Marriage as Glaser Sees It
In matters of morality, one of the most hotly debated issues concerns homosexuality in general and same-sex marriage in particular. Recent political action has addressed the question of whether homosexual unions should be given marital status, and, because of its historical stance on the subject, the Christian Church has found itself at the center of the argument even outside of the religious realm. Of course, the Church’s position has not only been attacked from without, but also within, as many homosexuals have battled for their rights to church membership, ministry, and leadership. One such person holding church membership and simultaneously engaged in a homosexual relationship is Chris Glaser, who attempted to defend his approval of same-sex marriage in an essay entitled “Marriage as We See It.” Throughout the essay, Glaser relates his own experiences as a called minister in his Presbyterian church and as a homosexual in a committed relationship, as well as his interpretation of biblical teachings and Western culture to encourage a reinterpretation of marriage that includes recognition of committed same-sex relationships.
Glaser begins his argument by claiming that American culture is adverse to same-sex marriage because it provides a convenient scapegoat for the disintegration of traditional family function, given the circular reasoning for ostracizing members of the gay community. Early on, gay relations were opposed by the claim that they could not be enduring relationships or conducive for raising children. Once experience showed this to be unfounded, the argument became homosexual relations were unacceptable because those involved were unashamed in announcing their lifestyle. Also, the previous argument that gays were “selfish” and “irresponsible” has been disproved by their willingness to serve others, so the antagonists now attack gays because they want to serve. Turning to the realm of religion, Glaser relates his experience being involved in his denomination’s study of homosexuality. During his time of involvement, he realized that, while the group as a whole was willing to discuss whether ordination should be extended to homosexuals, the question of homosexual marriage was taboo. Similarly, a denominational committee some years later prescribed what it considered an acceptable ethic of sexual relations equally applicable to both heterosexual and homosexual unions, a presentation which caused irate reactions because of the very notion that homosexual relations could include any measure of good. To many, the report’s allusion to subjugation of women, marital rape, incest, and adultery within heterosexual relationships was not able to justify redefining marriage to include anything other than what was traditionally acceptable. Glaser further argues that the Bible accepts practices such as extramarital relationships, which are also considered inappropriate in Western culture, and suggests that Jesus is really the one who redefined marriage since he redefined family based on spiritual relations rather than physical. According to Glaser, Jesus’ teachings emphasized faithfulness rather than gender in relationships, and Western culture originally emphasized the economics of marriage rather than the intimacy. Glaser concludes with an emotional appeal by telling of another gay couple who did not ceremonially vow themselves to one another in the presence of their church family. When one of the men was killed in an automobile accident, the other did not receive the extent of support from his church family he might have received had the church been aware of the couple’s commitment. For all of these reasons, Glaser states that gay couples are entitled to the same benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples, and same-sex unions should be recognized and offered marital status.
Prior to reading Glaser’s essay, I was opposed to homosexual relationships, and after reading Glaser’s essay, I am still opposed to homosexual relationships and remain unconvinced that marital status should be granted to same-sex unions. I am willing to consider any argument to the contrary, but Glaser’s essay is ineffective as his supporting evidence is not well reasoned. His claims that homosexuals are being blamed for the dysfunction of traditional families and that reasoning for denouncing gay marriage is circular are beside the point. These may or may not be true observations in some cases, but they do not support the promotion of redefining marriage. Glaser’s appeal to religion is not very substantial, either. He reasons that gay marriage should be a discussable issue because, at least within his denomination, ordination of homosexuals is discussable. However, if he refers to a religious institution, he should consider that institution’s text. The Bible, including New Testament passages such as Romans 1:24-27, indicates quite clearly that God does not approve of homosexual behavior, meaning neither the marriage nor the ordination of someone living a homosexual lifestyle should be acceptable in any case. Glaser is also deficient in offering problems that do occur in marriage as grounds for accepting homosexual marriage. Failures within a marriage do no constitute redefining marriage any more than a sports team’s losing record constitutes redefining that sport.
One of the greatest errors in Glaser’s argument, however, is his misrepresentation of both the biblical and social understandings of marriage. In claiming that the Bible supports extramarital and non-marital practices such as polygamy, “concubinage,” and sexual relations with the wife of one’s deceased brother, Glaser grossly neglects the fact that the Bible nowhere endorses such practices in any way. It should first be noted that there is quite a difference between reporting customs as they are and actually approving of them. Furthermore, a thorough reading of the Bible reveals that God clearly defined his planned design for marriage between one man and one woman committed to each other for life, he warned against deviant practices, and disobedience often resulted in tragedy. In the matter of Jesus’ teachings, for Glaser to claim that Jesus was more concerned with fidelity than gender in relationships is to put words in Jesus’ mouth that he never spoke. Likewise, the idea that Jesus meant for the human concept of family to be entirely replaced by Christian brotherhood is to stretch an easily understood metaphor into a mystical view that denies the sanctity of the physical all together. From a biblical perspective, God instituted the concept of family from the beginning and it is sacred even in its physical sense. I also take issue with Glaser’s claim that Western culture originally viewed marriage from an economical point of view. Just because certain benefits of marriage were recognized, it does not necessarily follow that the intimate purpose of marriage was ignored. Glaser’s concluding point that the man who lost his loved one was not comforted as much as he would have been had his relationship been considered equal to marriage is touching, but unsupportive of his claim. While it is saddening any time a human being experiences loss (and homosexuals are certainly capable of loving one another), “what might have been” is purely speculative and matters of morality must be decided upon fact rather than emotion.
Homosexuality is a difficult topic because love is a difficult, yet wonderful part of human existence that we cannot very well do without. When emotions are considered and evidence of genetic homosexuality is being discussed, the issue becomes especially complicated, and many people do not consider the Bible a valid authority on the matter. Of course, if a religious text is not revered as authoritative in a particular instance, its words will be meaningless to the ones involved in the discussion. In this case, however, Chris Glaser is a member of a Christian church and references the Bible himself. Unfortunately, Glaser’s interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, as he apparently ignores many of the passages that relate specifically to the issue of his interest. His argument as a whole is founded on empty and unsupportive evidence and is unconvincing apart from emotional appeal. I do not dispute in any way the notion that homosexuals are capable of love and commitment to one another to some extent, but I do dispute the strength of the evidence Glaser presents. If he wishes to be convincing in his argument, he is going to have to offer some support that substantiates his claim on a factual and authoritative level.
Submitted to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, March 3, 2008.
Glaser begins his argument by claiming that American culture is adverse to same-sex marriage because it provides a convenient scapegoat for the disintegration of traditional family function, given the circular reasoning for ostracizing members of the gay community. Early on, gay relations were opposed by the claim that they could not be enduring relationships or conducive for raising children. Once experience showed this to be unfounded, the argument became homosexual relations were unacceptable because those involved were unashamed in announcing their lifestyle. Also, the previous argument that gays were “selfish” and “irresponsible” has been disproved by their willingness to serve others, so the antagonists now attack gays because they want to serve. Turning to the realm of religion, Glaser relates his experience being involved in his denomination’s study of homosexuality. During his time of involvement, he realized that, while the group as a whole was willing to discuss whether ordination should be extended to homosexuals, the question of homosexual marriage was taboo. Similarly, a denominational committee some years later prescribed what it considered an acceptable ethic of sexual relations equally applicable to both heterosexual and homosexual unions, a presentation which caused irate reactions because of the very notion that homosexual relations could include any measure of good. To many, the report’s allusion to subjugation of women, marital rape, incest, and adultery within heterosexual relationships was not able to justify redefining marriage to include anything other than what was traditionally acceptable. Glaser further argues that the Bible accepts practices such as extramarital relationships, which are also considered inappropriate in Western culture, and suggests that Jesus is really the one who redefined marriage since he redefined family based on spiritual relations rather than physical. According to Glaser, Jesus’ teachings emphasized faithfulness rather than gender in relationships, and Western culture originally emphasized the economics of marriage rather than the intimacy. Glaser concludes with an emotional appeal by telling of another gay couple who did not ceremonially vow themselves to one another in the presence of their church family. When one of the men was killed in an automobile accident, the other did not receive the extent of support from his church family he might have received had the church been aware of the couple’s commitment. For all of these reasons, Glaser states that gay couples are entitled to the same benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples, and same-sex unions should be recognized and offered marital status.
Prior to reading Glaser’s essay, I was opposed to homosexual relationships, and after reading Glaser’s essay, I am still opposed to homosexual relationships and remain unconvinced that marital status should be granted to same-sex unions. I am willing to consider any argument to the contrary, but Glaser’s essay is ineffective as his supporting evidence is not well reasoned. His claims that homosexuals are being blamed for the dysfunction of traditional families and that reasoning for denouncing gay marriage is circular are beside the point. These may or may not be true observations in some cases, but they do not support the promotion of redefining marriage. Glaser’s appeal to religion is not very substantial, either. He reasons that gay marriage should be a discussable issue because, at least within his denomination, ordination of homosexuals is discussable. However, if he refers to a religious institution, he should consider that institution’s text. The Bible, including New Testament passages such as Romans 1:24-27, indicates quite clearly that God does not approve of homosexual behavior, meaning neither the marriage nor the ordination of someone living a homosexual lifestyle should be acceptable in any case. Glaser is also deficient in offering problems that do occur in marriage as grounds for accepting homosexual marriage. Failures within a marriage do no constitute redefining marriage any more than a sports team’s losing record constitutes redefining that sport.
One of the greatest errors in Glaser’s argument, however, is his misrepresentation of both the biblical and social understandings of marriage. In claiming that the Bible supports extramarital and non-marital practices such as polygamy, “concubinage,” and sexual relations with the wife of one’s deceased brother, Glaser grossly neglects the fact that the Bible nowhere endorses such practices in any way. It should first be noted that there is quite a difference between reporting customs as they are and actually approving of them. Furthermore, a thorough reading of the Bible reveals that God clearly defined his planned design for marriage between one man and one woman committed to each other for life, he warned against deviant practices, and disobedience often resulted in tragedy. In the matter of Jesus’ teachings, for Glaser to claim that Jesus was more concerned with fidelity than gender in relationships is to put words in Jesus’ mouth that he never spoke. Likewise, the idea that Jesus meant for the human concept of family to be entirely replaced by Christian brotherhood is to stretch an easily understood metaphor into a mystical view that denies the sanctity of the physical all together. From a biblical perspective, God instituted the concept of family from the beginning and it is sacred even in its physical sense. I also take issue with Glaser’s claim that Western culture originally viewed marriage from an economical point of view. Just because certain benefits of marriage were recognized, it does not necessarily follow that the intimate purpose of marriage was ignored. Glaser’s concluding point that the man who lost his loved one was not comforted as much as he would have been had his relationship been considered equal to marriage is touching, but unsupportive of his claim. While it is saddening any time a human being experiences loss (and homosexuals are certainly capable of loving one another), “what might have been” is purely speculative and matters of morality must be decided upon fact rather than emotion.
Homosexuality is a difficult topic because love is a difficult, yet wonderful part of human existence that we cannot very well do without. When emotions are considered and evidence of genetic homosexuality is being discussed, the issue becomes especially complicated, and many people do not consider the Bible a valid authority on the matter. Of course, if a religious text is not revered as authoritative in a particular instance, its words will be meaningless to the ones involved in the discussion. In this case, however, Chris Glaser is a member of a Christian church and references the Bible himself. Unfortunately, Glaser’s interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, as he apparently ignores many of the passages that relate specifically to the issue of his interest. His argument as a whole is founded on empty and unsupportive evidence and is unconvincing apart from emotional appeal. I do not dispute in any way the notion that homosexuals are capable of love and commitment to one another to some extent, but I do dispute the strength of the evidence Glaser presents. If he wishes to be convincing in his argument, he is going to have to offer some support that substantiates his claim on a factual and authoritative level.
Submitted to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, March 3, 2008.
posted by Jonathan Branch at 12:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home