Why Draw the Line at Gay Marriage?
Based on and paraphrased from a response provided by Al Mohler
E. J. Dionne, a Washington Post columnist, asked conservative Christians this question:"Why draw the line here?" And by here, he meant in opposition to same-sex marriage. It was a serious question that deserves a serious answer.
Yet, to a certain extent, Dionne begins to answer the question himself, writing that "many traditionalist Christians view homosexual relationships as sinful. I think they are wrong. But, I acknowledge that this is a long-held view."
However, he then goes on to write that "many of the same Christians also view adultery as a sin, and Jesus was tough on divorce, stating that, 'What…God has joined together, let not man put asunder.'"
Well, he is absolutely right. (Of course, the interesting thing is that he doesn't go on to cite Jesus as making very clear that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.) But then, the challenge from Dionne arrives with these words, "But unless I'm missing something, we do not see court cases from website designers or florist or bakers about refusing to do business with people in their second or third marriages. We do not see the same ferocious response to adultery as we do to same-sex relationships."
He goes on to say, "Conservative Christians in large numbers were happy to put aside their moral qualms and vote twice for a serial adulterer. Why the selective forgiveness? Why the call to boycott only this one perceived sin." In his judgment, "What we are seeing in the opposition to same-sex marriage is less about religious faith than cultural predispositions."
It's interesting to note however that in 1995, the argument against same-sex marriage made sense to none another than E.J. Dionne himself, when he disagreed with the insistence of applying the word "marriage" to committed homosexual relationships.
At that time he stated, "That word and the idea behind it carry philosophical and theological meanings that are getting increasingly muddled and could become more so if it were applied even more broadly." In other words, he said there are philosophical and theological issues at stake and it would be important to recognize those and not to threaten those. So, use some other word for what you will call these relationships, but don't call them marriage.
That was 1995. By his book published in 2008, E.J. Dionne was arguing to the contrary. Although to his credit, he was acknowledging that he had held the contrary position as recently as 1995. But at least back in 2008, E.J. Dionne was not asking conservative Christians why the line would be drawn here.
He seemed to understand it in 2008. He wrote this, "I do not expect social conservatives or religious traditionalists to accept these arguments immediately or without qualms." In fact, he wrote in the book entitled, Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith in Politics After the Religious Right (again, in 2008), "Indeed, to the extent that I still agree with what I said on this subject in 1995, I understand how hard it is for people who live traditional lives, as in fact I do, to accept gay marriage. I worry, as they do, about the problems' marriage confronts. I agree with them entirely that for all its problems, the two parent family is, in most cases, still the best mechanism we have to raise children; and that family breakdown is the enemy of economic equality."
So, we have one position in 1995, another position in 2008, and now in 2022, the man who said he basically understood conservative theological reservations about same-sex marriage, has turned around and asked in 2022, "What are you guys thinking?"
But... Dionne did ask the question, so let us provide the answer:
Why draw the line here? It is because unlike divorce and adultery, which after all, accept a definition of marriage—in what is called "same-sex marriage" you have a rejection of any stable objective definition of marriage. Marriage is no longer the union of a man and a woman. It is declared to be what marriage is not and cannot be.
A same-sex relationship, to use the historic language of Christianity, lacks many of the capacities and many of the dignities of marriage. Most importantly, it lacks the procreative possibility. A man and a man and a woman and a woman cannot on their own, alone, the two of them together, create a baby.
It simply can't happen.
But, we have to take this one step further. What is the biblical basis for drawing the line here? It has to do with the fact that according to scripture, same-sex sexual relationships are not merely contrary to scripture, but contrary to nature.
That is what is different.
That is why, just to give an example, throughout Christian history, you would have something like polygamy that would not be judged as harshly as say, homosexual relationships or the claim of something like homosexual marriage. It is because polygamy is judged to be wrong. It is judged to be sinful. Jesus again, made that very clear. But, it is not in the same sense as same-sex relationships/behaviors given that they are against nature.
It is really interesting that in Romans chapter one, when the Apostle Paul is talking about same-sex relationships, he explicitly defines them as against nature.
So, when E.J. Dionne says, why draw the line here? I'll simply say it's because scripture draws a very clear line here—even though you have adultery and divorce as grave injuries and insults to marriage which bring about grave damage and danger to a society, and in particular, to the most vulnerable, starting with children.
I'm willing to bet that even if adultery is not a part of the criminal code in your state, it is at least factored into considerations, including negotiations that have to do with divorce. We are living in an age in which our society wants to act as if it has escaped or outgrown all moral scruples. But the fact is that still is not the case, and by our moral nature given to us by our Creator, I will argue it will actually never be the case.
I fully recognize that in our society, you'd be hard pressed to find even a conservative Republican who would have the theological conviction to look into a television camera and say, "Yes, I believe that homosexual acts are against nature." But, that doesn't change the fact that they are against nature.
And conservative Christians, by the way, are perfectly capable of any number of forms of moral hypocrisy; but arguing for marriage as the union of a man and a woman and exclusively so is not a form of moral hypocrisy.
We may be on the losing side of the argument in politics, but on the basis of divine revelation and the history and tradition of the Christian Church, including by the way the Roman Catholic Church of which E.J. Dionne is a member in communion, the fact is that the Christian Church through 2000 years has known exactly what marriage is.
And thus I'll simply say that one of the reasons to draw the line here is that the Christian Church has drawn the line here for 2000 years, and I think rightly so.
Based on and paraphrased from a response provided by Al Mohler
E. J. Dionne, a Washington Post columnist, asked conservative Christians this question:"Why draw the line here?" And by here, he meant in opposition to same-sex marriage. It was a serious question that deserves a serious answer.
Yet, to a certain extent, Dionne begins to answer the question himself, writing that "many traditionalist Christians view homosexual relationships as sinful. I think they are wrong. But, I acknowledge that this is a long-held view."
However, he then goes on to write that "many of the same Christians also view adultery as a sin, and Jesus was tough on divorce, stating that, 'What…God has joined together, let not man put asunder.'"
Well, he is absolutely right. (Of course, the interesting thing is that he doesn't go on to cite Jesus as making very clear that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.) But then, the challenge from Dionne arrives with these words, "But unless I'm missing something, we do not see court cases from website designers or florist or bakers about refusing to do business with people in their second or third marriages. We do not see the same ferocious response to adultery as we do to same-sex relationships."
He goes on to say, "Conservative Christians in large numbers were happy to put aside their moral qualms and vote twice for a serial adulterer. Why the selective forgiveness? Why the call to boycott only this one perceived sin." In his judgment, "What we are seeing in the opposition to same-sex marriage is less about religious faith than cultural predispositions."
It's interesting to note however that in 1995, the argument against same-sex marriage made sense to none another than E.J. Dionne himself, when he disagreed with the insistence of applying the word "marriage" to committed homosexual relationships.
At that time he stated, "That word and the idea behind it carry philosophical and theological meanings that are getting increasingly muddled and could become more so if it were applied even more broadly." In other words, he said there are philosophical and theological issues at stake and it would be important to recognize those and not to threaten those. So, use some other word for what you will call these relationships, but don't call them marriage.
That was 1995. By his book published in 2008, E.J. Dionne was arguing to the contrary. Although to his credit, he was acknowledging that he had held the contrary position as recently as 1995. But at least back in 2008, E.J. Dionne was not asking conservative Christians why the line would be drawn here.
He seemed to understand it in 2008. He wrote this, "I do not expect social conservatives or religious traditionalists to accept these arguments immediately or without qualms." In fact, he wrote in the book entitled, Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith in Politics After the Religious Right (again, in 2008), "Indeed, to the extent that I still agree with what I said on this subject in 1995, I understand how hard it is for people who live traditional lives, as in fact I do, to accept gay marriage. I worry, as they do, about the problems' marriage confronts. I agree with them entirely that for all its problems, the two parent family is, in most cases, still the best mechanism we have to raise children; and that family breakdown is the enemy of economic equality."
So, we have one position in 1995, another position in 2008, and now in 2022, the man who said he basically understood conservative theological reservations about same-sex marriage, has turned around and asked in 2022, "What are you guys thinking?"
But... Dionne did ask the question, so let us provide the answer:
Why draw the line here? It is because unlike divorce and adultery, which after all, accept a definition of marriage—in what is called "same-sex marriage" you have a rejection of any stable objective definition of marriage. Marriage is no longer the union of a man and a woman. It is declared to be what marriage is not and cannot be.
A same-sex relationship, to use the historic language of Christianity, lacks many of the capacities and many of the dignities of marriage. Most importantly, it lacks the procreative possibility. A man and a man and a woman and a woman cannot on their own, alone, the two of them together, create a baby.
It simply can't happen.
But, we have to take this one step further. What is the biblical basis for drawing the line here? It has to do with the fact that according to scripture, same-sex sexual relationships are not merely contrary to scripture, but contrary to nature.
That is what is different.
That is why, just to give an example, throughout Christian history, you would have something like polygamy that would not be judged as harshly as say, homosexual relationships or the claim of something like homosexual marriage. It is because polygamy is judged to be wrong. It is judged to be sinful. Jesus again, made that very clear. But, it is not in the same sense as same-sex relationships/behaviors given that they are against nature.
It is really interesting that in Romans chapter one, when the Apostle Paul is talking about same-sex relationships, he explicitly defines them as against nature.
So, when E.J. Dionne says, why draw the line here? I'll simply say it's because scripture draws a very clear line here—even though you have adultery and divorce as grave injuries and insults to marriage which bring about grave damage and danger to a society, and in particular, to the most vulnerable, starting with children.
I'm willing to bet that even if adultery is not a part of the criminal code in your state, it is at least factored into considerations, including negotiations that have to do with divorce. We are living in an age in which our society wants to act as if it has escaped or outgrown all moral scruples. But the fact is that still is not the case, and by our moral nature given to us by our Creator, I will argue it will actually never be the case.
I fully recognize that in our society, you'd be hard pressed to find even a conservative Republican who would have the theological conviction to look into a television camera and say, "Yes, I believe that homosexual acts are against nature." But, that doesn't change the fact that they are against nature.
And conservative Christians, by the way, are perfectly capable of any number of forms of moral hypocrisy; but arguing for marriage as the union of a man and a woman and exclusively so is not a form of moral hypocrisy.
We may be on the losing side of the argument in politics, but on the basis of divine revelation and the history and tradition of the Christian Church, including by the way the Roman Catholic Church of which E.J. Dionne is a member in communion, the fact is that the Christian Church through 2000 years has known exactly what marriage is.
And thus I'll simply say that one of the reasons to draw the line here is that the Christian Church has drawn the line here for 2000 years, and I think rightly so.