A little while ago, one of my friends on Facebook posted a picture up of someone holding a sign that read, “Claiming that someone else’s marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you’re on a diet”. (If this was you, and you happen to be reading this, then thank you for posting it, getting me to think, and for inspiring this post! :D). Needless to say that I found the picture/sign intriguing and I was thinking about it for quite some time. Here are some of my thoughts:
Analogies like these are helpful in understanding and communicating one’s personal views and personal understandings of important issues such as marriage and religion. However, it is important to rightly interpret these catchy phrases, as well as their implications. The reason there is such a “punch” in a quote like this is because it takes something as relevant and debated in North America today, namely how one understands marriage on the basis of religion, and brings it down to the a level of a reaction that is silly and possibly pathetic. Being angry at someone who is enjoying something (a donut), presumably because of your own self-imposed restrictions (a diet) is silly and selfish. A parallel is drawn in the quote between the silliness and irrationality of the donut-luster and the disagreement that many faith-based (and non-faith based) people have to the marriage of same-sex couples.
I think that this is an unfair and severely broken comparison, however, and I want to explore three of these problems in this post.
1. The difference in reaction:
Notice first of all the difference in what is being compared – a “claim” to “being angry”. The quote suggests that simply claiming that an idea is contrary to one’s religious beliefs is equivalent to being irrationally angry. While it is true that some people get angry when they are confronted with ideas or circumstances that are contrary to their beliefs, it is untrue to say that having an opinion on a matter is the same as being angry - a person can certainly defend his or her opinion in an angry or inappropriate manner, but the opinion itself cannot and should not be equated with anger. If all opinions and the dispensation of opinions were equated with anger, we would have to approach every radio show, newspaper, website, and conversation with fists raised. The reality is that many people are angered when confronted by ideologies contrary to their own and this is not unique to marriage, religion, or to Christians for that matter. From a Christian point of view, just because the Bible teaches that homosexual activity is sinful, that does not automatically make every Christian angry, by default, towards homosexuals. A more accurate analogy (though still faulty in at least two ways) would be, “claiming that someone else’s marriage is against your religion is like claiming that eating a donut is bad for your diet” – this statement begins to lose some “punch” because it is now fairly comparing two different opinions.
2. The difference in definition:
The second way in which the donut analogy breaks down is in the casual way that the word “marriage” is used. Marriage, like every other word, has a definition. Marriage was first defined in Genesis as the union by God of Adam and Eve. Even without that biblical definition, a Google search or a dictionary definition of marriage will read something like this: “the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife”. The donut analogy breaks down because it implies an alternative definition and meaning to marriage (assuming that the implication is about same-sex marriage) that simply has not been the traditional understanding of marriage. While some may argue that definitions change, which is true, the majority of secular societies around the world and in North America still define marriage as the exclusive union between one man and one woman. In other words, one of the things defenders of traditional marriage are doing is simply echoing the restriction of marriage inherent in its definition. In speaking of same-sex marriage then, a more reasonable analogy would be “claiming that two same-sex people should not get married is like claiming that vegetarians should not eat fish”. It's really not a very ludicrous statement at all.
3. The difference in morality
The third reason this analogy breaks down is because the morality and ethics of marriage are eliminated and ignored by being compared to the neutral choice of eating a donut. Marriage is an institution that is deeply moral. Subjects such as adultery and polygamy are so deeply ethical and so profoundly attached to marriage, that we are forced to deal with the reality of the moral issues surrounding marriage. Once again, speaking from a Christian worldview, committing adultery, being involved in any sexual activity outside of marriage, and having sexual relations with people or a person of the same gender all fall under sexual immorality, as they are contrary to the natural and the perfect plan of the God who created them. The Bible of course doesn't say anything about marrying someone of the same gender because that wouldn't be marriage as defined by God.
Now, at this point someone (maybe quite irritated) might say something like, "who are you to decide or make any claims to who people can and can't marry and what they can and can't do with their bodies and sexuality?". To this I would answer that I am not in fact deciding or making any new claims on who one can and can't marry and what they can and can't do with their bodies and sexuality. The burden of defence does not fall with those who hold to a traditional vew of marriage but it falls on those who, only on the grounds of their own opinion and desire, are fighting to change the morality of homosexuality and are fighting to change the definition of marriage. In other words, people who are irritated when they hear that Christians are opposed to same-sex marriage (or homosexuality in general), are guilty of the same thing they are falsely accusing Christians of - namely, making their own opinion a universal and definite claim on a moral issue. Christians themselves don't make any decisions on what is moral or not moral based on their own opinion, but rather they follow an objective, unchanging set of standards. Homosexuality always has been, and always will be immoral, and that standard will never change for Christians.
Anyone who argues for the morality of same-sex marriage has to wrestle with the fact that they themselves are the ones that are seeking to make a revolutionary moral claim based on personal opinion and nothing else. The reality is that the argument that "two people who love each other should be able to get married" simply does not hold any water as an argument to legalize or moralize same-sex marriage. After all, should a 9 year old and a 30 year old who love each other, a 40 year old mother and her 16 year old son who love each other, and a 20 year old and three or four other 20 year olds who all love each other... should they all morally and legally be permitted to be married if they want? Why not?! The moral implications of two people getting married simply cannot be tossed aside and reduced to the level of a pastry consumption choice. Christianity has an objective and unchanging moral standard while secular society will continue to reform, change, disagree, and be inconsistent in moral issues because their claims don't have a unchanging and objective foundation. In reality then, claiming to hold to traditional marriage, is as normal, rational, and respectable as claiming to value and defend all human life, including unborn infants - but that'll be for another post!
