Part 3: Progress or Peril?: Examining Paul’s Description of Our Day
by James R. Birrell
Read Part 1 here
Read Part 2 here
Know this also that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be.without natural affection.(2 Timothy 3: 1-3).
Bruce R. McConkie described “unnatural affection” as conduct that results in “demeaning the family unit so that it is no longer deemed to be the basic unit of society (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. II, p.109). Today there are many forms of “unnatural affection,” or “crimes against nature,” as President Kimball called them in the Miracle of Forgiveness (1969, pp. 77-89). They include adultery, incest, bestiality, forbidding to marry, and homosexuality. The first four behaviors destroy a family, but they do not intentionally seek to alter it as the historical and indispensable basic unit of society. Same-sex marriage does.
Advocates of same-sex marriage don’t agree. What follows is a series of e-mail correspondences between a supporter of same-sex marriage and me. I published the following editorial in the Deseret News (10/19/03) in Salt Lake City. The next morning I found Bob’s (a pseudonym) response to my editorial on my office computer. A conversation between us ensued about same-sex marriage through e-mail. I hope our electronic exchanges about this most concerning form of “unnatural affection” are instructive.
Please note that my words are in Italics and Bob’s words are in bold. I regret that the e-mails are sometimes awkward. I did not alter them (or clean them up) for publication in Meridian, except to remove names.
(My Printed Editorial)
Dear Editor:
I was recently asked how allowing gays to marry would threaten the stability of my marriage? That was the wrong question, I responded. The real question is why anyone has the right to ask a conservative, traditional Christian to alter or reject what God expressly, eternally and rightfully decreed (not suggested) about marriage?
Asking such Christians to alter the tradition of marriage or morality or sexuality or any other divine decree encourages rebellion among them, not just tolerance. It is disrespectful, disenfranchising, and not without consequence, like the boy who asks his young date to break the curfew laws set by her wise and caring father because he doesn’t want to take her home.
Jim Birrell
(Bob’s response to my editorial that he submitted to the paper and then forwarded to me)
Dear Editor:
In Jim Birrell’s letter (10/19) he refuses to answer the very legitimate question of “how allowing gays to marry would threaten the stability of his marriage.” Instead, he asks why conservative traditional Christians should be asked to change their views, when they believe these views came from God.
Here is the answer – nobody is asking conservative Christians, Jews or Muslims or anyone else to change their views. But in the USA we have something called freedom of religion, meaning I don’t force my religion on you and vice-versa. The Taliban required women to wear burkas. They believed it was a mandate from God.
So Jim, if you don’t believe in same-sex marriage then don’t marry someone of your same sex! If you wish to wear a burka – fine, but don’t force me to wear one.
(Bob)
(Jim responds to Bob; personal e-mail)
Bob,
Thanks for sending me a copy of your response. That showed respect. I will show respect in responding back. My position in the editorial was plain. I will restate it.
1. A serious-minded Christian does not debate absolute truth with the author of truth; conversion means to accept the teachings of another. That is not blind faith, for an intellectual study of doctrinal matters will confirm why God asks certain things of us. Religion can be both intellectually and spiritually enlightening.
2. The question asked about my marriage was disingenuous. It was meant to trap me. It was a leading question that disregarded more important questions, and, therefore, did not warrant an answer. To have answered it would have made no difference to the person asking the question.
3. My objection to same-sex marriage is based upon my faith; without that faith, I would probably agree with you. Thus, this is not personal between you and me. It is ideological. That the majority of Americans feel the same is also not personal. Neither is it tyranny that a majority of Americans believe that children are better off in a heterosexual, parental lifestyle. Children need a mom and a dad; that is the ideal. Why fight for less than the ideal where the welfare of children is concerned?
With regards to your response:
1. Americans, especially Christian Americans who support marriage laws already in place are a far cry from Taliban men who force women to wear burkas. That was, in my opinion, an intellectually dishonest comparison. American Christians do not treat gays like Taliban treat those who oppose them.
2. You can reinforce laws or force laws to change, but no one can “force” their point of view on another. This is another disingenuous argument. Laws protect or discourage certain behaviors. Law “encourages” certain actions, but it does not “force” certain ideals. The founders were brilliant in putting into law the virtues of Christ, while allowing individuals to select their own belief systems. You do not have to be a Christian not to kill, or steal, or lie. The foundational virtues promoted order amidst diversity; they still do.
3. Your final argument is most troubling to me. It is an argument against any moral imperative and for absolute choice. It argues that choice is the virtue, and not the guardian of virtue. The suggestion that if I am uncomfortable with same-sex marriage, then don’t do it, implies that the rightness of any behavior must be the measure of how something makes us feel. If this were the basis of law, rather than a set of timeless absolutes about right and wrong, then freedom would have to include mainstream and extreme behaviors that would ultimately lead to tyranny. Oppressive and predatory behaviors would result in chaos. No one would be safe.
We disagree on many things. But I respect you and your point of view. And how could I ever force you to wear anything, let alone a burka? (I’m teasing)
Jim
(Bob responds to Jim; personal e-mail)
Jim,
Thanks for your response. I appreciate the respectful tone of your answer. I will try to do the same.
1. A serious-minded Christian does not debate absolute truth with the author of truth; conversion means to accept the teachings of another. That is not blind faith, for an intellectual study of doctrinal matters will confirm why God asks certain things of us. Religion can be both intellectually and spiritually enlightening.
You’re a serious minded Christian/Mormon and just so I understand your beliefs, let me restate them. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Your church teaches that homosexuality is an ugly, repugnant sin and that homosexual relationships are not merely unnatural but wrong in the sight of God. (Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 77-78).
2. The question asked about my marriage was disingenuous. It was meant to trap me. It was a leading question that disregarded more important questions, and, therefore, did not warrant an answer. To have answered it would have made no difference to the person asking the question.
In light of President Bush’s proclamation of “Marriage Protection Week” and the Defense of Marriage act, the question about marriage stability isn’t insincere. If marriage needs defense and protection from these sinful, repugnant homosexuals, please explain how. How would allowing same-sex marriage adversely affect your marriage, for example?
3. My objection to same-sex marriage is based upon my faith; without that faith, I would probably agree with you. Thus, this is not personal between you and me. It is ideological. That the majority of Americans feel the same is also not personal. Neither is it tyranny that a majority of Americans believe that children are better off in a heterosexual, parental lifestyle. Children need a mom and a dad; that is the ideal. Why fight for less than the ideal where the welfare of children is concerned?
You mention that we have ideological differences. Let me restate them. You believe that God has said that homosexuality is wrong. I don’t believe God said anything of the kind. You believe that children are better off with heterosexual parents. I don’t believe the sex of the parents matters as long as the parents provide a loving and nurturing environment.
With regards to your response:
1. Americans, especially Christian Americans who support marriage laws already in place are a far cry from Taliban men who force women to wear burkas. That was, in my opinion, an intellectually dishonest comparison. American Christians do not treat gays like Taliban treat those who oppose them.
My example of the Taliban and burkas was to provide an illustration of a religious view that was codified into law. It wasn’t meant to show how the Taliban treat those who oppose them.
2. You can reinforce laws or force to change, but no one can “force” their point of view on another. This is another disingenuous argument. Laws protect or discourage certain behaviors. Law “encourages” certain actions, but it does not “force” certain ideals. The founders were brilliant in putting into law the virtues of Christ, while allowing individuals to select their own belief systems. You do not have to be a Christian not to kill, or steal, or lie. The foundational virtues promoted order amidst diversity; they still do.
To force one’s religion on another doesn’t mean they have to agree. I’m certain that everyone forced to wear a burka wasn’t in agreement.
3. Your final argument is most troubling to me. It is an argument against any moral imperative and for absolute choice. It argues that choice is the virtue, and not the guardian of virtue. The suggestion that if I am uncomfortable with same-sex marriage then don’t do it implies that the rightness of any behavior must be the measure of how something makes us feel. If this were the basis of law, rather than a set of timeless absolutes about right and wrong, then freedom would have to include mainstream and extreme behaviors that would ultimately lead to tyranny. Oppressive and predatory behaviors would result in chaos. No one would be safe.
My suggestion that if you’re uncomfortable with same-sex marriage, then don’t do it was not meant to establish the rightness of any behavior. It was meant to allow you to freely practice the tenets of your religion.
Finally, I believe the most compelling argument for same-sex marriage is fairness. I’m sure as a Christian you can appreciate this concept. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal and the 14th Amendment provides equal protection of the law.
Bob
(Jim’s final e-mail response to Bob; Bob did not respond)
Dear Bob,
I do understand your arguments, I truly do. Were it not for core ideals and real experiences about what children need and what it takes to raise them, I would probably be leading the fight with you for broader “fairness” in marriage laws. Bob, I am not anti-homosexual. This is not personal. I will fight for true equality for every American. No one should be denied their constitutional rights.
Where we will disagree is in changing culture to affirm the lives of gays and lesbians who want to legally marry. Once society agrees to that change, what’s next? Be honest. If you change marriage laws to be “fair” to one group, how do you deny anyone else what they want? You can’t; it wouldn’t be fair. You open a Pandora’s box that will have unintended consequences, and some children will most assuredly be hurt in the process- what hurts children hurts all of us. And while I am for promoting health, inheritance, and other laws that ensure the well being of children already in these situations, I cannot support changing marriage laws for same-sex couples.
And my objections are not based solely on religion. I do believe that God has said that same-sex relationships are forbidden. Heterosexuals also have forbidden relationships (and desires) mentioned in the bible. If this is discrimination, then God is at least “fair” in discriminating against both groups in the bible. But religion aside-
As I mentioned in my previous explanation, I strive for the ideal where children are concerned. Bob, the divorce culture had unintended negative consequences for children that were not considered and could not be predicted when liberal divorce laws were discussed and accepted 25 years ago. Those consequences are well documented, and have become more apparent over time. And as an educator, I find them to be very concerning.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will also bring unintended consequences that children will have to bare, and it will take time to find them all out. If you are honest, you will have to admit that children will be affected- good or bad by this arrangement in ways we do not fully understand right now and may not for a decade or two, or until they become adults and we see the lives they live. In other words, the jury is still out and I would rather err on the side of caution until we better understand this alternative arrangement.
Increasing a phenomenon before more fully studying it (long term) is social engineering of the worst order, in my opinion. It sacrifices science to expediency and advocacy. This is not fair to children. And it is not a put-down to the loving abilities of gay and lesbian people; it is about the meanings and consequences of intentionally denying a child a father and mother in order to promote same-sex marriage.
Regarding the question about how same-sex marriage effects me, I would rather ask how will it affect children? What affects children in society affects me as a citizen, taxpayer, and educator- all of society. Bob, I know- not believe- but know that children are better off in a two-parent home, presided over by a father and mother who are legally married, and happily, morally, intellectually, spiritually, financially, emotionally and equally productive. I have learned this as a successful teacher, dutiful parent, careful researcher, and alert citizen.
True, children are resilient enough to survive less than the ideal, but why not encourage the ideal? This is fair and compassionate.
I have worked with all diligence to be a loving and involved father. I have fought the good fight(s) to help guide my children into better paths, ideals, and actions. I have been there through all their various struggles. I have held them while they wept and given them words of comfort when they would fall or fail. I have lifted them, served them, provided for them, and corrected, encouraged and taught them. How magnificent and well adjusted they are becoming; they are nothing short of impressive, even though they still struggle with their own personal challenges that we all fight in one way or another.
I have seen how critically important I am to my son, especially, in teaching him the meaning of masculinity, gentleness, respect for women, leadership, and fatherhood. I have seen how central I was to helping my daughters navigate their first boyfriend years, where they learned about virtue and the power of femininity as a compliment to honorable masculinity.
I have stepped up to the challenge of raising the children I brought into the world, and have found that my influence was indispensable; I taught my son what real men do. I taught my daughters what to look for in a man.
If I support same-sex marriage, I am in effect saying, for example, that two lesbian women can do for their children all of the important things I did AS A FATHER for my own. And that is not true. With all due respect to women, gay and straight, it takes a man to teach a boy to be a man; the same is true of womanhood. To embrace same-sex marriage is to marginalize the power of fatherhood, to minimize it or make it relative. My contributions are not relative, they are indispensable. And they are taught more by example than precept.
Furthermore, my contributions to my children are equal to those of my loving wife. She has been just as diligent in her roles, and our differences have been a blessing to our children. No two men and no two women, however loving and decent they may be, can offer to children what a decent and loving mom and dad, in the security of a stable and happy marriage, can offer in terms of balance and modeling and more. Such marriages are the ideal- and they are possible; having one is not a problem, but only a process of learning how to and making it a priority. Marriage works; people fail.
So, I don’t know what more I could say to you, Bob. To embrace same-sex marriage is to diminish in a real way the key contributions that both sexes ought to have upon their children. I won’t go there. As I said, I would rather work for the ideal. I would rather spend my days teaching boys the ideals they will need in order to one day be great fathers to the children they bring into the world; they will owe their children that much. And I would rather spend my days reprioritizing motherhood for women; happily, it appears from several recent articles I have read that Gen X’ers overall value full time motherhood more than their mothers did, in part, they claim, because they don’t want to do to their children what was done to them- grow up with limited mothering.
In conclusion, to validate your arguments, and in any way support same-sex marriage, I would have to intellectually view the role I played in the lives of my children as relative- not absolute. I cannot do this, for experience has taught me otherwise. What I gave my children would be a blessing to any child- any!
And I know that my wife could not have done alone what I helped her to create in our marriage and family life- and vice versa. We had balance, complimentary balance- essential balance. Our differences were real, which allowed one or the other to comprehend what the other simply could not. No one could have done my job as well, including a boyfriend, girlfriend, uncle, grandfather- no one! Nor could any man have given my children what my wife did. Forgive me if this sounds boastful, but I made a difference in my children’s life. Fathers are not optional- neither are mothers- especially good ones. And being a good parent is easy if you work at it hard- and together.
This week my son called me his “hero” and the most decent man he knows. There is no greater joy that can come to a father in this life than to be his grown son’s hero. That secures in my mind the well being of my grandchildren, for my son is not confused about the value of both a mom and dad in the raising of the next generation of Birrells, and what makes a man (and father) valuable, and what attributes to look for in the mother of his children.
He will know first hand what Americans have known for ages, though some forget or disregard this truth, that children are better off with a mom and a dad- that is the ideal. The ideal is always within reach to those who will pay the price. And since parenting is about the needs of children and not the desires of adults, why strive for less than the ideal where children are concerned? It is a worthy price to pay.
