Conservative Christians picked the wrong fight

Conservative Christian values have been losing ground for my entire lifetime, so I'm probably not the best person to write about it. I don't know what's good about this set of values--I only know what's passable and what's hypocritical.

It seems to me that conservative Christians made their first mistake vilifying those who pushed for some latitude on sexual issues. Christians stuck to the maxim that "good girls don't" even in the face of a lot of good girls doing it. These good girls didn't turn into sluts, prostitutes, or broken people, and that was a clear, scientific repudiation of what the conservative Christians warned.

Did the conservative Christians admit they were wrong? No. For many, their belief in the inerrancy of the bible or of their catechism doesn't allow them to admit the scientific evidence, so they are completely stuck. Their rules have been shown to be incorrect, but they can't do anything about it. They can't amend the rules and they can't admit they're wrong. So maybe they're quiet about the case where good people don't follow the rules, and noisy about the next topic on the agenda.

What was next on the agenda? Maybe divorce, which they mischaracterized first as a moral failing and then as a whim. However, too many conservative Christians found themselves divorced at some point, so they let that slide too.

Being against homosexuality had and continues to have more staying power as an issue because it's less common than straight pre-marital sex or divorce. However, as more gay people come out to their religious parents or to neighbors or coworkers, the general public is finding it harder to see homosexuality as scary, evil deviance.

I remember Anita Bryant warning about the scourge of homosexual teachers in our schools. That worked for a while, until we found out that many sexual predators had a front as regular, married guys.

Ok, so maybe homosexuals weren't particularly predators, there was still the 'abomination' factor, where abomination is the biblical term for 'icky.' But restrictions based on ancient biblical rules don't fly when so much of society is modern and educated, not to mention the many who have tried sushi and realized that 'icky' doesn't always pan out. Just as sushi turns out not to be icky, other forms of sex often turn out not to be icky either.

So the biblical restrictions against pre-marital sex, divorce, and homosexuality fell apart in our modern era. Why do conservative Christians cling to their outdated viewpoint on homosexuality so much more tightly than they did to the biblical view of pre-marital sex or divorce? I really don't know why they keep fighting this one. Unfortunately, I don't currently have any close friends  who are religious and hold this view, so I have no one to ask this sincere question. I wonder whether it's the desperation from so many losses that makes them fight this one with all the energy they have left.

One odd thing--conservative Christians have had one moderately successful fight--the fight against abortion. Why is the abortion fight still going, while all these others are basically lost? Conservative Christians should be asking themselves that.

Scare Tactics

Image: anabaptistredux.com

What a relief!

Image: bibleexplainer.blogspot.com

Extras. Conservatives complaining the liberals were just pretending to care about marriage, but really they don't. Of course, in this view, all liberals are a single massive blob of wrongheadedness, not individuals, some of whom dislike marriage while others strongly support it. Me, I'm a big fan, in case you forgot.

Do you have to read the post after seeing this graphic? I did.

Image: biblicalgenderroles.com

Getting Married: To have sex or to have babies

I just realized something. The proponents of traditional marriage who say that the purpose of marriage is to provide a good environment for children are ignoring an important point in marriage traditions. Traditionally, you had to get married before you could legally have sex with the object of your desire. So the purpose of marriage was to have sex. If the sex didn't occur, that is, if the marriage wasn't consummated, the marriage could be annulled as though it had never happened. The lack of offspring wasn't enough to annul a marriage, but the lack of sex was.

Now a vast majority of Americans are having sex before marriage. So we don't need to get married to have sex. I think this is why marriage is breaking down in the US. The problem was that sex outside marriage destabilized marriage for many people.

Then again, I don't think that's the reason. Over 95% of Americans are having pre-marital sex, but 95% of marriages haven't destabilized.

More likely is that when society became more accepting of sex before marriage, it also became more accepting of other changes to tradition:

• Divorce
• Delayed marriage
• Delayed childbearing through contraception
• Voluntary childless marriages
• Alternative sexual positions and techniques
• Sequential relationships and sex partners
• Dating and having sex concurrently with multiple partners (but not too many)
• Raising children outside marriage
• Getting married after the birth of a child
• Women having both careers and children
• Women in high-commitment jobs

Gosh, with all those other changes, accepting same-sex relationships and marriage doesn't seem like such a big deal. After all, it's apparent traditional lost a long time ago.

This isn't the first time tradition has been challenged. Think of the play The Fiddler on the Roof. It's all about Tevye's daughters breaking the tradition of arranged marriage. Maybe the lesson is that people accept the non-traditional when they see good aspects to the change.

You may now kiss the bride and finally have sex with her.

Photo: some twitter thing

Extra: Heavens! Changes to the Nuptial Mass are arcane to the rest of us.

A short natural history of marriage

Gay marriage is probably going to be an issue in politics this year. So I'll try to do a public service (or disservice) by writing a bit more about it.

 Marriage, Ordained or Customary?

As a scientist, I see marriage not as a sacrament created by God, but as a group of ethnic customs. The Bible gives insight into ancient Hebrew marriage customs, including the bride price, multiple wives, handmaidens standing in for barren wives, widows required to marry a brother-in-law, and concubines.

Luckily, marriage customs have progressed. I agree with those who say that the traditional purpose of marriage is to conceive, bear, and raise children. But marriage has more purposes than just that. Love, mutual help, and companionship have also been reasons for marrying or staying married even if there were no children. Abraham kept his barren wife Sarah because he loved her so much. Only after 24 years did Sarah bear a child, Isaac.

Most of our customs come from Europe since most of our ethnic stock is European. Arranged marriage became less common in Europe sooner than other regions, and the dowry was more frequent than selling a daughter for a price. Widows and widowers marrying was common, not to have more children, but to share the work of the household and have the benefits of the close, personal, and special relationship of husband and wife.

Marriage without Reproduction

I reject that all marriages must follow the format of reproductive marriages-a man and a woman of childbearing age. We have found that marriage is beneficial for other reasons too, and I don't see why the benefit shouldn't be extended as a right to same-sex couples. I do mean a right, just as most of us have assumed that we could marry without excessive state interference.

The main reason I hold this view is that I don't have any religious or prejudicial grounds for objecting to homosexual orientation or acts. I used to think homosexuality was wrong, but after shedding my learned prejudice, I couldn't find anything intrinsically wrong in it. But more than that, I realized that many homosexuals have the same depth of love that I have. We are different, but not so different. Instead, I feel so much commonality. We share the knowledge of life and love. I wish Santorum and others could see this.

Groom's family bearing gifts come to negotiate a bride price.

Extra: A different but also short history of marriage.