I have an opportunity to talk to my wife’s pastor about gay marriage. The short version of this story is that he’s being pressured into “taking a stance” on the issue. Why now, when the issue is done and settled and not at any point in the previous 10 years? Couldn’t tell you.
Why am I involved? I made a joke to my wife (I’m the token atheist) and yadda yadda yadda somehow he’s willing to listen to me if I want to throw my 2 cents in. I don’t need to take him up on the offer if I don’t want to.
I’m considering different approaches.
Focus on the actual topic of gay marriage. I grant that the bible says “don’t be gay,” but nowhere does it say, “don’t condone homosexuality,” which I feel is some made-up moral guidance that Christians infer because they want to. I could discuss how people’s attitudes towards gay marriage tend to change when actually confronted with a gay person who wants to get married. Make it as personal as I can even though I really only know like 3 gay people.
Same as above but I expand the topic to homosexuality in general. I point out logical inconsistencies in standard American Christian morals as read from the bible, Leviticus is silly, etc etc.
My preferred approach, start with a discussion of where morality comes from. I acknowledge that many Christians feel deep down that homosexuality is wrong, but argue that comes from upbringing and not adherence to biblical guidance. I challenge him to question his morals and to defend them on secular grounds, like I did when I ditched religion.
WWSDMB do? I have no illusions about changing his mind. Heck, I don’t know what his current stance on gay marriage is, but I suspect that he doesn’t really care much about it. However, if he had to take a stance, he would come out against it in order not to alienate the churchgoers. There are plenty of pro-gay people in the church who would still show up if he said “boo, gays,” but lots, lots more people who would probably take their business elsewhere if he didn’t. I think, at best, I’d hope that he wouldn’t take a stance, and instead encourage the church to reflect on why they feel the way they do.
Too touchy feely? Pointless endeavor? Should I just stay home in my underwear like normal?
What denomination is this? Do they have a stance at the national level? Knowing that might help guide your approach.
I think it’s a conversation worth having. Don’t go into it trying to convince him of anything, just look at it as an exchange of ideas.
So as a non-religious person, I’m not sure how much my opinion will be useful. But personally, I like #3 except without quite so much of “forget the bible, let’s look where morality really comes from.” That approach is probably doomed to fail if he tries to live true to the Bible. Instead, take it from the approach of the most important takeaways from the Bible - love thy neighbor, do unto others, accept differences, etc.
It’s a little bit of #2 above, but without focusing on silliness or inconsistencies. Saying something like “Leviticus is silly” could make him dig in his heels. Saying “Leviticus was based on what was important and meaningful to them at the time, those things change, so to determine what’s still applicable, it’s better to consider the base morals that Jesus tried to teach” has more chance of success.
I would say it’s closer to the second then the first, people who commit homosexuality are to be put to death (IIRC by stoning), and being gay is not really a option to do or not to do biblcially AFAIK.
My stand would be more along the lines if the pastor should talk to sinners, and if he himself is a sinner who needs the grace and forgiveness of Jesus, after which though forgiven, does he still commit such acts.
Corvino is a philosophy professor who’s toured the country having public debates about same-sex marriage (Corvino is on the “pro” side) with Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton (the “anti” side). The book describes common arguments against homosexuality and gay rights (including “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”) and presents Corvino’s rebuttals. He also talks about his experiences as a gay man and the importance of being respectful towards ones opponents.
If he’s open to the bible being a historical document, then your third option sounds good. You could argue that the prohibitions of homosexuality made sense at the time when the Jews and early church were trying to distinguish themselves from pagan and decadent acts of their neighbors. But that now that we live in a more sophisticated society, where gays can have longterm meaningful relationships that represent spiritual bonds just as strong as heterosexual couples, the proscriptions of 2000 years ago no longer apply, just like the fact we have prisons and a strong rule of law makes the Biblical reliance on stoning for nearly every offense not longer necessary.
If he’s a literalist, (ie the bible said it, I believe it, that settles it.) Then you have no chance to convince him that homosexuality isn’t immoral. So your best bet is to take a live and let live attitude similar to your first option. Point out that while he has his own view of morality we live in a pluralistic society where Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus and what have you are allowed to practice their beliefs as long as they don’t interfere with anyone else. The bans on idol worship in the bible are much stronger than those against homosexualtiy. Whole kingdoms are repeatedly brought down due the the presence of a few Asherah poles and yet we don’t protest and make laws against the sale of statues of St Francis and Ganesh. Similarly you should accept that some people have beliefs in which homosexual love is a good thing, while you may not agree with them, you should accept their right to live as they feel. Otherwise we might as well just go the route of Iran and become a full on theocracy.
Frankly, I’d plan to spend most of my time listening to him. You aren’t likely to logic him out of a stance, but if you try to understand where he is coming from, you may be able to generate enough of a human connection that in the future he might be a little more open.
I’d caution against going deep into Leviticus and perceived hypocrisy. The argument you may hear come back is that certain laws in Leviticus are moral laws while others are ceremonial laws. Moral laws still stand, ceremonial laws went out the window with Jesus. Now some argue that the homosexual law is a moral one, and others argue that it was a specific instance of homosexuality that was forbidden and that it’s therefore ceremonial. Basically, don’t get into a legal battle with him.
Make it a human connection, and focus on the human aspects of the gay thing.
The only “legal” aspect I’d possibly touch on it is with divorce: Why do Christians fight to make gay marriage illegal, but not divorce, even though Jesus spoke directly against divorce? Allowing people to divorce in our society doesn’t mean you personally condone it, just like allowing people to “gay marry” doesn’t mean you have to personally condone it either.
What’s the point of it? You say you dumped religion. I don’t understand why you’d think whatever that pastor says, for or against, is worth a plugged nickel.
You’re wasting your time, unless you consider wasting his time is like preventing a telemarketer from scamming at least one little old lady.
If your only goal is to convince him you’re right and win an argument, then sure, it’s probably a waste. But what’s wrong with having a conversation with someone you (might) disagree with? Every conversation doesn’t have to be an argument to be won.
It’s fine to go into it with no intent beyond an exchange of views. You probably won’t change his views, he certainly won’t change yours, but you both might come out of it with a better understanding of the other person. We need to get out of our bubbles sometimes.
Jesus’ words on divorce are mixed. Jesus said Moses allowed divorce, and in another place Jesus said that Divorce is Ok in the case of adultery. Also in the OT God ordered a entire tribe of Israel to divorce their wives and abandon their children of that marriage.
Why does every response assume the pastor is anti-gay and has to be talked into or out of a stance? All I got from the OP was that he was being encouraged to take a stance and was open to discussing the issue.
It’s hard to know without knowing the guy or more background.
I am an atheist. Most of the Christians I know are “liberal” and most of the “liberals” I know are Christian. I know and have family members who are openly gay and fiercely protective of gay family. These people all go to church. I know for a fact there are church leaders who have no problem with SSM.
Agreement. However, with that in mind, you might start by negotiating an exit clause.
“We might not agree. The conversation might become uncomfortable. I’d like to propose a rule that says, at any point, for any reason, either of us can ask that the matter be set aside – we can ‘agree to disagree’ – and we will change the subject.”
This way, nobody needs to feel trapped or cornered.
I would want to avoid the “You have to answer the question; you didn’t answer my question; why are you ducking my question” garbage that mars so many SDMB threads. It isn’t a formal debate, let alone a boxing match. Just a friendly chat.
Bring a bottle of sherry. It might help make things friendlier.
Excellent advice. (But if he’s Episcopalian, substitute good bourbon for the sherry. If Catholic, Scotch. If Baptist, Southern Comfort, but hidden in a Coke bottle.)
You might point out to him that same-sex marriage is civil marriage - it’s about the legal rights and responsibilities that the law grants to that particular relationship. The Obergefell decision has absolutely nothing to do with religious doctrine; churches are free to define marriage any way they like. You can tell him that marriage equality has been the law for ten years in Massachusetts, and in that time no church, synagogue or mosque has been compelled to conduct a same-sex wedding. And the rates of marriage and divorce have not changed significantly over that decade, either.
You can talk about why marriage equality is so important. You can tell him the story of Janice Langbehn, who was refused access to the hospital room where Lisa Pond, her partner of 18 years, was being treated after suffering an aneurysm while on vacation in Florida. You can ask him to imagine how she felt to sit in the waiting room for eight hours, only to see Lisa for five minutes just before a priest administered Last Rites. Ask him to think about her kids, who never got to say goodbye to their mother.
But probably the best thing you can hope to do is show him that same-sex marriage is ultimately about love. Show him some of the stories from Marriage Equality USA’s Getting To “I Do” project - my own is on there - and maybe he’ll see that gay Americans marry for exactly the same reasons that straights do; for companionship, for family, for love.
Divorce existed long before Jesus. In fact, in the New Testament Paul writes to the Corinthians urging them to abstain from marital unity if at all possible (especially the widowed and divorced) and that lust should be controlled within partnership (that marriage no longer served its original holy purpose and now serves as an escape or rather safety from the consequences of temptation).
Can someone tell me where in the Bible it states that a marriage should be held between a man and a woman only and where the legal standards for marrying are specified and emphatically restricted?
I can’t recommend enough “God and the Gay Christian” by Matthew Vines. It’s not as long book, but it addresses homosexuality from a literalist point of view. Vines is a gay evangelical, who has studied this issue in depth and basically became convinced that the interpretation of the “clobber verses” is actually fairly flawed (FWIW, for most non-affirming Christians, the main clobber verses are not in Leviticus, it is in Romans 1). The book goes over each and every one of those verses and goes into Biblical interpretation in detail from a literalist POV. It’s 224 pages and highly readable.
I’ve also heard that “Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships” by Dr. James Brownson is quite good in the issue as well (I haven’t read this one), but more academic than Vines’s book (Vines was writing for most evangelical Christians).
I’ve actually changed my mom’s opinion on this, and it didn’t happen by quoting the Bible, nor by mentioning its inconsistencies.
My conversation was about how the founders of the country were not uniformly enthusiastic Christians – which mom knows – and that the country has a rule of law. That rule of law has to be based on logic and humanism and justice, not on a single religious tome from the Bronze Age.
We also talked about the difference between a religious ceremony and the legal definition of marriage. That no one is interested in forcing a particular minister to perform SSM; people are interested in having the same rights and protections whether they marry a person of the same or opposite sex. That we know scientifically that being gay is genetic, like having brown hair or green eyes.
And I also pointed out that that when my best friend’s parents were married, people didn’t “support” that, either, because it was an interracial marriage. And the nay-sayers used the Bible to support that, too.
I framed this as an equal rights issue, not a religious one.
This conversation went on for a few years before she changed her mind, so the best you can hope to do in one meeting is to give him food for thought.
All that said, if it were me – I’m also an atheist – I’d stay home in my underwear.
And everyone in Massachusetts now realizes that gay married couples are as boring as everyone else.
Well, if he’s Episcopalian he probably has no issues with homosexuality or gay marriage to begin with (there is a reason a bunch of conservative Episcopalian churches left The Episcopal Church and now are under the heading of “The Anglican Church in North America”).
Same applies if he’s Presbyterian Church USA or Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
