“How Could You Be So Opposed To Marriage Equality?!” — Christian Faith Under (Im)Moral Attack, Part Seven


Challenge Number Seven: “What’s wrong with you people, that you could be so opposed to marriage equality?!”

(Seventh in a series of ten, from my new book Critical Conversations!)

More than any other slogan, it was “Marriage Equality” that carried the day for gay marriage in the United States. Christians still carry the stigma of having stood against equality — the modern Western virtue above all other virtues.

Which is ironic, because everyone believes in marriage in equality, and no one believes in marriage equality.

Everyone believes in marriage equality up to a point. For conservatives like myself, that point includes the requirement that there be a man and a woman. For others it could include same-sex marriage. But no one who believes in marriage in any form at all believes that any and every relationship deserves to be called marriage.

In other words, we agree on marriage equality. We agree that it has limits. We disagree on where those limits should be.

Somehow I can’t see “Marriage with different limits” being a slogan that would have worked for gay-rights advocates. They chose what worked instead. Instead of what honestly reflected the truth, that is.

And this is how they wanted portray their position as morally higher than ours. Irony abounds.

(There’s more on this topic in dialogue form here.)

There’s even more in the book!

In Critical Conversations I develop and extend the answer to this and other challenges, and I share practical relational guidance on how to share the answers in conversation. For parents, pastors, and other Christian leaders wondering what to say to children in their vulnerable years up through high school or even college, the book clears away the awkwardness and confusion. It clears a path toward conversations that can strengthen not only your teens’ faith but also your relationship with them.

It’s available at Amazon.comBarnes & Noble, and other booksellers. Order your copy today!

4 Responses

  1. DR84 says:

    Most people who believe that same sex relationships are part of the institution of marriage do not believe relationships between siblings are (so much so they will probably be quite angry if you even ask about siblings marrying). They believe a relationship between two men (homosexual partners) is a real marriage but a relationship between two men (brothers) is not. I don’t think it is quite accurate to say they truly believe in marriage equality because they think some two man relationships are deserving of marriage and others are not.

    Of course, “marriage equality” is really just a marketing term that only refers to homosexual partners being deserving, so to speak, of marriage. So when we make arguments about marriage equality on principled grounds, as in relationships that are equal in nature/substance/function, the response is always that that is not what “marriage equality” means. So we are “wrong” not because of a bad argument, but instead because of the literal definition of the term. Here is another area where irony abounds, because pointing to past examples of dictionary definitions for the word “marriage” will be dismissed.

  2. Nigel Owen says:

    I believe it is only a matter of time before people will start using similar arguments that worked for SSM to start arguing that it is ‘discriminatory’ and a breach of ‘civil rights’ etc, to restrict marriage to only two people. If marriage can so easily be ‘redefined’ to allow for SSM then why can’t it be for three or more people or why can’t it be for people who are related?

  3. d says:

    @Nigel Owen

    Well it sounds like exactly the same risk we’re presented with when we’re asked to carve out additional legal exemptions for the sake of religious freedom, since religious freedom is really the most steadfast and consistent pillar of those fighting for plural marriages.

    We already walk that line, and we’re doing just fine.

  4. JAD says:

    Historically and traditionally, especially in the United States, equal rights have been connected with freedom of conscience. Everyone was equally free to follow their own conscience when it came personal morality, as well as religious and political beliefs. From this basic right comes freedom of speech, press and association.

    The secular progressive left, however, with its political correctness has turned this concept on its head. From the left’s perspective equality is no longer about conscience but about acceptance, inclusion and fighting oppression.

    The left’s ideological position is a Utopian pipe dream as well as self-refuting and hypocritical. For example, on the issue of marriage it’s not all inclusive because it excludes those who on the basis of conscience do not recognize same-sex-marriage. Not only does it exclude but it also very viciously vilifies and demonizes anyone who disagrees with its agenda. Who is the oppressor? Anyone who disagrees with its egalitarian agenda. It succeeds not through persuasion but coercion—which is the only way it can succeed.

    You can achieve the left’s Utopian vision of equality but only through an authoritarian or totalitarian legal route. In other words, legal equality without freedom of conscience.