Why so many Christians won't back down on gay marriage

[SGOS]

Here's one guy's take on the subject.  He doesn't come across as a Christian apologist.  He might be right, but I don't think he's right.  I just don't think he has a firm grasp on the dynamics.

http://theweek.com/article/index/267244/why-so-many-christians-wont-back-down-on-gay-marriage

A majority of Americans already favor same-sex marriage â€" and most everyone agrees that same-sex marriage will continue to be accepted by an ever-bigger majority.

In many urban and progressive circles, it's beyond impolitic to oppose gay marriage. Indeed, there's a movement underfoot to make opposition to same-sex marriage akin to support for racism. That is to say, anyone who expresses opposition to same-sex marriage would be ostracized, with many progressives hoping to employ a variety of social and governmental means of coercion to force gay-marriage opponents to the margins of society. Whether this movement will succeed or not is an open question. But regardless, it's important to understand that this movement is based on a premise that is based on a misreading of history. And this misreading could drive the movement to ends it wouldn't desire.

The false premise goes something like this: Christianity, as a historical social phenomenon, basically adjusts its moral doctrines depending on the prevailing social conditions. Christianity, after all, gets its doctrines from "the Bible," a self-contradictory grab bag of miscellany. When some readings from the Bible fall into social disfavor, Christianity adjusts them accordingly. There are verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality, but there are also verses that condemn wearing clothes made of two threads, and verses that allow slavery. Christians today find ways to lawyer their way out of those. Therefore, the implicit argument seems to go, if you just bully Christianity enough, it will find a way to change its view of homosexuality, and all will be well. After all, except for a few shut-ins in the Vatican, most Christians today are fine with sexual revolution innovations such as contraception and easy divorce.

Look, there's obviously some truth in all that. Not every single bit of Christian morality has held constant over a history that spans two millennia, every continent, and almost every culture. And as Christians will be the first to admit, many strands of Christianity have been very accommodating of the idiosyncrasies of its host societies.

But this premise is also fundamentally mistaken, because the history of Christian ethics actually shows that the faith has been surprisingly consistent on the topic of sexuality. Christian opposition to homosexual acts is of a piece with a much broader vision of what it means to be a human being that Christianity will never part with

.

Now some of that, I agree with, but his assumption that the time honored tradition of not changing it's position on sexual norms, I'm not sure is relevant.  The church also had a time honored tradition on a flat Earth as the center of the universe.  Granted it's a tremendous anchor against accepting change, but I don't think the sex issue is that much more sacred to the church than a flat Earth.

The article goes on for a couple of paragraphs about God's love of mankind, bla, bla, bla.  I have no idea why the author inserted this into the argument, so I'll skip it, and go onto the conclusion.  You can read the entire article if you want.

Today, many gay-marriage proponents don't just want a live-and-let-live relationship with Christianity â€" they want to force Christianity to affirm same-sex marriage. They do this, I think, because they believe very strongly in the rights of gays to marry, but also largely because they think that it will only take moderate prodding to get Christianity to cave in. History and Christianity's own self-understanding suggest, however, that such an outcome is not in the cards.

Well, OK.  Why not?  Most gays believe in a God and want to be part of the church.  They just keep getting thrown out.  Changing that is pretty central to their cause, I would think, and that's what social change is all about.  Sure the church will resist, even for a while as the congregation becomes more accepting.  But like all the rest of human bullshit, bigots will always turn to the Bible or some other holy text full of misguided logic and mutually exclusive claims to find a justification for their agenda.

[stromboli]

There are a few unspoken assumptions in the article: first is that everyone reading the article is a christian, second that no one is going to change because of this or that, third is that homosexuality is by implication bad, and fourth that christianity is holding the line on any immoral activity, i.e. standing to the wall of morality.

In other words very ethnocentric. The implication is one of I'm/we're right, this is our stand. No actual argument made, just the implication. I frankly hope they don't back down. Sorry, my gay friends, but in the end the battle is best won when no one attends a homophobic church, not one where tacit acceptance is allowed while the core belief remains unchanged. The Mormon church has made noises in the direction of softening its stance on homosexuality to appease various staunch members who happen to have gay children. They are still excommunicating gays. Until the core belief is challenged and overcome, the problem remains.

So if your Episcopalian minister is a lesbian and going down on her girlfriend/wife after church, explain how your religion is holding the line there, Pascal Emmanuel-Gobry.

[Mister Agenda]

More and more denominations are changing their tune on this. I think the fundamentalists will hold out for a long time, but frankly the verses in question can easily be interpreted as injunctions against practices like making use of male temple prostitutes or the Roman acceptance of pederasty. Their kids will prefer the more narrow interpretations of those verses.

[Atheon]

He claims that there's a "movement" to marginalize those with anti-gay sentiment. There's no "movement" I'm aware of. The marginalization is just the natural outcome of more and more people realizing the absurdity and harm of the anti-gay position.

[stromboli]

He claims that there's a "movement" to marginalize those with anti-gay sentiment. There's no "movement" I'm aware of. The marginalization is just the natural outcome of more and more people realizing the absurdity and harm of the anti-gay position.

This^. Like I said, a lot of unspoken assumptions in the article. There is so much hate built in to the antigay stance that many christians are turning away just because of it.

[Hydra009]

Today, many gay-marriage proponents don't just want a live-and-let-live relationship with Christianity â€" they want to force Christianity to affirm same-sex marriage.

This is not correct.  They want same sex marriage in their state/country and they're undeterred by Christian attempts to ban it outright.  Christians don't have to affirm same-sex marriage, but they can no longer stop it.  There is a difference.

Phrasing it as some sort of act of coercion by gay rights proponents reveals a pitiable persecution complex and reeks of desperation.  Apparently, they are running out of legitimate-sounding reasons to oppose same-sex marriage and now are simply trying to paint their loss as the result of tyrannical leftist bullying.  I don't buy that narrative and I doubt many will, except for of course the losers on this issue, whom this seems to be addressed to.

They do this, I think, because they believe very strongly in the rights of gays to marry

Gay rights proponents believe very strongly in the rights of gays to marry.  What a shocker.

but also largely because they think that it will only take moderate prodding to get Christianity to cave in.

Which is actually largely true.  A majority of the populace of the US is Christian, yet gay marriage is now a majority view and continually gaining ground.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out that at least some Christians are changing their minds on this issue.  And the ones who do not will undoubtedly be future fringe groups.

[Solitary]

All the controversy here could have been avoided by the churches staying out of the government and the government staying out of the churches. Solitary

[SGOS]

There's no "movement" I'm aware of. The marginalization is just the natural outcome of more and more people realizing the absurdity...

Yes, it's a natural outgrowth of society accepting one another:  "God dammit!  Look at all those bastards accepting each other and being kind to others.  I feel so fucking marginalized by those pricks."

Well, whatayagonnado.  Who said life was fair?  LOL

[SGOS]

This is not correct.  They want same sex marriage in their state/country and they're undeterred by Christian attempts to ban it outright.  Christians don't have to affirm same-sex marriage, but they can no longer stop it.  There is a difference.

Or they just want to spread their evil and they will never be happy until straight people are forced to marry same sex partners.  It's obviously just being vindictive.  Gays want to punish straight people for not being gay.  Christians would never do that.  They just want to live and let live, and not stick their noses in other people's business.

OK, that might have been a little sarcastic.

[Munch]

He claims that there's a "movement" to marginalize those with anti-gay sentiment. There's no "movement" I'm aware of. The marginalization is just the natural outcome of more and more people realizing the absurdity and harm of the anti-gay position.

It goes in line with this overbearing sense of victimization that Christians are trying to claim happening to them today, movies like Gods not Dead stand as example. They actually believe that being told they need to grow the fuck up, stop believing in the made up fairy tale bullshit the bible tells them to do, like hating gays, is a form of victimization, like its against their human rights to be bigoted assholes.

[stromboli]

Yeah, as I've said many times, it comes back to the circle the wagons mentality every religion has. This guy is no different. No matter how he states his case, it is still the same. Gays seeking gay rights are attacking the old line, stand up for morality christians. None of the foregoing attacks against gay rights by numerous religious institutions like Prop 8 have any bearing in his mind.

[Solitary]

They won't back down because they are all latent homosexuals and get aroused by the stories in the Bible and can't handle the truth.  Solitary

[GSOgymrat]

You have all made good points. I would also disagree with the author that "the faith has been surprisingly consistent on the topic of sexuality." Attitudes towards birth control, concubines, the role of women, the role of men, celibacy, child brides, interracial marriage, polygamy, oral sex, anal sex, premarital sex, abortion, menstruation and appropriate dress have all changed over time and still vary around the world among people who call themselves Christians. There are many Christians who have no problem with gay marriage.

Personally I don't think conservative Christians can win this. If they accept gay marriage they undermine their base and have to recant their position, if they continue to marginalize gay people, during a time when more people realize they have friends, family and coworkers who are gay, fewer people will stay with their church. It's a win-win as far as I am concerned.

[aitm]

I have always held that the main reason that homo is such a taboo is simply pride and the concept of legacy. Men want to be proud of their son, they want their son to be bigger and better than they were. They want that because it is somewhat ingrained into us now. The "need a male-son" is not simply some moronic wish, (although indeed the reason for such is moronic) the vast majority of men want a son who will be the leader or the chief or the king or whatever....it is a very strong feeling among men, obviously and especially of cultures of the past. And along with that of course, is the generational spread, next is the grandkid so the whole gay thingy kinda fucks that up.

The reason they shun the concept that homo is an inherent trait is they don't want to be associated with being the "seed bearer". Therefore it MUST be  a choice and they can, with some bravado pass it along as a "the kid is a fucking fag".

This, I believe is why homo has been so consistent throughout all religions and their cultures while many other things not so impactful on ones psyche like eating shellfish or tats or horoscopes has been gradually pushed off into the region of "not really required to get to heaven ya know"

[Savior2006]

He claims that there's a "movement" to marginalize those with anti-gay sentiment. There's no "movement" I'm aware of. The marginalization is just the natural outcome of more and more people realizing the absurdity and harm of the anti-gay position.

I love me some persecution complex.