) While I clearly understand the civil rights aspect of this issue, many disregard the historical cultural tradition as if it were a petty matter!

Marriage is marriage: (between a man & a woman)

Two fellow bloggers (#one , #two…both whom I respect) serve as a representative sampling of those that would disrespect what many couples commonly share (marriage), and bring gay marriage into law to resolve the issue. The cultural/traditional viewpoint defining marriage was affirmed by the United Nations landmark 1948 Declaration of Human Rights and is crystal clear about marriage (see Article 16). The traditional view of marriage does have authority behind it, sad that few mention this and seem unacquainted with the UN’s Declaration!

I am not dogmatic on the issue, nor would it pain me to see gay marriage legislated into law. But to do so would be an expedient, shortsighted political/legislative error in my judgment. There isn’t one ounce of ill will towards the gay community within me, those reading 1, 2, 3, would know this to be true! I quickly want a gay friendly resolution that doesn’t pirate upon what my wife & I and millions of other couples share in marriage. Civil unions or something better is what needs to occur, not gay marriage.

Knoxville, TN, Jim David Adkisson, & Xenophobia

Furthermore, de-facto mandating of gay marriage invites resentment that might never dissipate in a pluralistic society that allows freedom of religion. Not only do the faithful resent the thought of gay marriage, so do other non-religious individuals with xenophobic tendencies. Few ever discuss the Knoxville, TN murders where Jim David Adkisson entered into a “liberal” church sanctuary that had a reputation for acceptance of gay people. Weren’t “hate radio show” propagandists in the mix as well when an interrogation of the killer revealed amongst other things that: “he targeted the church because of its liberal leanings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country.” I hope that this was an isolated incident, but can one ever be so sure (especially if you live within the Bible belt?)

The big idea? Common ground & the brotherhood of man

My purpose here was to show that the non-pragmatic “two sided coin” approach concerning gay marriage is a miserable failure for humanity; but it works wonderfully for fundamentalist Christians! The powers behind Christianity have a way of shaping dissonance to protect their interests. Secularists should “unplug” from engaging Christians upon their turf and thus deny them egalitarian status. Christians forfeit their egalitarian status privileges when they insist upon forcing their faith views upon secular society! If nobody objects upon religious grounds…what else could the faithful do to resist a feasible resolution for gay people?

Christians should be made to address the issue just like everyone else does: civil rights vs. cultural/tradition. Remember, they have no jurisdiction in the matter and should rightfully be ignored when they bring religious dogma. What keeps the church from using the argument that I employ by defining marriage in accord with the UN’s Declaration? Answer: Most fundamentalist have no use for the United Nations and suspect that the UN has evil intentions. Their people wouldn’t go for it and they know it!!!

Left with no other options to oppose gay marriage, if they still wanted to fight they would be forced to risk the public relations disaster of fighting openly against the civil rights of gay people. They couldn’t reconcile this with the image of love that they want to project!!!

Strange as this may sound to my peers, I find myself upon the same side of this issue as Christians. Albeit, we took different routes to arrive at the same place! This common ground with Christians is based upon reason, not with a faith based anchor! As repulsive as the thought of this might be to some, perhaps all of us might re-examine why it is that we come to certain conclusions. Is it tradition, politically based or founded upon reason?