Sunday, August 8, 2010

Marriage and Culture, part 2

I previously mentioned that full normalization of homosexuality would require a full legal and social recognition of homosexual relationships as well.  I would like to now address that point by examining what that would entail, and demonstrating that there are significant potential dangers that must be considered.  In addressing the potential impact of the normalization of homosexuality I intend to examine what information is available from those currently existing nations that have legalized homosexual marriage.  In particular I will be focusing on the Netherlands as it is the country which has had full legal recognition of homosexual marriage the longest, stemming from 2001 (see link for dates of when different countries legalized homosexual marriages, Netherlands was the first).  (So no one can accuse me of twisting the truth: there are other countries that have recognized homosexual unions longer.  Sweden is one of the first to give full equality to homosexual unions, and I do address some of what we see in Sweden in this post.)  While simply accepting the full legalization of homosexual marriage is not, in itself, full normalization of homosexuality, it is one of the most significant cultural steps that can be taken in that direction.

One of the things that must be conceded in the case of the Netherlands is that marriage has been in trouble there since the 1970s.  A second point that must be conceded is that the United States is not the Netherlands.  Differing nations can have differing results after implementing similar, or the same, policies, depending on the cultural influences of each of those nations.  However, that being said, humans are humans wherever you go, and we would be foolish to ignore evidence from a society just because it is not our society.  While the current events and social interactions of one country cannot be called absolute predictors for how our country will react to similar social stimulus, ignoring that information is foolhardy at best.

So, what has the overall effect of the normalization of homosexual marriage been in the Netherlands?  Since the only information we have is from 2001, (maybe you can push it back to 1997, since that is when the vote for normalization of homosexual marriage was taken) the information is currently limited, but it is not good.  Stanley Kurtz, in 2004, wrote an article in which he examined three ongoing statistics in the Netherlands: 1) A decline in marriage, 2) An increase in out of wedlock births, and 3) the effect of the normalization of homosexual marriage on these statistics.  I recognize that the article is now 6 years old, and that when it was published it had to rely on statistics for a very short period of time, however, I have yet to see a convincing refutation of the article, and the more modern statistics I have found seem to indicate the trend has worsened (note the marriage rate was about 4.5/1000 in 2005, with a divorce rate of nearly 2.0/1000).  (Here are the Netherlands out-wed-lock birth rates for 2007, approximately 39% in the Netherlands, over 50% in most other Nordic nations, and 2008, now at 40%.  I am assuming the statistics for the last site are correct, I cannot find information for 2008-2009 anywhere else online.  I am also assuming the statistics are for 2008 as the article was published in 2009.  A more informative note to ponder: the increase in out-of-wedlock births in the Netherlands is not due to teenage births, which have decreased since 1980 according to the OECD.  Therefore, I would assume these births are more intentional and this trend does not simply reflect growing sexual activity among youth.)

Kurtz' first point is very interesting.  He notes that all Scandinavian countries are experiencing a decline in marriage.  Some sites, such this one, a site run by proponents for homosexual marriage, argue that marriage rates in Scandinavian countries actually improved after the normalization of homosexual unions.  However, Kurtz' argument is that the statistics are skewed by the number of divorcees remarrying.  His argument has some significant merit, as can be seen in this study done in 2007 by OECD.  What we see in this study is that no Scandinavian country has a first time marriage rate of higher than 80%.  That means that, taking Sweden as an example, (having the highest crude marriage rate of about 5.5/1000) the actual number of first time marriages is only 4.2/1000, (using a 77% first time marriage rate as indicated by the study) which is a significant drop from the near 8.0/1000 of the mid 1960's (when challenges to marriage really began).  When combined with a crude divorce rate of 2.5/1000 per year you can begin to see the actual state of marriage in a country like Sweden (again compared to about 1.25/1000 in the mid 1960's).  Thus we see a nearly 50% decrease in first time marriages, and a nearly 50% increase in divorces over the last 40-50 years in Sweden.  This is a significant change as it shows the affects of assaults on marriage over only one generation

The importance in the weakening of marriage becomes even more clear when you consider that the crude marriage number in Sweden in 1900 was approximately 6/1000 with a nearly 0 divorce rate (thus almost no second marriages if there are no divorces), and today stands at approximately 5.5/1000 with remarrying couples making up 1.3 of of those marriages.  But, it is not just a decline in marriage that must be considered, there is also an increase in out-of-wedlock births.  Kurtz notes that somewhere between 40-50% of all births in the Netherlands are out-of-wedlock.  I note this in particular to press the cultural impact that this will have in the years to come.  There is simply no denying that an increase in out-of-wedlock births will lead to a rise in poverty, a decrease in educational opportunity, and a great number of other potential problems.  (Yes, there are exceptions to this, however, it is the norm that most people will have to live under.)  The question really is whether or not there is a correlation to the number of out-of-wedlock births and the normalization of homosexual marriage in the Netherlands.  If there is a correlation between the two, then the United States could reasonably expect to begin to see some of this same effect if homosexual marriage is normalized here.

Kurtz article takes on real force when he gets to his third point: there is a correlation between the normalization of homosexual marriage and out-of-wedlock births.  He notes that the Netherlands is the only traditionally low out-of-wedlock birth nation that has open access to contraceptives, and that was not directly affected by the collapse of communism in the last generation, that has seen a direct and sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.  His ultimate point is not so much that the normalization of homosexual marriage that led to this cultural shift, it was the fact that the traditional understanding of marriage had to be significantly weakened in order to achieve this normalization.  Thus, it is not homosexual marriage, per se, that could also cause major social and cultural transformation in America, but that marriage must be attacked, redefined, and separated from its traditional moorings (the raising of children and establishing grounds for family) in order to allow for homosexual marriage.  To argue for homosexual marriage necessarily weakens the traditional understanding of marriage, and promulgating the new definition will necessarily have significant impact on society.

The fact is that marriage in America is not as strong as it once was, its purpose has been largely forgotten, and the movement to redefine it has been going on for over a generation now.  However, being that marriage has been the traditional building block for Western civilization for thousands of years, are we wise to capitulate to those who wish to overturn it entirely?  Christians recognize that God established marriage as a good for all people, but along with that establishment came a certain definition and purpose, and we would do well to defend both of those, both theologically and culturally.  If we, individually and collectively, (as churches and a society) do not attempt to strengthen the institution of marriage, we will be responsible for widespread harm for generations to come as the family structures that have been integral to our civilization are dissolved and poverty and single parent households increase.

If the worst case scenarios predicted by some come true and culture breaks down over the next 100 or so years, will the cultural dissolution lead to some kind of apocalyptic future where people will turn into raving cannibals intent only on murdering one another?  Of course not.  If Western civilization sufficiently breaks down, then another civilization will take its place--after a period of chaos, this has long been the pattern throughout history.  But, if we recognize that there are inherent dangers to what we are doing, and that the results of our actions have potential to be quite damaging, why would we sit silently on the side and watch it happen?  I am not saying that anyone should persecute those who live in open homosexual relationships, but I am asking, "Is marriage, as it has been traditionally understood, important enough to be worth preserving, and strengthening, even while we give serious consideration to the arguments of those who claim they are suffering social inequality?"

7 comments:

  1. To say that a decline in marriage and a growing trend in out-of-wedlock births are in any way, shape, or form related to legalizing gay marriage is quite a stretch. Divorces and out-of-wedlock births are up every year. Do some research and see if you can find the last year that this was not the case. Those are issues of an ever-changing society.

    What I do know is this; legalizing gay marriage has ZERO effect on my marriage. I also think they should have the same rights afforded to them that straight couples do. If you agree with them attaining equal right but are against gay marriage, then find another solution. It is much easier to appreciate someone arguing for something rather than against something.

    I would also like to suggest that you avoid these hot button issues right now if you are looking for a church to pastor. As is the case with most church pastors, they seek to bring in new followers by sharing the message of Jesus and his love...and leave the hot button issues in the hands of individuals to make up their own mind. If potential churches view this blog as part of considering you as pastor of their church, they will see two things: controversial issues and a strong opinion. Then they will move on.

    I would like to hear how you found Jesus and the way your faith pulled you through some tough times in life. This is a great way to get to know you and for readers to find some kinship and association with you through your experiences. That is not to say that you should not have strong opinions on hot button issues, but you should only present them in a way that shares the opinion rather than making a reader feel like you are telling them what is right or wrong.

    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow, no response huh? You likely have less than a handful of readers with me being the only to comment...and yet I get no pay-off? No return discussion? I feel empty Mr. Connett and am afraid that I will no longer burn my precious time here if the street is one way only.

    I think it is beyond time for you to hop off the homosexual topic and move on to something else. The amount of discussion you have dedicated to this topic has gone beyond the realm of redundant and has ventured into some rather disturbing territory. Just keep in mind that the public perception at large is that when someone speaks out against something to the extent that it seems obsessive, they tend to secretly hold those feelings that they speak against so strongly.

    I know you don't like the feedback I have given, but I hope you can take a step back...remove yourself from, well, yourself...and see that I truly am trying to help steer you in a way that I think will help you get started down the career path you seek.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous,

    I didn't respond to your comment because you really had me at a loss for words.

    You missed the point and the logic of the post, so I didn't really have much reason to respond to your conclusion in that area.

    And, as to "avoiding hot topics" I hardly knew where to begin with that comment. "Avoiding hot topics" seems to me like saying, "Hey, just preach the easy stuff until you have the congregation on your side!" The reality is this is the topic that we are dealing with now. The hot topics are what our culture is wrestling with, and so they are the topics that need to be addressed.

    I wanted to weigh my thoughts carefully before responding, but this is the conclusion to which I have come. I respect that you don't want to address the hot topics. I respect that you want to know about my own spiritual autobiography (which there are posts coming about, I assure you) but at this moment I would feel like a coward if I did not write to encourage those who are seeking to engage with this issue in our culture. Those who want to hold that homosexual marriage is wrong, is dangerous to culture, and should not be so easily foisted on us have hopefully found some support from this series.

    And, with that matter handled, the subject, even now, has already changed. Notice how today's post 8/12/10 was about the gospel and the reality of hell. Tomorrow will be the gospel and the reality of heaven. After that I get a little autobiographical.

    This is what interests me, I'm sorry if it does not interest you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Do you even have a congregation to get on your side?

    I think you missed my point. You have to earn some trust from those who are reading this or they don't care who Connett is or what his thoughts are. Jumping straight into such topics draws a picture of you being the next generation of street preacher.

    Take offense all you want, but I'm trying to give you some constructive feedback. At this rate, you won't be leading a church. You must mind how you appear to potential churches and give them time to get to know you so when you do touch on a hot topic, they respect what you say. And you also have to present such matters in a way that shares your view but does not project it upon others as a stern definition of what is right or wrong.

    From reading your blog, it comes across that way. I'm only trying to help you, and you can take that for what you will. You also need to tone down the "smart alecky" tone that you responded with because that does not bode well for how you would respond to disagreement from a member of your potential congregation. You will be questioned and you must handle such instances with grace.

    The fact that your wife posted a link on Facebook to this blog speaks clearly that you want this medium to be one of the means in which potential churches review your credentials for being their pastor. While you might be interested in jumping head first into the tough subjects, you might have to decide if that is more important that tailoring your message towards getting a job.

    ...I hope you're looking for a hold-over in the meantime.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous,

    I did not take offense at anything you said. I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. My apologies if something I said lead to that thought on your part. I do, however, disagree with your position on whether I should try and take time getting my readers to warm up to me. And, as far as it sounding like I'm stating hard and fast moral positions, I am.

    You are correct that this is not a congregation to which I am writing, this is an open blog. In such a situation how do you earn someone's trust? I could lie to everyone and they would not know it. I could write mincing words and devote time to sugary poetry, but you would still not know me personally. I am a faceless name, an entity to which those who read this blog may attach any attributes they want. (Unless they are friends or family.)

    Should I begin by laying a foundation, "When I was 9 years old I came to Christ. My father wouldn't let me get baptized until I convinced him I knew what I was talking about..."? Or, should I begin with stating: "Here is where I stand on a particularly volatile position in American society, and here is why." My position is that I begin with the second.

    You're right that a lot of people might glance at this and say, "I really don't care what this guy thinks." The old saying (almost a cliche now) goes, "No one cares how much you know until they know how much you care." I don't dispute that statement. However, this also isn't really being written to those people.

    People who would dismiss homosexual marriage as a debate not worth having are not going to be won over by a blog post. People who think homosexual marriage is a foolish debate will be won over by individuals who take the time to talk with them, one-on-one and try and show them the importance of the issue. The internet is rife with opportunities for individuals to find whatever suits them. I am writing this for those who already care. I am writing this because those who are thinking about it and are on the fence might find it persuasive, and those who know what they think but don't have a thoroughly thought out logical defense might find it useful. (Of course there is the one in a million chance that I might convince someone who disagrees with me, but that assumes that such a person would give rational weight to an argument from a guy they don't know and will likely never meet.)

    Because you continue to, quite graciously, show concern for my ability to find a church while writing on such hot topics, I would like to address that for you. The Bible teaches what it teaches. If I received a call from a church telling me that they had received my resume and that they wanted to interview me, but they wanted to let me know up front that they embraced committed homosexual relationships as an acceptable lifestyle, I would have to thank them, but tell them I am not the man for them. That is simply a make-or-break issue for me; such a church would not find my morality, or my stance on Scripture to be compatible with their own.

    This statement may sound hard and limiting, but I think it is significant enough an issue that it requires an absolute moral stance on my part. If I am wrong then God's punishment upon me will correct me. If I am right then hopefully God will provide me with encouragement in due time to know. In either case I can only do what I think is right, anything less would be sin.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have to admit that a good bit of what I say comes from a writer's perspective of earning trust through connecting with readers. You know, your responses are written in a way that would be quite engaging for readers. This is a qualified opinion (believe it or not, I'm sticking with the anon tag and not providing credentials), but I think your writing is much more "inviting" when you write with your eye towards one person. The natural way that you subtly include your backing reasoning really rounds out your message. I feel like I'm reading a college lecture when I try to parse through your blog posts. Your responses are much different. Just wanted to share that.

    Writing can be a difficult means of communication because it is very difficult to project the emotion you feel into the words you write. As they say, sarcasm exists on the internet...but you almost never recognize it. Excuse me for rambling. I'm not sure why I've taken such an interest in your writing or future job prospects...I guess I want to see if I can respond enough times that something I say about your presentation cracks through that wall and the quality of your blog goes up ten fold...

    Anyways, I'll keep an eye out here and I'm rooting for you on finding the right job...whether that is leading a church or something that gets your foot started down the right path.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous,

    Thank you. You have taken your time to give me an honest critique and have given advice which I would be a full to turn away. You're correct that my posts, particularly my early ones sounded much like a college paper, and while that was intentional, I am forced to reflect on your earlier statements and wonder if maybe there was a better way I could have written those articles. You have given me much to think about, and your challenge to my writing style is greatly appreciated, you're right that I need to find a way that best expresses myself.

    Early on in college I remember having a kind older lady who was a tutor in one of the English labs read over a paper I had written on abortion. The paper was not for a class, but because I wanted to work out my thoughts. Her response was that she loved the paper, because it was written the way I talked. She noted that far too often writers try and take on a different persona when they write, they try and sound more sophisticated or more proper, but my writing used the same language as my conversation. Perhaps I have lost some of that warmth and familiarity as I have passed into more research based classes and was forced to divorce myself from the topics I wrote about (after all, it is one of the cardinal sins of research to write, "I think," as I have been reminded by graders).

    Please, do keep reading, and keep on critiquing what you feel prevents me from really connecting with readers. If, God willing, I become a better writer, perhaps I'll also become a better speaker. And, if I become a better speaker, perhaps I will be able to reach more people. I can scream my opinions all day long, but I am not connecting with anyone then it won't really matter.

    ReplyDelete