Before I address this topic there are some basic things you must understand about me – some of which were previously discussed in this blog. We are all children of a Heavenly Father who knows and loves us. We are here on this earth to work towards being able to live with our Heavenly Father. We have the opportunity and obligation to reach out to each other – both with temporal and spiritual things – to aid in our journey toward being more like our Heavenly Father. This life does not mark the beginning of time, nor does death mark the end of our existence.
The well being of children and families is something that is very important to me. I have chosen to study this field and look forward to opportunities that will allow me to have a positive impact on the lives of those around me. I am also grateful for those I have already had in my life. Right now, I find myself in a relatively liberal state at a relatively liberal graduate school. Academic settings tend to lean toward the liberal side anyway, and I find myself in classes with people who have very different perspectives than I do which has been a wonderful growing experience for me. At times it has made me feel that I can’t express my view. At times this is because I fear that those who know more than I do will shoot me down. At times this is because I fear feeling vulnerable by making myself stand out. At times it is because I feel it the particular issue doesn’t really matter or that sharing my view won’t change anyone’s perspective anyway, so why bother. Listening to myself making these and other excuses about why I wasn’t publicly expressing my view about changing the definition of marriage as a social institution to include unions between homosexual couples I realized I was being a coward and not true to my values and principles. My lack of vocalization does not reflect a lack of opinion or thought on the matter. On the contrary, I have spent a lot of time thinking about this issue. I want to share both some of the reason I feel the definition of marriage should be maintained as between a man and a women and my response to the arguments offered by those in favor of changing this definition. With that preface, here are my thoughts:
The definition and function of marriage has evolved over time and throughout cultures. If you believe we are all descendants of Adam and Eve who were married in the Garden of Eden by the power of God it is probable you still hold a “traditional” view of marriage – between a man and a women. Under this view, there are multiple purposes for marriage, two main ones being to procreate and to care for one another. Marriage is not just the opportunity to procreate, but a commandment accompanied with obligations to care for offspring and each other. Accompanying this view is the implicit idea that a man and a woman together can provide valuable and complimentary nurturing for their children that neither could provide alone. For example, social science research tells us that fathers help their children learn boundaries and that mothers help children learn to self-regulate. This does not mean a child will not learn the complimentary life skill if a child has only a mother, only a father, or even two mothers or two fathers. It may mean the child is in a less than ideal environment for learning those complementary skills. In modern American society we have moved towards viewing marriage as a means for two individuals to express their love and commitment to each other. Ironically, this has not strengthened the institution of marriage if divorce statistics are any indication. Arguably, children are negatively impacted by the deterioration of marriage.
If you are not religious or have a religious background not founded in Christianity this reasoning can be written off as the babble of rhetoric of a “believer” or possibly even a religious fanatic. However, in American culture marriage was not instituted as a “right” but as social institution that defines an obligation between a husband and a wife and their obligations towards their children. This obligation is an element of marriage that has persisted throughout American history. Today we talk about “Dead Beat Dads” and have governmental programs in place to get money from men who have fathered children because we still believe they have an obligation towards their offspring. Even the idea of divorce courts that determine who gets what have their base in the idea that there is mutual obligation between adults who entered marital relations.
Very simply, my belief that this is a moral issue with far reaching consequences is the biggest reason for my stance. I believe we do not realize the magnitude of the consequences should we start down the path of redefining marriage. I think it is important to acknowledge that some people participating in this debate are coming from a moral or ethical stand point and other are approaching it from a social justice or human rights perspective. I don’t think these two are incompatible but I do think that if we fail to recognize both angles then a lot of confusion, unnecessary frustration, and tension may result. I’m a firm believer in the importance of understanding where someone is coming from. Taking the time to listen and seek their perspective can help create respect and understanding. This does not mean you have to change your view or agree with their stance.
Looking at the logic and arguments for the other side of an issue can help you determine if you truly agree with the stance you have taken, deepen your ability to both understand where they are coming from, and increase the chance that you can express your views in a manner that is sensitive and beneficial based on the context and background of those with whom you are discussing.
One reason people present in favor of same sex marriage is the idea that as long as your actions are not hurting anyone else it doesn’t matter what you do. I have never understood this argument. Perhaps it is because I view all our actions as very interrelated. It is nearly impossible to think of an action made by an individual that does not affect those around them in some way. Our actions affect, if nothing else, our mood which affects the way we interact with those around us. A parent’s choice to spend money on one thing decreases the funds available for other financial decisions. Even the example of same sex marriage illustrates this point. It goes beyond allowing an individual to interact with another individual in a way they mutually deem fit to changing societal institutions to reflect their preferences for interacting. When societal institutions change all who live within the society are affected.
Another reason that people give is the concept that the values of socially conservative individuals are being forced upon others with more socially liberal views. This is also an interesting argument to me. It is the same one that people forward in relation to removing “God” from our money or the Pledge of Allegiance. I feel they fail to realize that they are seeking to do exactly what upsets them about others – conform to their liberal views and values. They do not believe in God and feel they should not be forced to use currency claiming “In God We Trust” but removing it forces those who do believe in God to not express that belief. Neither the arguments around currency or marriage are value free on either side. Each side has deeply rooted feelings toward the issue based on their beliefs – religious or secular, liberal or conservative. One side claiming to be value free distorts the discussion. I feel we need moral legislation for a functioning society. We can have debates about what is moral, and which code of ethics we are going to subscribe to, but it is an issue of competing codes of moral ethics not morals against something higher than moral ethics.
Another argument raised has to do with the innate element of homosexual attraction. In my field of study we look at the “nature vs. nurture” debate. Does someone behave the way they do because they are born with some gene that makes them act so (nature) or because we are social beings instilled with a set of behaviors and reactions by those around us (nurture). A few still that hold to their end of this seeming dichotomy, but more and more both those with a biological base and those with a more sociological perspective agree that no clear answer exists. The answer is always both nature and nurture. The correct answer is also it varies by individual. Even if an average ratio for biological vs. social input could be found for any number of phenomena such as autism, depression, homosexual attraction, being an introvert or an extrovert, having musical skill, having athletic skill, etc. that average ratio could not be applied exactly to each individual with that trait.
If one believes that homosexual attraction is all, or partially, biological they may claim it is natural or there is nothing the individual can do about those feelings. Again, this is an argument I have a hard time wrapping my head around. I can think of several things that have a biological component that I feel most people would agree are not natural, not something we can do nothing about, and not something to be uniformly encouraged. Anger is one of those things. Someone individuals may be inclined to get angry; however, as a society we feel that people should work towards controlling their emotions and reaction. Another is depression. This is something that we know is affected by both genetic and environmental factors. We do not say to someone who struggles with this ailment “oh this is just part of who you are.” We have found ways to help them deal with this situation based both in therapeutic and medicinal treatments. These are not ideal situations, but they illustrate our desire to help people deal with the curve balls life throws each of us in the best way possible for optimal functioning - be that social, physical, emotional, spiritual or all the above.
To me that’s what this life is all about, moving toward optimal functioning under the constraints of this imperfect world we find ourselves in. We all have strengths and weaknesses, blessings and trials. I believe we have the ability to make choices and to receive help in overcoming all our weaknesses through the help of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is because I believe we can overcome anything through the power of His Atonement - if not in this life than in the next - that we must strive toward moral uprightness even if the circumstances we find ourselves in seem unfair.
Posts
