But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know [sexual euphemism] them.
Genesis 19:4-5
Homosexuals demanding complete acceptance of their lifestyle. Far-fetched? Not really.
I have tried to write this article about a dozen times. I went for emotional, religious zeal, but then lost the desire to completely bare my soul online, where I might swiftly find it torn to bits. I went for more scientific, trying to explain my thoughts in terms acceptable to the Other Side. But that's where the problem is, in terms. Perspective. Culture. Moral basis.
After awhile the article just became long and unfinished, clogged by my frustration that I can't fully say what I feel and that the people who I would intend it for would never see it or, seeing it, never try to understand my vantage point.
Okay, so clearly people are going to be divided in their values and priorities. We've got left and right, democrat and republican, liberal and conservative, and many other labels for what amounts to the same thing. But why must there always be enmity between the two? I think that there are good things about each side, and that a good balance is what's needed instead of one or the other.
Those who opposed Prop 8 in California see individuals as the basic unit of society. Rational, free-thinking individuals who live and work together by contract and have rights in exchange. They see marriage as a right, and denial of that right as discrimination.
Those who supported Prop 8 see families as the basic unit of society, groups of individuals interdependent on each other, with specific and equally important roles to fill. They value the authority of experience and time-honored tradition. They see marriage as a sacred institution that continues the pattern of families, and the marriage of homosexual couples as antithesis to its fundamental purpose.
They both have some good points and seemingly good intentions, but even when I put my religious beliefs aside temporarily to wear a liberal's equality goggles I can see that only one side, the liberal, opposing side, has been represented at all/favorably in news media surrounding this issue, even in the coverage of the riotous, anti-religious backlash following the election.
I can admit that we have learned a lot of important things from the left. It is important for individuals to feel loved and valued, no matter what their background or station is in life, and it's important that individuals are treated with respect. However, the problem with swinging too far into individualism is that it quickly breeds selfishness, a sense of entitlement (which turns every desire into a "right"), and a disregard for everything not resembling the self. This selfishness naturally upsets the balance of American ideology. Our best universities hire liberal professors who teach their students to question everything, with no qualms at completely disregarding history, traditions, and "old-fashioned" notions of authority and virtue. As a result, conservative thinkers are not allowed in the echelons of today's academic elite; they are considered backwards by self-indulged individuals who hypocritically never question the authority of their own ideas.
This is when the war of ideas becomes less of a quest for truth and more of a quest to be the smartest and free-thinkingest. Liberality must accept every bent of humanity, therefore there can be no right and wrong. Individuals don't know everything, therefore there must be no truth in the world.
I think it's telling that marriage is the latest battleground of this ongoing dispute. It's funny to me that gay people, so anxious to change the tradition of love and family, are fighting so hard to have traditional marriage. But it suits the liberal agenda: marriage is a symbol. Symbols are important to conservatives, and thus become important for liberals to tear down and make their own to achieve what they call equality and I call ideological dictatorship. Seems to me that liberals cherish diversity, unless it's diversity of opinion.
I believe that there are things far more important than a human life. More important than thousands, even millions of human lives. There is truth, and it doesn't matter if hundreds of millions of whining voices say they can't see it so it doesn't exist. There will always be people like me, my family, and other people of faith, quietly raising our families the way God told us to, believing in things greater than ourselves, and, when needed, stepping forward to shape a government we can respect. This month, that amounted to a YES in California and similar wins in other states.
The gay community sees the passage of Prop 8 as a personal offense, because to people obsessed with the individual, everything is about the individual. Let me say, it has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with bringing some restraint and balance back to American society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I read my daughter the phantom tolbooth when she was four. She loved rhyme and reason. She colored a picture of rhyme on a lined paper and then turned it over and traced the lines for reason. Two mirror sisters. I have loved them ever since.
I didn't write this piece, but it is the best post I have read in a long time. I am sharing it with my readers, and thought I'd pass it along to you. It is pure mind candy, somewhat along the lines of what you've started here.
One commenter wrote:
If this were an essay on economics, it would be the best essay on economics I’ve read in a year or more.
If this were an essay on social structures, it would be the best essay on social structures I’ve read on a year or more.
If this were an essay on conservative versus reformer mindsets, it would be the best essay on *that* that I’ve read in a year or more.
In fact, it was all three of those things, and I’m frankly stunned at how excellently you’ve made so many points in such a short space.
Bravo.
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/jane-galt-a-libertarian-view/
Sarah, you are an astounding writer. You really know how to put thought and understanding onto paper. I think that you brought up a valid point about the Left being centered on the individual and that they will not accept diversity of opinion yet they "cherish" diversity. I'm just waiting for you to write books upon books so I buy them all and start a personal Sarah Phelps collection. ;) Hope you're doing well.
Wow, Sarah, that was really well written and brought to light some things I hadn't thought about. I thought it was profound how it fundamentally comes down to what you define the basic unit of society to be. There's a book waiting to be written discussing the consequences of a family-based mindset versus the individual-only based view.
I'm back in that discussion that we had on the floor of your bedroom. I came to a moment of clarity there; I wish I would have recorded it because I don't remember how I got to that moment.
I'm also happy I'm not the first to comment here. It is becoming a known fact that your writing is excellent. As it should be; I have considered you a better artist than myself for years.
This would make sense, except for the fact that marriage of Homosexual couples is not about individualism anymore. It is about union, it is about creating the family unit that you cherish.
I am a liberal. Born and raised. However, I do like to temper liberalism with logic, and nothing is more infuriating to me than "my own people" swinging too far off into the deep end.
However, I still speak as a liberal, as a liberal who is anchored into layer upon layer of liberal communities. And trust me, we believe in families.
Our families may not look the same as most families on the conservative side. We may define family a little differently. But we believe in the family as a unit of social and emotional support for the next generation. We too view marriage as sacred, although we may define that sacredness differently than you do. We believe in family.
Marriage is often about family. Sometimes it is not. It is not among many heterosexual couples who never intend to have children. Are they too individualistic? Marriage is about family, yes, but first and foremost it is about love, about forming a union between two loving individuals.
I agree with you that often liberals are far more outspoken about individualism than about the units that comprise our society. This is not one of those times.
I take great issue with this statement: It's funny to me that gay people, so anxious to change the tradition of love and family, are fighting so hard to have traditional marriage. But it suits the liberal agenda: marriage is a symbol. Symbols are important to conservatives, and thus become important for liberals to tear down and make their own to achieve what they call equality and I call ideological dictatorship.
a few things: One, gay people do not believe they are tearing down the traditions of love and family. Most gay people come out of heterosexual homes and recognize the importance of marital union in our society. They see how valuable it is, and that is why they seek marital rights for themselves.
Marriage is not just a symbol for conservatives. Marriage is a symbol to all of us. Liberals do not exist in a different culture, where our reality is defined solely in opposition to the conservative reality. Marriage is a symbol to us too - a symbol of two people committing to spend their lives together in mutual love and respect. We are not trying to tear marriage down, and we do not want to devalue your marriage. We just want our friends to have the right to have their love recognized as ours is.
I'm sorry that I'm rambled on so long. This issue is very close to home for me, not because I am homosexual, but because I am engaged to an Indian man who I love very much (I am your average American wasp). If we had fallen in love in the middle of last century, we would not have been allowed to marry in many states, as miscegenation was still illegal.
"Redefining" marriage has happened countless times throughout history. Women are no longer considered their husbands property, we cannot be sold into marriage, and interracial marriage has been legalized. None of these things has destroyed the fabric of our society, none of these things has ruined the religious marriage with the 2.5 kids and the dog in the yard.
It has much to do with the individual in this case, but more importantly, it has much to do with the couples who have loved each other for decades.
I've heard the argument that marriage is about "love" before from the liberal side. It sounds correct, however, our western ideal of love and romance (based upon our mythology, like Tristan and Isolde, and upon the ideal of "courtly love" which was created during the medieval era) is quite different from the rest of the world. Most other cultures do not marry for "love," they marry because marriage is, at its core, about raising children (though in some cases, it is true, people marry for personal or social aggrandizement).
In short, our idea of love was "created" by our forbears. And as a result, our perception of love is actually quite erroneous. That is why divorce rates in our society are so high; people become disillusioned with what marriage "for love" entails (they expect it to be romantic, when it clearly isn't).
I guess the basis of what I am saying is this: marriage is a universal social union because raising children is something that is important for all humanity, whereas marriage for love is not such a universal ideal. Thus the argument that people marry "for love" is quite false because it doesn't apply to cultures outside of our own. People don't need marriage to "love" each other.
(Thank-you, Sarah, for such a clear and well written argument against gay marriage).
Hey everyone, thanks for the comments!
I had a couple of thoughts to share in response to Kate's post:
"Marriage is often about family. Sometimes it is not. It is not among many heterosexual couples who never intend to have children. Are they too individualistic?"
In my opinion, yes, they are. I can't think of an unselfish reason why a healthy married (heterosexual) couple would decide not to have children.
"Marriage is about family, yes, but first and foremost it is about love, about forming a union between two loving individuals."
I agree! I think there's a reason why the act that brings children in the world also helps unite a couple, spiritually, mentally, and physically. It's because that's the perfect environment in which to welcome children to the earth. The reproductive aspect of sex is a primary purpose for it, not a secondary side effect to be overlooked in the pursuit of pleasure. Lots of people, heterosexual as well as homosexual, seem confused about this.
You wrote that "[gay people] see how valuable [marriage] is, and that is why they seek marital rights for themselves." I've heard a lot of talk about rights in gay marriage debate, but I'm not convinced that homosexuals are being denied any legal rights. I've seen California family law forms, and civil unions are not denied rights. I think gay advocates are more interested in what you said later: "the right to have their love recognized as ours is." It seems to me that what they really want is for "intolerant" religious people to recognize (by force of law, if necessary) that they were wrong and gays are great.
It's true, as you noted, that marriage has undergone some changes through history. I'm happy to hear of your engagement. However, the fundamental constant behind all the changes you mentioned is that marriage has been between a man and a woman. I don't think there is a historical precedent for what happens to society when people try to change this fundamental idea. (Mm, except perhaps in the Bible.)
"Liberals do not exist in a different culture, where our reality is defined solely in opposition to the conservative reality."
True, and well said. I think that the hardest part of this whole debate about gay marriage is how much many people in the two sides of the Prop 8 debate really have in common. I think we both truly want what we see as best for society. Overall, we want to treat people fairly and kindly. In light of that, only a very important issue would convince me to maintain an argument with people I feel I have so much in common with. Marriage, as long tradition and heavenly law defines it, between a man and a woman, is that important to me.
Thanks for the respectful nature of all the comments posted here, I appreciate it!
Post a Comment