Why Churches Fear Gay Marriage

The crusade for Proposition 8 was fueled by the broken American family, explains gay Catholic author Richard Rodriguez ...

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/25/proposition_8_religion/index.html

Q&A with a scholar who says our renewed frenzy over gay marriage stems from a fear among the big 3 "desert religions" -- Islam, Judaism, Christianity -- over the breakdown of the traditional family.

It's long, but I've pasted some parts I found informative:

1) On the seeming paradox of California minorities voting against gay marriage:
... large numbers of Californians in religious communities were voting against gay marriage, and Latinos and blacks were continuing to take part in this terribly tragedy. We persecute each other. The very communities that get discriminated against discriminate against other Americans ... It is a time of great change but also a time when people are afraid of change.

2) On the gay rights movement's close ties to feminism-- since both threaten religious power:
The possibility that a whole new generation of American males is being raised by women without men is very challenging for the churches. I think they want to reassert some sort of male authority over the order of things. I think the pro-Proposition 8 movement was really galvanized by an insecurity that churches are feeling now with the rise of women.
Monotheistic religions feel threatened by the rise of feminism and the insistence, in many communities, that women take a bigger role in the church. At the same time that women are claiming more responsibility for their religious life, they are also moving out of traditional roles as wife and mother. This is why abortion is so threatening to many religious people -- it represents some rejection of the traditional role of mother ... What we represent as gays in America is an alternative to the traditional male-structured society. The possibility that we can form ourselves sexually -- even form our sense of what a sex is -- sets us apart from the traditional roles we were given by our fathers.
Now these churches are going after homosexuals as a way of insisting on their own propriety. They are insisting that they have a role to play in the general society as moral guardians.

3) On religions clinging to power by "othering" and scapegoating:
The desert religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- are male religions. Their perception is that God is a male god and Allah is a male god. If the male is allowed to hold onto the power of God, then I think we are in terrible shape.

4) On the failure of heterosexual marriage and its implications for gay rights:
The divorce rate suggests that women are not happy with the relationship they have with men. And whatever that unhappiness is, I would like people to know that, as a gay man, I'm not responsible for what's wrong with heterosexual marriage.

A long article, but a good read for anyone willing to hear other voices.

 

That organized religion fears change is nothing new. I don't necessarily agree with the assessment that the church is simply afraid of women's power in relation to the gay issue. From my observations, the church is most openly against gay men, and seems to be less vocal about gay women, (probably from the common male fantasy of lesbians). I don't really see how gay men represent female power.

As to women's ability to raise children "without" men, I do not feel this is something to present as a good thing. I fully support gays and lesbians having children, but I feel it is necessary for them to provide the child with a role model of someone from the other sex (i.e. a grandparent, or an uncle). In the case of single mothers, I feel that saying women can do it all on their own essentially gives a man permission to leave if he doesn't want to raise a child. Rather than stigmatize single mothers, I feel we should put greater societal pressure against men who abandon their parental responsibility. If I'm left to do everything in life on my own, I may be more "powerful," but I'll also probably be frustrated and exhausted too.

On the religion note, I'd also like to add that Christianity was actually a religion which embraced both the male and the female aspects of God. The Old Testament shows God the Father, the New Testament illustrates God the Mother. You never hear about this nowadays, of course, because of Constantine and the Council of Nicea decided to delete that from the final Bible. Therefore, if patriarchy played a role in the opposition of gay marriage, it is a reflection of our patriarchal society, which exists even without religion.

 

Lots of good thought there, Strawberry. I was going to quote you but realized I would have quoted the entire passage.

I don't think Rodriguez meant gay men necessarily represent female power, but that both groups threaten traditional roles of gender and sexuality dictated by church dogma. By insisting on redefining themselves in the new century, both groups are bending the staus quo. We all know the church is a conservative institution. The status quo it wants to conserve is church relevance/authority.

I disagree with you about needing a role model of both sexes (many men and women have done a good job at showing their expendability in a child's healthy development.) But I do agree there's a danger in distorting female independence into an excuse for men to check out. Although, don't they already do that in pretty large numbers anyway? I have no stats to back that up ...

I like your comments on The Bible. The Gnostic gospels, conveniently stricken, are all about the maternal deity. Great stuff. And a great crime in their censorship.

Chicken or the egg? Would we embrace patriarchy were we not a Christian society? In our church, girls can't even be "altar boys" (notice the gender) when they reach 3rd grade. What are we teaching them? What are we teaching their male classmates?

Thanks for responding! I was hoping someone would brave such a long post ...

 

i don't get why people would want to get married in the first place, gay or not!! i think it's a terrible hold religion has over people and people wanting to get married (like the religious form lol, i'm not talking about civil unions that people often mistakenly call marriage!!) just enables religions grip on peoples lives!!! it's a terrible thing, and lots of horrible things are done in the name of religion!!

 

I always assumed it was because gay people are less likely to have a hoard of children meaning less followers for the church in the next generation...

 

A lot of "experts" assume that gay couple adoption and child rearing means that children are more likely to be molested and sexually assaulted, which was found most recently not to be the case. There is no indication that children are even more likely to grow up in a homosexual household, and live a homosexual lifestyle themselves.

It's all crap, basically. People are afraid of letting their neighbours live in peace.

 

twinkles, what is the difference between civil unions and marriage. As far as I know they are the same thing, except for the person performing the ceremony. Where I live they are equaly the same under the law. This was true here before they passed SSM. They are both marriages here, both get you the same marriage certificate. One is performed by a religious official, one by a judge or justice of the peace or other certain government appointed official.

When I got married I was married in a church because my wife wanted to be. I'm an atheist so beside for the ceremony I never went to church. When I got divorced it was by the government, same as it would have if we were married by a JP. Only difference to me was that by getting married in a church didn't require us to get a marriage license. Saved us a small fee.

 

civil unions have nothing to do with religion, DaveHT. of course you get the same rights, but it has nothing to do with religion or whatever your status is seen as under "god"!!

 

I'm not going to argue that religion hasn't done terrible things for people, but is marriage really that bad? It originally was very useful in creating a stable society. Nowadays, if you don't want religion in your life, than don't have it in your life. Simple as that. But if someone wants to get married in the church, how is that harming anything?


OP--Yes, I think we would be patriarchal even without christianity. Rome was pagan for a time, and they were still patriarchal. Judaism, even before christ, was patriarchal. So is Islam. Even modern day, supposedly-atheist China is patriarchal.

In my perspective, patriarchy arose when the advancement of technology made it more efficient to have a division of labor. Since women have always been the primary caretakers of children due to biology, their roles were closer to the home front, whereas men's roles were things such as defense, or hunting, activities which were more physically intense but not as time consuming, thus they had the time to invent things of technological value. They were also given the job of defense, which, as civilization progressed, soon became a job of conquest--i.e. power. Therefore, because the results of traditional men's work are more immediate and obvious (the conquest of a neighboring tribe after one battle, vs supporting children over a time span of 15 years) the work that men did came to be seen as more valuable, and women's roles were belittled.

As men are physically stronger than women (in general) it follows that they would be seen as more powerful.

 

I'd like to think it's coming full circle now, as technology slowly erodes those initial differences (real or perceived, fair or unfair). It just seems that religion acts as a dam in the river, an artificial barrier that maintains these outworn gender roles.

And anytime a shift like this begins, you're going to get resistance. Power rarely just steps aside. Which, I think, goes back to Rodriguez's assessment of a church on the defensive.

(BTW Strawberry, that is one large child. Cute, but large)

 

I actually think discrimination is usually the result of personal insecurities. When a person is secure in their own person they are usually much more accepting of others.

The church has a huge insecurity as far as homosexuality since their ranks are laced with it, as demonstrated by the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals. Since they can't seem to control it in their own ranks they seek to control it in the population at large.

 

There is a great lecture by Jonathan Haidt on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc that really puts liberal versus conservative thinking into prospective.

In a nutshell, the difference is a major personality trait called "openness to new experiences." In addition, liberals only see 2 moral issues as valid, while conservatives see 5.

The church and gay marriage is a classic example of liberal versus conservative thinking. Liberals see this as no big deal, (what harm will it cause?), while conservatives see this as a threat to a functioning society.

The lecture won't solve this problem, but for me it helped frame the argument.

 

I want to thank you for that link. When I have more time I want to view a lot more of the videos on Ted. I watched the one on violence at Abu Gharib, and it clarified a lot of issues for me.

 

churches have a fear of anything out of their thought spectrum, thats why 99 percent of religions are conservative

 

I don't have much opinion on gay marriage except I feel that what other people do in their own personal life as long as they are not killing someone or stealing from me or others it is pretty much none of my business.

 

Why is it the conservative movement hates to see regulation or control on economic markets, but always seem to agree on an increase of regulation on our personal lives, and lifestyles?

 

because political views are slowly being integrated into everyday lives of children. its called brainwashing :spliff

 

Don't we all have individual responsibility for allowing this to happen?

 

A true conservative wants to mind their own business and for you to mind yours. I don't know why people think a conservative wants to tell others how to live when nothing is further from the truth.

It is socialist liberals who want to monitor every aspect of someone else's life. The two sides are now blended to be called
Neo-Conservative...yuck and patouie

 

It's not the conservative movement that wants to define marriage, or legislate the rights of woman over her own body? It's not the conservative movement that wants to put prayer into our schools, the 10 commandments in our courts?

I don't think anyone can accuse the liberals of meddling in other people's lifes anywhere near that degree of intrusion.