The wrong questions

Gay rights writer Gordon Phelps raises serious questions in a prominently published editorial; we can agree with (some of) his answers, but we cannot grant the points he is trying to persuade us of. His questions are the wrong questions, so the answers lead to wrong conclusions.

Gordon Phelps wrote in the Washington Post, "We gays just want a few rights." (I first saw his article in the Hampton Roads Daily Press , and then googled and found it on a gay rights website.) His article demonstrates well that the right answer to the wrong question is no better than a wrong answer.

Phelps says the question should have been asked all along, "Gay citizen, what exactly is it that you want?" That's a fine question, and the answers are important for a lot of reasons, but not as a basis for public policy.

He objects to mistruths about what gays want, that we were supposedly told in the last election season:

"that I, as a gay citizen, want to change your laws and religious definitions of marriage and force churches to marry same-sex couples. Also, that I am assaulting the very fabric of the nation, that I want to marry two, three, or more persons or even an animal or two. You were told this by partisan politicians who unfortunately weren't interested in your well-being, nor mine, nor anyone's but their own."

Now first of all, let me point out a disingenuous technique here. He referred to the belief that gays want to "change your laws and religious definitions of marriage." Through the rest of the article he argues that he has no intention of changing religious views of marriage. But he started by mentioning laws, too. The fact is indisputable, the gay rights movement wants to change those; at no point does he attempt to deny that. So why does he imply we are wrong to believe gays want to change laws? Is he trying to slip something in on us unawares here?

He goes on to say he does not want to marry two or three people or any animals. Fine, I'll grant he doesn't want to do that. It's the wrong question, though. The real question is, what is the message of the gay rights argument? It is that marriage is defined by the preference of the participants. If this definition succeeds in defining public policy, it doesn't matter whether Phelps wants to practice polygamy (straight or gay); the case for it will have been made in principle, and we can count on the courts affirming it on that basis. It will be a fait accompli, whether gays want it to be or not.

He further says he doesn't want to change my or anyone else's religion. Fine, I'll grant him that point too. Does he know we're not really worried about attacks on our own religious practice? We're concerned about something else: the fabric of society. He says the gay rights movement is not planning to change that. I'll take a moment here to stop laughing, and come back to that topic after I touch on one other in his article.

He says regarding that previous point, "you were manipulated into believing otherwise, and politicians used your religious faith to do so." Let me suggest here that I did not come to my conclusions through listening to politicians. If Mr. Phelps' question is, "Should we let our opinions be manipulated by politicians?" the answer of course is "no." We agree on that. Wrong question again, though. The question is, what is the truth? (Has he never heard of the ad hominem logical fallacy, by the way? For what it's worth, I think politicians have been more influenced by conservative believers than vice-versa.)

Okay, I've regained my composure and I can come back to that earlier topic. Phelps enumerates a list of rights gays seek: "to share my life's responsibilities with the person of my choosing.... joint ownership of property. Ability to make a will that cannot be contested or nullified...." and others. Then he asks, "does that sound like I want to 'change the fabric off the nation?'"

Well, yes. What in the world else could it mean? He's talking about changing the definition of marriage, and thus the definition of family. Our most fundamental social grouping, our most crucial training ground for what it means to be a person--is this not relevant to the fabric of our nation? How can he say (as he repeatedly does) they're not trying to change that?

Phelps points out his 13 years of service in the military, and five in law enforcement, and asks, "Exactly what kind of threat to the nation am I?" Wrong question again. Is he a personal threat to our security? Well, of course not; he's been a great service in that way. Are his ideas a threat to the fabric of the nation? Well, they indisputably lead to a change in the fabric of the nation (using his term here), a fabric that has served us and other cultures well for centuries--not perfectly, for no person or culture is perfect, but well. If we're changing something that has been so effective through countless ages, is that not a threat?

Phelps ends with, "thanks for listening." I have to credit him an important point here. We haven't listened well. We have reduced the gay rights movement to a crusade of slogans, and responded to it as if that were all it was. It's not. It's an expression of the hearts of many, many men and women who are loved by God no less than anyone else. I've tried to treat the sloganeering fairly here, and obviously I'm a person who engages the realm of ideas. I've learned from experience, though, that I get a lot farther by actually being a friend to people I don't entirely agree with--including gays--than by shouting back or blogging. I just couldn't let his poor thinking go without an answer this time.

Oh, and one final point. Here's the basic question that Christian believers have been concerned with: What does God say about it? I have to be brief here, unfortunately. Sure, there are many who say that we've misinterpreted the Bible's strictures against homosexual practice. I think there objections are rooted in their political agenda; the Biblical texts themselves are not ambiguous. It doesn't say that gay or lesbian leanings are sin; temptation does not equal sin, as we know from Jesus himself being tempted. It doesn't say that homosexual sin is the worst or that it's otherwise unique, relative to other sins like adultery, lying, murder, stealing, and so on. Some Christians have taken a holier-than-thou stance toward gays, and that is abomination to God--though I'm convinced it's also less prevalent than the media and the gay rights group want us to believe. It doesn't say that Christians should hate gays, but that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. But Jesus' consistent example was to confront error, both in belief and in practice, as an expression of love. If that doesn't make sense to you, I'm sorry--but I love you still.

(Note: prior comments on this blog that were lost when I migrated to a new server can still be viewed here.)

Posted: Sun - November 28, 2004 at 07:23 PM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

The wrong questions

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson