Hidden assumptions in the gay rights debate
Some gays and their supporters are just awful. They’re lewd and crude, loud and proud, and totally intolerant. If one so much as suggests that the homosexual lifestyle is problematic, they’re in your face and calling for your head. Others are less obnoxious but still think the opposition deserves to be castigated and decapitated, figuratively speaking.
Gays who target businesses for their conservative views on homosexuality, like the couple who took their case against the Colorado baker all the way to the Supreme Court, are some of the awful ones. But though it was certainly gratifying to have the Court rule against them, the decision did not establish the constitutionality of denying particular services based on one’s religious beliefs. So we will likely see a similar case before the court in the near future.
Call me a clueless conservative, but I think I understand the pro-gay position pretty well. I haven’t seen much evidence, however, that gay-rights supporters understand ours. I have serious doubts that many of them even want to. But, oh, what a decrease in divisiveness there would be if both sides really sought after mutual understanding. Not that many would change their minds on the moral status of homosexuality, but perhaps there would be less animosity and more real tolerance.
Let’s break this down
So towards that end, here’s how one conservative sees it (that would be me). The position of those who charge Christians with hatred and bigotry if they won’t provide services for same-sex weddings can be expressed as a syllogism:
- All people are equal, gay and straight.
- To deny the same service to gays that you provide to straights is treating the groups as unequal.
- Treating a group of people as unequal and inferior is bigotry.
- Therefore, Christians who won’t provide services for same-sex weddings are bigots.
This argument seems pretty straightforward and persuasive on its face, until you consider the assumptions being made. And for the argument to go through, the assumptions must also. These assumptions act as hidden premises and exposing them renders the argument thus:
- All people are equal, gay and straight.
- To deny the same service to gays that you provide to straights is treating the groups as unequal.
- God either does not exist or has no authority over our lives.
- Discriminating between groups based on religious beliefs devalues one group as inferior.
- Treating a group of people as unequal and inferior is bigotry.
- Therefore, Christians who won’t provide services for same-sex weddings are bigots.
The hidden premises 3 and 4 must be true for their conclusion to be true. But are any of them really willing and able to defend them with evidence? If the God revealed in the Bible exists, he is our sovereign authority and supersedes any and every earthly authority. Every gay rights supporter who condemns a Christian for his or her position on homosexuality is assuming that premise 3 is true.
Premise 4 is a mischaracterization of the Christian position, even though “discriminating” is accurate. As those under God’s authority, Christians are called to discriminate between beliefs and activities that honor him and are according to his will, and those that don’t. That’s rightful judging, and the kind of judging gay rights supporters do as well. When they condemn Christians for our position, are they not judging us to be wrong based on their assumed code of morality? If our discriminating based on our beliefs devalues a whole group as inferior, so does theirs. If our position makes us bigots, so does theirs make them bigots as well.
The second is important, but the first is more so
But as we are not discriminating against people but against their activities and beliefs, there is no assumption of inferiority. Christians who are true to our calling to love our neighbor can continue to acknowledge and honor the inherent worth in every individual, and love them even while we oppose their beliefs and behavior.
Some will say, if we love them we should support their desired lifestyle. That argument, too, assumes hidden premise 3. But God does exist and though he commands us to “Love your neighbor as yourself,” that commandment is the second greatest. The first is, “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”
God, and our love for and obedience to him, must come first. I really wish our detractors understood that.
Hi Caroline, I agree with your position, but I occasionally see other premises being argued. You might want to touch on the alternative view espoused by The Reformation Project and others. They would replace premise 3 with one saying that God doesn’t actually teach against long-term, loving same-sex relationships (and so perhaps they would also change premise 4 to “…incorrect religious beliefs…”). In any event, thanks very much for your blog, it’s a blessing to me.
LikeLike
Hi, David. Thanks for reading and commenting. Yes, I’m familiar with the Reformation Project and recognize that their position is that God does exist and has authority, but that the Bible doesn’t teach what orthodox Christianity has always held. So, their position would not fit my syllogism. I’m glad you pointed that out.
Their argument, however, really stretches the text and makes me wonder then how concerned they really are about obeying God over selfish desires.
LikeLike
Good post, Caroline! I was happy to see SCOTUS rule in favor of Jack Phillips but that is obviously not the end of it.
LikeLike
Thanks, Tom. I read a commentary that said Phillips could be targeted again and the Colorado Civil Right Commission could still legally rule against him…as long as they were nice about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow.
The fact that there are people who openly display such ignorant bigotry and homophobia is an absolute disgrace.
And the fact that you use your religion of choice to justify your egotistical, delusional bigotry is a major copout.
At least just admit that you think straight people are somehow morally superior based on your own personal bias and no one can argue with that.
LikeLike
Exactly what did I say here that qualifies as bigotry?
LikeLike
All of it, beginning middle and end. The fundamental core message.
Do you know the definition of bigotry?
LikeLike
Did you even read my post, Amanda, or just the first line and assume immediately that I’m a bigot?
LikeLike
Of course I read it; Are you delusional?
The entire thing is you copping out by using your religion of choice to justify your wilful ignorance, discrimination, and bigotry.
How do people like you even still exist ?
LikeLike
For some reason your comments got put in my spam folder. I’m thinking that may be where they belong, so I’ll just leave you to think what you want about my character and worth.
LikeLike
Hidden premise 3: God either does not exist or has no authority over our lives.
Or they disagree with you about theology or Biblical interpretation.
Or they expect you to put more emphasis on the ‘Love your neighbour’ parts than the ‘Your neighbour may be an abomination’ parts.
Or they want to follow the principles of the secular country they live in (“Give unto Caesar…”).
Or, your choice is to follow the Book and stone the homosexuals… or accept you’ve sanitised the book to allow for something more pleasant.
Or, it’s not about accepting premise 3, but not accepting the opposite claim until sufficient evidence and argument are presented. (Because you’ve shifted the burden of proof.)
Your premise (also ‘hidden’, in that it is not part of syllogism you presented)(YHP1): If the God revealed in the Bible exists, he is our sovereign authority and supersedes any and every earthly authority.
Why would that be? God doesn’t have authority by any of the standards of authority in Western Civilisation: by consent of the people, by by nomination by another authority. By what mechanism does God get authority? By force?
Your second hidden premise (YHP2): If our discriminating based on our beliefs devalues a whole group as inferior, so does theirs.
This has 2 subpremises:
YHP2(a) – Christians are being devalued when they are being disagreed with.
YHP2(b) – Homosexuality is a belief
Your assertion: Christians who are true to our calling to love our neighbor can continue to acknowledge and honor the inherent worth in every individual, and love them even while we oppose their beliefs and behavior.
I’m having a hard time seeing how refusing them service at a coffee shop or refusing to make a sake for them in any way honours their inherent worth.
The fact is you dishonour their inherent worth when you decide they are not worth your commercial service. The line of argument goes ‘If you do the bum-sex thing, you’ll be cut off from some services — but I still respect you’ is a nonsense.
Your conclusion: God, and our love for and obedience to him, must come first. I really wish our detractors understood that.
Great. Stand by your convictions and pay the cost. Get fined. Have business licenses taken away. Get fired. Go to jail. It’s all worth it, right? Because, liberty in this life doesn’t come first — obedience to God’s love and homophobia does. So, just take the punishment.
Of course, if you really believed that, you wouldn’t be giving some theological lesson in a public blog, would you? Because women shouldn’t be teaching — if you really wanted to be obedient to God.
LikeLike
Allallt, my goal with this post was simply to facilitate a better understanding of where those of us who oppose same-sex marriage are coming from. I apparently failed in that with you. Though I’m not interested in debating homosexuality itself here because I believe it will largely be a waste of time, I do want to address a few things you said.
I agree that HP3 could also include a different interpretation of the text, as I acknowledged with my first commenter here. But your other alternatives would still fall under what I gave as HP3, it seems to me.
If God exists he has authority simply by being God and the creator of all things, specifically us.
Your 2 sub-premises are not valid when my statement is properly understood. I was pointing out that if my HP4 that “Discriminating between groups based on religious beliefs devalues one group as inferior” (and that such discrimination is wrong) is a view that gay rights supporters have, it is hypocritical because they are also strongly against Christians based on their own beliefs that homosexuality is perfectly good and right. And there is no sub-premise that homosexuality is a belief. The view that homosexual behavior is a sin, however, is.
I’m sure there are some business owners in this country who don’t want to serve gays at all, simply because they’re gay. But the cases that have gone to court regarding serving same-sex weddings are not like that. The baker, the florist, and others regularly served gays. It was the specific event, the wedding, they declined. And I attempted to give the reasons here, and I did more so at length in this piece. https://caroline-smith.com/2014/03/05/would-jesus-have-changed-water-to-wine-for-a-same-sex-wedding/
Your final comments here demonstrate an animosity that is really unproductive. You’re free to feel the way you do, but I choose not to respond to hostility.
LikeLike
That last comment is not animosity. It is pointing out the ‘selective obedience’. It really matters to someone that Gays should have certain limits on their rights — but doesn’t matter so much that women shouldn’t be teachers…
Sorry, I did misunderstand your HP4, so take back the bit that follows on from that.
When it comes to my list of alternatives for HP3, I’m surprised to see you gloss over the difference between the premise “God doesn’t exist or doesn’t have authority” and not accepting the premise “God does exist and does have authority”. I know you’re aware of default positions, and so not accepting one premise is not the same as accepting its negation.
I’m also surprised to see you gloss over Mat 22:21 (and it’s parallel in Romans 13:1):
Matthew 22:21 Jesus said “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”
Romans 13:1 “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God.”
God tells you to follow the law. And the law is one of equality…
So, it’s not that clear cut.
LikeLike
Perhaps I did read hostility into your last comments that was unwarranted. That’s the drawback of the written word. My apologies. But as for “selective obedience,” it’s understandable that one would make that charge from a “surface” familiarity with the Bible. The passage(s) in question are generally understood by most Christians not to be commanding women not to teach, but rather a reference to wives and husbands and, as I understand it, specifically in the context of a church gathering or worship service. So however it is to be applied in a church context, it definitely doesn’t apply to what I do.
I understand the difference between the two premises, and technically your alternative could be a separate hidden premise. But I think the concluding assumption is basically the same – God is not a factor.
As for the passages about obeying the law, when Peter and the apostles were brought before the Jewish council for preaching about Jesus, they refused to obey them saying, “We must obey God rather than men.” Likewise are we justified in disobeying the law at times if it is in opposition to God’s law.
LikeLike
Okay, I withdraw my “selective obedience” accusation; that seems a reasonable interpretation from what I recall…
Two questions:
(1) How do you know when to obey the law, and when to obey God?
(2) What commandment or law from God are you breaking by providing a service to a homosexual wedding ceremony?
LikeLike
(1) If a man-made law requires me to do something the Bible says is wrong (because I believe the Bible is a revelation of God’s activity and his will) I know that the right thing for me to do is obey God and disobey man.
(2) There are multiple passages in both the Old and New Testaments that say homosexual behavior is wrong. There are also passages saying marriage is between a man and a woman. So to participate in a celebration of a homosexual relationship is like spitting in God’s eye.
LikeLike