While hosting a cable show last week, I asked the following question:
It seems that the only arguments against gay marriage are on religious grounds. Is that fair to say?
One of my interviewees, an atheist with a doctorate in theology, readily agreed. The other interviewee, an employee of Christian organization with a seminary degree, said something like this: “That’s a great question; a lot of people make that assumption. However, there are other reasons for not legalizing same-sex marriage: some have argued that it’s simply not natural; animals do not engage in homosexuality.”
I was going to move on to the next topic for discussion, but the atheist intervened and politely pointed out that there is homosexual behavior in animals. He even pointed out my all-time favorite study in this area – a study that appeared in a 2003 issue of Endocrinology finding that 8% of domestic rams prefer other rams over ewes. (Give a whole new meaning to the term “sheep-like”, doesn’t it?) And, though I did not mention this during the show, I have owned more than one pair of lesbian birds.
But my point here is not whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized; my point is this: It is my finding that people will attempt to prop up tenuous beliefs with secular supporting arguments. In this way, it helps to validate a position which lacks inherent ‘truthfulness’ or even logic and, perhaps, win over non-believers.
Apart from the above, a case in point is an issue my former religion took with blood transfusions. Of course, their main argument for shunning blood was their interpretation of a verse in Acts. But they often cited the risk of HIV from tainted blood. In this way, the HIV-risk served as a validation for their unique (and occasionally fatal) stance on blood.
A better example is birthdays. Last night, I had another enjoyable phone conversation with a relative who, among other things, told me that if, indeed, I had done all the research I claim to have done, then I should know birthdays are wrong – “You know candles on cakes are of pagan origin, and no Christians in the first-century celebrated their birthday and if it was so important to celebrate birthdays, why doesn’t the bible say when Jesus was born?”
In the fluster of the exchange, I tried to quickly dispel these ‘supports’ for what is quite possibly the Witnesses’ most arbitrary policy. I pointed out that no one is claiming that birthday celebrations are “important”, and that, if we are to use the first century Christians as examples, where is the record of them reporting their time, attending five meetings a week, shaving, celebrating graduations, wedding anniversaries, and baby showers (a birthday party if there ever was one!)? These are all practiced by Witnesses today…though each item lacks a first-century precedent. On the matter of candles, I noted that my wife and I had been the frequent recipient of candle-topped cakes for our wedding anniversaries, and that these cakes were often the gift of Witness family members.
This caused my relative to become quite agitated. The subject was abruptly changed: “That’s not why I called,” was the scathing bit of logic that brought an end to that discussion.
Anyway… what I’m trying to say is that those ‘supporting rationales’ lend credence to a policy/belief/desire that has no fundamentally sound premise. For example, I might say: “Yummy, I like to drink this Pepsi. And you know what; it’s also good for me!” Then someone might respond: “Um, actually, it’s not good for you.” I could either abandon my soft drink consumption, or confess the reality: “Yeah, I know. The thing is, I just love the taste. Is that so bad?”
No, in the case of Pepsi drinking (and I do not drink Pepsi), perhaps it’s not so bad. But when it comes to forcing a wedge between family members, or denying sheep-like people their civil rights, then I want some valid rationales.
So I ask: What are the (valid) reasons for not legalizing gay marriage?
The Choir here. Good sermon, Reverend.
Before the States started just legalizing gay marriage in a straight-forward way, I was a big proponent of changing the legal status of all marriages to civil unions and making actual “Marriage” a thing between individuals and their religious/values communities. Legalize all civil unions between consenting adults and let people not recognize each others marriages as they want to, because it wouldn’t matter.
But this way works, too. 🙂
This is an interesting topic to bring up, and it just so happens I read quite a bit on this topic of “confirmation bias” and “belief pererverance” in my Educational Psychology text over the past few days. “Confirmarion bias is the tendency to search for and use information that supports our ideas rather than refutes them” (Santrock, 2009, p.324). Very much describes the Witness habit of nit-picking and selective quoting of outside sources, no? “Belief perseverance is the tendency to hold onto a belief in the face of contradictory evidence” (Santrock, 2009, p.324). When you refute Witness logic successfully and logically, they still can’t wrap their minds around what you’re saying because they can’t see their own logic (rather, that of the Galactic Empire) is faulty.
BTW, I’m all for gay marriage…as if you didn’t already know.
Jeremy
Reference
Santrock, J.W. (2009). Educational Psychology (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Very true.
I know I’ve done those very same things, too. I think it’s easy, when we already hold to a certain belief, to gladly embrace anything that confirms our belief. Using politics as an example, since I voted for Obama, whenever he does something right, I nod & think: “Yep, he was a good choice.” When he does something I don’t like, however, I might think: “Oh well, one blunder doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy.”
It takes a lot to move firmly held positions; expecially if such positions prop up one’s god/religion.
I’m all in favor of gay marriage, too. Unlike abortion, environmental concerns, and dozens of economic policies, there seems to be only one rationale argument: either you want equal rights, or you think your imaginary friend will punish you if you let others live in peace.
My imaginary friend likes you, so there’s no reason to sic yours on me.
I’m confused about the Christian’s response to your question and the atheist’s response to that. What does either have to do with gay marriage? I could understand that sort of exchange if the question had to do with decriminalizing homosexuality, but what percentage of homosexual domestic ram couples enjoy the legal benefits and cultural recognition traditionally held out for heterosexual sheep couples?
(I’ve got to start watching your show)
That’s a great (and humorous) point. Comparing us to other animals can be a slippery slope. Why should we humans be allowed due process of law?…sheep don’t enjoy that!