Offensive Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Arguments

There are many opinions about the arguments in and around the Supreme Court review of same sex marriage. Two stuck out to me as particularly absurd and offensive, likely because they struck closer to home.

In one case, Michigan's special assistant attorney general, John Bursch, argued that a central reason for the state being interested in banning same sex marriage was to protect the bond of children to their biological parents. Does he mean that my bond to my son (who we adopted) is not as significant or as strong as if he were of my own biology?! The relationships some stepparents have with their stepchildren isn't relevant? There are so many situations where a child is not bonded with a biological parent, but is intensely and beautifully bonded to another someone else as their parent that this is incredibly offensive.

Sure, one would be hard pressed to argue that a child not being parented by both biological parents isn't ideal, but it's reality. But this kind of language perpetuates stigma and horrid stereotypes. Many of these "not ideal" relationships can be incredibly beautiful and meaningful (and more so than the "ideal" situations). No one had better ever tell me that my relationship with Brendan is "less than" in any way. And I know all of the adoptive families I know would feel the same way.

In a similar vein, I saw an image of a protestor with a sign that said, "Every child deserves a mother and a father." Again, one could argue that maintenance of the biological relationships might be ideal, but it's not reality, and signs like this dismiss the impressive parenting of many people. There are many reasons someone becomes a single parent, for instance. The children should not feel "less than" in any way because of stupid statements like this.

I'm shocked at the short sightedness of these kinds of arguments to the Supreme Court of all places! Do these people not realize their claims also undermine "traditional" marriage? These assertions are some of the most absurd statements. Maybe it just indicates some people are really just grasping for straws and aren't truly focused on the wellbeing and health of children and families everywhere...

Marital Problems

I have posted several times about marriage and how we have a romanticized perspective of it. Science and Religion Today hosted a challenging (and I would argue controversial) post on considering if we should change our expectations about spousal sexual faithfulness. The author argues that by loosening the reigns on sexual fidelity, relational faithfulness can increase. He states:

But even as we allow for less fidelity, we may find our relationships enriched with greater faithfulness. When an occasional casual sexual adventure is no longer an existential threat to a marriage, it may become something partners can choose to share openly with each other, thereby increasing their own sense of intimacy and trust.

I'm not sure I buy it, but it's interesting to ponder, especially if we take the same process of managing anxiety to increase religious faith. Perhaps what we need to do is not necessarily lower our sexual standards, but put less emphasis on them so we are less anxious about them.

The same blog also summarized another study that found divorce clusters in social networks. Does that mean divorce is contagious? Or socially more acceptable when there are other divorcees? Or perhaps there is a lack of relational health in groups. It will be interesting if other pick up these findings and explore the possible causes more.

Marital Separation's (Lack of) Virtue

Christianity Today ran an interesting article last week regarding Al and Tipper Gore's separation and how separation can be pro-family. The author, Glenn Stanton, is the Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family, so the perspective is definitely from the value of not getting divorced, which is something I also value and would advocate for.

Before I read the article, I was expecting it to be something about how separation is acceptable because the couple is not actually getting divorced, so they're technically still married and following God's law. This kind of perspective is a really lame cop-out and a step into legalism, I think.

In many cases, the only difference between separation and divorce is piece of paper from the courts.

This was not the point of the article, but I have a feeling this was an underlying message. Stanton's point is that marital separation can be a sort of "pause button," allowing the couple space to breathe, re-evaluate their relationship, and then reconnect in a healthier way. While I could see this happening (Stanton said that happened to his marriage), I'm not convinced that's the reason anything near the majority (or even any semblance of a significant minority) of people separate. Rather, the article felt more like Stanton feeling the need to defend his own past separation.

From a psychological perspective, I could see pros and cons of marital separation. Looking at Stanton's argument, sometimes people do need space in order to reconnect. However, there are much better ways than separation. People definitely need to address the problem earlier (although this is not common--most people only seek marital counseling when they have basically already decided to divorce).

The best point Stanton makes is that separation brings the couple's community together, letting everyone know there is a serious marital rift and that they need help. Community is important. But if it takes formal separation to get people to help, it's not much of a community...

I also think separation from Stanton's perspective can actually be more damaging than helpful. I would think people more often will use it as an excuse to get separated to make themselves feel less guilt about the separation. They will "try" to reconnect, show it didn't work, and then use that as a theological excuse for divorce.

And then there's the issue if there are children. Much research has shown that divorce definitely causes problems in kids. However, it also consistently shows that a constantly feuding couple who remains married does MORE damage to the kids than if the two divorced. Separation could be seen as a way of having a balance between marriage and lack of feuding. However, I don't think it does this well.

In fact, I think separation would be worse than divorced because of the ambiguity involved. Are mommy and daddy staying together? Are they separate for good? Kids don't do well with ambiguity, particularly when it comes to their families and living situations. Our treatment team at work often tells parents not to tell kids of major plans unless they are sure it will happen. If there's a chance it won't, the rollercoaster of expectation and anxiety just causes more problems.

So in summary, "separation" sounds nicer. It's more theologically friendly, as we haven't sinned by getting "divorced." But this is really more of a legalistic view. In many ways, I think separation is more dangerous and damaging than divorce. This is not always true, as in Stanton's case. But it needs to be approached cautiously, in my opinion.

What do you think?

Sex, Porn, & Marriage Redeux

On the heels of last week's series on unmet marriage needs, focusing on sex, I read two articles from two separate Christian magazines relating to this issue.

The first is from Christianity Today, reporting on a New York Times article on gay marriage and how many gay male partnerships are open relationships. As they point out in the article, this situation has ironically strengthened the endurance of the relationships. Again, I'm not advocating for open marriages, but the facts should make us think about our assumptions.

The second is from Relevant, discussing the idea of emotional pornography. I love the line the author wrote, stating "Just as there is sexual excitement surrounding the mystery and allure of what flesh might be seen in a movie known for its racy reputation, so too are we drawn in with an anticipation for the emotional and physical high of a romance film." I recommend you continue to read the article. It brings up some excellent points, including how emotionally relationships media often encourages can actually be counter-productive. I thought of Shakespeare in Love in particular...

Unmet Marriage Needs, Part 3 of 3

So continuing from the last two days, sex is a need at some level. If it's not being adequately met (and it's not met in many marriages), how can that need be met without destroying the marriage?

One option is masturbation, with or without porn. Christians have a lot to say on both masturbation and porn, often with passionate arguments on both sides. My supervisor recently gave a lecture to a group of female nurses on sex addiction. He started by asking them if their husbands were masturbating to an image of a beautiful nude woman on their computer screen, how many would consider that cheating. Only about 1/3 raised their hands. Adjusting the situation, the woman is now in the room, while the man is doing nothing different. Now the whole audience thought it was cheating. Sure, there are dynamics as to why the man would be in the same room as the nude woman. However, the action itself is the same, under slightly different circumstances.

This emphasizes the very fine line between what is considered cheating and what is not. Affairs are a clear example of being on the cheating side (that's the definition of affair). But what about blow-up dolls and other anatomically-correct tools to self-stimulate?

So then there's the option of an open marriage. Both parties agree that sexual needs are not being met within the relationship, so they agree to let them be met in other ways.

Interestingly, most people are more appalled at the idea of an open marriage than affairs. We are not shocked to hear spouses straying. We're not even shocked by pastors having affairs. Yet a couple has found (what they believe to be) a mutually satisfactory solution to a problem in their lives in which they can protect their marriage. The couple in House brought up this point. I think it's an excellent one and shows the hypocrisy of much of our societal judgment on sexuality.

This reminds me of a point a friend made about a group he knew of that attempted to "help" homosexuals. In the group, the people were encouraged to discussed ways they "slipped" into having a one-night-stand or anonymous sex. But talk about a meaningful relationship, and you're out of the group. Interesting approach that is very similar to this topic.

How can we approach the topic of unmet sexual needs without condemning and while finding a satisfactory solution. Open marriage and affairs are not particularly satisfactory on a theological, psychological, and emotional level. Masturbation for most people is not satisfactory on a physiological level (or emotional level due to the lack of emotional intimacy).

Many marriages have unmet sexual needs due to relational, physiological, emotional, and psychological reasons. As I provide therapy to these couples (or an individual), I would not be sure what to suggest. There does not seem like a good solution about ways to get these needs met.

Of course, to complicate and at time negate this whole conversation, it's also important to remember that sexual desire is also a symbol for other desires within a relationship and may, in fact, have nothing really to do with sex...

Unmet Marriage Needs, Part 2 of 3

Yesterday, I introduced the topic of unmet needs in a marriage and how they can be met outside of the marriage. At least this is true for most needs. The problem is in the area of sexual needs.

The reason I put the spoiler alert yesterday for House is that last week's episode had open marriage as a central topic (and got me thinking about this topic, so hat tip to the screenwriters! :)). For those who don't know, an open marriage is one in which the partners are free to have sex with other people without it being considered cheating.

The physicians were largely appalled by the idea of an open marriage. However, the woman (the one who had asked for the open marriage) said the reason she wanted the open marriage was because she loved her husband. Huh? That's surprising to most people. But let's follow her logic for a moment. She said her husband meets 90% of her needs. The 10% can be draining and can take away from her appreciation of that 90%. And she doesn't want to let that go. I have to say that's a very valid point, although the solution of an open marriage is still questionable at best. But let's explore this a bit more.

Maslow puts sex as a fundamental, physiological need. It's more fundamental than relationships. It's at the same level as food, sleep, and breathing. Now, I would argue that we can survive without having intercourse, but sexual arousal will occur whether or not we like it (ever heard of a wet dream?). We can argue how fundamental a need sex is, but many theorists have emphasized the importance of sex. So I would say sexual need is something that needs to be legitimately looked at within a marriage.

The difficulty is the complexity of sex. There is the "pure horniness" factor, which solely deals with physiologic arousal. Then there's the sexual intimacy, which includes a relational element. Maslow puts that much higher on his hierarchy (meaning, it's not as fundamental to life).

Unmet Marriage Needs, Part 1 of 3

Due to the controversial and sensitive nature of sexuality (the point of this 3 part post), I feel the need to remind readers that the purpose of this blog is bring up questions and struggles many people may have. Playing the devil's advocate is a very effective and good way to combat group think, which I believe is a major threat to authentic faith. I am NOT advocating for a particular position here, but rather pointing out an area of life that we, as a society, have not adequately addressed.

I also need to add a spoiler alert if you watch House and haven't seen last week's episode (the spoiler really won't affect much, though).

As I have mentioned before, marriage is not necessarily meant to meet all needs for individual. It hopefully meets most, but no individual or relationship is perfect, so not all needs will be met. This can create a variety of problems due to the modern romanticized marriage in which we expect all needs to be met in that single relationship. I think that's part of the reason the first year of marriage is so hard: It's beginning to debunk that myth.

In truly traditional marriage (not the false traditional marriage that is really based on a model of the 1950s), a person's needs were met in community. That takes pressure off the spouse to be everything to an individual. It's also useful for when one individual is incapacitated in some way (illness, death, etc.).

Now most needs if not fully met can be met outside of the marriage. For instance, (and again, I'm not saying my wife does not meet any of these--my phrasing is for the use of argument) is not emotionally available to me. Well, I can go to friends. Frankly, most spouses are not always emotionally available (they can't be), so we NEED friends. Or if my wife is not available to do hobbies with, then I can do that with a friend. Even for chores around the house, I could hire a housekeeper.

All of these are socially, religiously, and psychologically acceptable means to getting needs met. In fact, they can help prevent divorce and affairs. Many affairs begin when one partner is not getting all of his or her (yes, her) needs met. It could even be 90%, but when we are missing something, we focus on that. So we find someone who meets that other 10%, feel filled up by them and think they're the solution. Then you have an affair, followed by divorce. And the cycle repeats. Recognizing the limitations of marriage and finding ways to get the needs met in a healthy way can help prevent this breakdown.

But how do we deal with this when sex is the unmet need? More on that tomorrow...

Church as Marriage

Expanding on yesterday's post of church as community, church also is like a marriage. In today's American society, we expect our marriages to satisfy all needs. They are the culmination of romantic ideals that come to fruition. We will not want after marrying the right person and waiting for that person to have sex with.

Well, look around, it doesn't work like that. Nor is it supposed to. Marriage is a partnership. A beautiful one, at that. However, it is not meant to satisfy all needs and definitely not all the time. One person simply cannot do that. We need community. We need other people to satisfy some needs. And that is not only okay, it is good.

I realized I have approached church organizations similarly. I expect the church (little "c" meaning the local organizations, big "C" meaning the universal Church body) to meet all my spiritual needs. Why would or could any human organization do that? Just as our life partners are not perfect, the church is imperfect.

It will meet many needs, but there will be areas where it is not a good match. And that is not only okay, but it is good. It is an opportunity for the church to push and challenge us and for us to push and challenge the church. My only hope is for the churches to be open to being pushed and challenged. This process is the key.

We also need to connect with the larger Church outside of our smaller church. This is another good reason for the churches to be imperfect. It leads us to connect to others. This allows for a cross-fertilization of ideas and worship. We need friends outside of our churches. This, too, will help push and challenge us as we also push and challenge others.

As is the purpose of this blog, that process will lead us closer and closer to Christ and Truth. It can be tiring. I can admit I long for a church in which I fit perfectly. It hasn't happened yet. It probably never will. And that's probably a good thing...

Fireproof Was Not Fireproof

This week, my wife and I received the movie Fireproof with Netflix. I'd heard a lot about it, so I was excited about seeing it for myself. It was better than I had expected.

There were a few pleasant surprises. This included the story not oversimplifying marital conflict nor the solution. So often, Christians (and secular people) argue for simple formulaic solutions--if you do such-and-such just right, then it will all work out. This film doesn't do that. Things don't work out perfectly right away or even on the "predicted" timeline. The film is rather predictable, but the predictable parts aren't as bad as I had expected.

Also, the "Love Dare" content was really quite good. They are simple suggestions that are solid in building relationships and trust. These can all-too-often be relied upon as perfect solutions, which was my fear in watching the film. However, again, it is not really approached that way.

Now for the negative. Most of the film puts the blame on the man in the relationship. Now there is a cute twist at the end that shows the relationship problems can be caused by the woman, too. The sense I got, though, was there the focus on repairing relationships was too much on only one partner instead of both working together. Sometimes both are not invested enough, and each needs to only take responsibility for themselves, but I wish there was some more reciprocity in responsibility by the end of the film. Even my wife said, "Is she going to apologize?"

The need for conversion put into the film seemed a bit artificial at times. I understand the role of God in the Love Dare, and I can't really disagree, but the way this was presented was frankly cheesy and a turn-off. My wife also said during the film, "I hope they don't imply that becoming a Christian will solve everything. And that only non-Christians have problems." I had the same concern. However, the film did not really imply that. It showed there would be problems. So I have to give the filmmakers credit.

Speaking of the cheese factor, a lot of the acting was that way. Several actors were church volunteers. However, the ones featured as volunteers were some of the better actors...

Back to the conversion point (mild spoiler here), Kirk Cameron's character becomes a Christian at one point with his father at the foot of an outdoor wooden cross. Just before the prayer, his dad asks, "Do you trust your life to God?" (or something like that). It's a fair question, but I found it ironic that it was in the middle of a movie that emphasized that trust is not just a single moment in time decision. Rather, it is a process of displaying trust and building trust, both in others and to others.

Sure, a decision needs to be made, but too often the single moment in time is overemphasized to the detriment of the journey and process. This is true for both faith and marriage, I think. We need to not rely on the moment in time decision to show we are good, but rather remember to continually live out that commitment.