I bring up the topic of children born out of wedlock because you assert that same-sex marriage has little to no consequences to society. In countries where same-sex marriage is practiced there have been noticeable increases in children born out of wedlock. I’m inferring that you might agree that it’s a consequence but not a negative one.

In the United States, the illegitimacy rate has recently climbed to something like 40%. It seems our society is coming into agreement with you on the importance of marriage. So it makes sense to me why people are not bothered by a redefinition of marriage; it’s an inconsequential institution. People don’t think their own strong, stable marriages are essential to the overall stability and health of their children and our country. I don’t think same-sex marriage is the cause of the devalued importance of marriage, it’s just a reflection of that attitude.

It’s relevant.

In order for the banning of same-sex marrage to pass mustard by this standard it would have to be proved to be harmful on a sociatal level and on that level I am yet to hear a convincing argument. Your analogy assumes that we are guarding against something that is dangerous to society as a whole so by this standard it doesn’t really work.

Furthermore, the argument that homosexuality is an unnatural state is also beginning to lose it’s strength. The more I look into it myself the more I see how, by and large, it seems to be something inherant in who these people are and not a learned or chosen trait. Also, as far as nature is concerned, it is interesting to note that among animals it is not uncommon for some members of a species to act in a homosexual manner. It is believed that this is a natural reaction when a species faces overpopulation. Perhaps homosexuality isn’t quite as unnatural as we’ve always thought it was.

I think that sometimes it’s easier to attack an analogy rather than the idea expressed by the analogy. I’m well aware the analogy doesn’t hold up, but that’s not really the point. If you’d like I can substitute “lakes” with “swamps” or “flooded plains”. You’re right to point out that functionality is an important component of the analogy and that’s why I chose “lakes”. Cars don’t function in lakes. Perhaps “swamps” are better because you might get a little ways in a car but eventually you’re going to break down. The guard rails and speed limits treat a secondary problem and are ultimately ineffective at making swamps a better place for cars.

For a more true to life analogy consider heroin use. We don’t (generally) criminalize drug use (other things surrounding drugs are criminalized like possession and sales). Nobody is getting random drug test on the street and then hauled away to jail for having heroin in their system. Now, we might be content allowing that freedom but we wouldn’t want FDA approval for heroin to make sure there aren’t any foreign toxins in it. The drug is toxic enough on its own.

Jack said:
Our government was set up to allow the will of the people to rule with an eye toward protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority.

Basically what you are saying is “might makes right”. While this may be how our government views ethics and morality (and that’s debatable), this is not how we as Christian view morality. We think truth is true no matter how many people believe it. If we have a clear understanding of what God intends for marriage, we should advocate for it because we know God’s intended functionality for relationships is what brings about the greatest social order.

The other problem with your position is that I can find any number of minority groups that want something that you will not give them. So you’re picking and choosing based on who knows what criteria to determine which minority groups are being unjustly oppressed by the majority. You can’t be consistent under this approach unless you’re willing to be absolutely libertarian.

Jack said:
I would not advocate for the government to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I believe that is a spiritual truth and I don’t need the government to legislate spiritual truths.

Okay, I have no idea where you are getting the notion of “spiritual truth”. Christians don’t believe some things are spiritually true and other things are not. “The blood of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins” is true. It’s just as true as 2+2=4. There aren’t special categories of truth. If there are you’re basically saying “some things are true for me but not for other people”. We’re all going to have an impossible working definition of “truth” if that is the case.

In addition, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman across all religions, cultures and ages. It’s hardly a sectarian idea.

Jack said:
I believe that it is. Jesus told us to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things which are God’s.

So what do you do when Caesar wants something that was originally God’s? Caesar created his own money and his own taxes. Marriage was around well before his rule.

However, one of the founding principles of this country was the separation of church and state, and the ideal that no one religion should be given preference through legislation.

Replace the word “religion” for “worldview”. If no worldview gets preference over another, then how are you going to give preference to a worldview that allows for same-sex marriage over all the other worldviews that do not allow for same-sex marriage? It’s impossible to not give preference. Someone’s values are going to be imposed no matter what.

But continuing within the parameters of your analogy, let’s say that wasn’t the case. Let’s say cars could actually drive under water quite functionally, without instantly destroying the vehicle or causing bodily harm to the vehicle’s occupants. My reasons for thinking people shouldn’t drive underwater are that Toyota did not intend for cars to function in that way, but the underwater drivers think that Toyota’s intentions are irrelevant; the cars are working decently underwater and they’re free to use them as they see fit. In that case, building guard rails and posting speed limits underwater is precisely what the government ought to do.

You say that all legislation is a reflection of someone’s values, which may be true enough, but all of the cases you cite (murder, stealing, pollution control, pay child support, etc.) are cases where the general population agrees that legislating these practices are in the best interest of the common good. Where the general population cannot agree, we try to allow freedom or accommodate differing views. Our government was set up to allow the will of the people to rule with an eye toward protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority. Gay rights is not an area where the general population has come to any kind of overwhelming consensus as they have with murder and stealing, so the debate is on whether the majority should be allowed to impose their belief that gays don’t deserve legal marital rights or whether the minority is being oppressed by the majority and should be protected from this. Obviously I’ve fallen in with the latter crowd.

Two things about my position on SSM though:

(1) I believe that a homosexual couple should have access to the same legal benefits as a heterosexual couple should they wish to enter into a committed, lifetime relationship.
(2) I believe these unions should be legally called by the same terminology that is used to describe heterosexual unions.

So, in order of preference, I would vote: (a) to eliminate government-authorized “marriages” and instead offer civil unions for all couples; (b) to offer government-authorized “marriages” to all couples; (c) to offer civil unions to homosexual couples with the exact same benefits as heterosexual government-authorized “marriages.” I don’t think (c) is the best option, but it’s better than nothing. I have zero interest in joining any gay rights activist groups or giving money to these causes. They can fight those fights on their own; all they get from me is my vote.

I would not advocate for the government to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I believe that is a spiritual truth and I don’t need the government to legislate spiritual truths. This is, btw, a reversal of my position that has come over time. In November 2004, I voted “yes” on Utah Constitutional Amendment 3 defining marriage in Utah as the union between a man and a woman. I wouldn’t do so now.

My final point: you say that as disciples of Jesus Christ, He should influence every aspect of our life including how we vote. I guess that’s true enough. However, one of the founding principles of this country was the separation of church and state, and the ideal that no one religion should be given preference through legislation. Is it possible for me as a Christian to agree with both of these ideals simultaneously? Or does doing so constitute, as you put it, schizophrenia?

I believe that it is. Jesus told us to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things which are God’s. Caesar wants there to be religious freedom and equal opportunities for all. I have no problem giving it to him.

Anyways, I am sorry if my position on this chagrins you, Tim. You’ve been so kind to me in the year that you’ve known me, part of me is a little afraid to disappoint you, but that is how I feel. I will always listen to what you have to say about my views, so share whatever you want.