I want to isolate one issue in Dan’s most recent post on whether there’s hope for marriage. The larger issues are important and we’ll get to them in due course. But I think Dan has made a pretty key mistake that needs to be addressed before we carry the broader conversation further.

In social science, the mistake that I have in mind is known as “functionalism.” This is a method for explaining human behavior that was fashionable for a short period but is now generally recognized as a fallacy.

Functionalism assumes that the true meaning of human behavior is unrelated to the subjective experience of the one engaging in the behavior. My thoughts, my feelings, my understanding of what I’m doing, my motivation for doing it – all are treated as irrelevant to the question of what my behavior is really all about. Only the actual impact of my behavior is relevant.

So, for example, when explaining the significance of a social ritual (say, a rain dance) the functionalist disregards what the people carrying out the ritual believe they are doing (summoning the gods to make it rain) and looks only at the practical impact (reinforcement of the tribe’s social solidarity, transfer of wealth to the rainmaker). The reductio ad absurdum of functionalism can be seen in the old joke about the Martian who observes our world and concludes that dogs rule the Earth and humans are their slaves, because we follow them around all day picking up their poop.

Functionalism fails because it cannot account for the behavior it describes. The tribe would not do the rain dance if they didn’t believe it made rain.

Functionalism is particularly destructive to practical application. If all you want to do is describe the tribe, you can get away with a functionalist account, although it will be inferior to an alternative account that includes the subjective. But if you want to influence the behavior of the tribe, you had better know not just what the rain dance does but why they do it.

Speaking of America’s elite cultural institutions, Dan writes:

They do not see the well-being of women, children, the poor, and minorities as ends in themselves.  In fact, most often they seem to be little more than sacramental obeisances…

Let’s try out a sample conflict:  Radical Islam.  Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows that the radical thread of Islam oppresses women in unspeakable ways.  That includes these institutions.  But instead of chasing this misogynist theology to ground, they have been in full-throated defense ever since 2001.  Why?  Because finding fault with America rates so much higher on their priority list…

The poor?  Compare and contrast the wealth-creating track record of socialism and capitalism, then compare America’s poor to those of the rest of the world.  Which system do these institutions champion?  The one trapping more people in poverty, of course.  Children?  We all know that abortion kills them; even those conducting the procedures and their defenders know.  But, to these institutions, sexual libertinism is more important than a child’s life.  Or even millions of them.

I’ll leave aside the implied libel against the sacraments in the phrase “sacramental obeisances” and stick to the political questions.

I agree that our institutions are promoting policies and priorities destructive to the ends they purport to uphold. Does Dan think they do so intentionally? That seems to be the implication of both his word choices and his substantive position. But is this plausible?

Or is the real problem that our side is so sociologically incompetent that we are unable to effectively demonstrate the failure of the policies and hold our institutions accountable for results?

A final note. There’s a fascinating new group blog out there that Dan should really check out. Here’s a quote from its vision statement:

We have seen some of our fellow conservatives identify the success of conservatism with the success of America, such that progressives are viewed as alien to the polity rather than fellow Americans with whom we disagree; we will not go that way.

Words worth contemplating.

The Pastor in me simply cannot contain itself anymore. I have to speak to this issue of the homosexual mindset.

In one of the most used scriptures in the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul speaks about homosexuality at the end of chapter 1, verses 18-32. While this passage has been used to declare that homosexuality is wrong (which is certainly taught by these verses), we forget Romans 2:1 where Paul says “you, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” A shocking statement since I am not a homosexual.

But Paul’s point is that I AM a homosexual. Paul chose homosexuality because it is the most obvious outworking of a selfish way of thinking that wants what is wants regardless of what God says. In fact, it rejects God and the truth for what it wants–to worship and serve itself. And Paul is saying that we are all homosexual in thought and philosophy if not in practice.

Nowhere is this more visible than in the current state of heterosexual marriage in this country. We stand and condemn gay marriage while at the same time allowing a degradation of heterosexual marriage in no-fault divorce, wanton adultery, abuse, abandonment, and the like. Regardless of what our political institutions may declare about gay marriage in the future, we have a real self-worship problem in our society and in our heterosexual marriages.

Many previous posters have pointed out this problem, that gay marriage is simply the end, not the source of the problem. Our selfish, self-worshipping, self-seeking mentality is the problem and we see this played out in the current state of all marriages. We want what we want when we want it.  Why then are we so shocked when homosexuals do the same thing? We have the same thought pattern!

Paul’s words in Romans 1 are not a declaration that homosexuality is wrong. That is actually assumed by his words. Rather, he is accusing us all of being homosexuals, even if we are in heterosexual marriages!

We live in a society that does not simply legislate marital relationships but rewards them. Married couples in this country file taxes together, receive social security benefits, and can be insured together. The United States government should not be viewed as a  ‘sex police,’ what the government is involved in is granting legal and financial recognition to marital relationships. The intent is not meant to create incentives for marriage but to financially assist married couples. The unintended result, though, is that one is rewarded for being married, a reward that gay couples would like to benefit from as well.

The opposite has happened in Australia where the tax code actually hurts married couples. I’m afraid I have no data other than reports of missionaries to that country who state that even couples in the church do not seek legal marriages because of the financial repercussions. Instead, they simply cohabitate. Was this the goal of the Australian government? Probably not. Was the United States trying to encourage marriage? I don’t think so, but in attempts to financially assist couples who got married they indirectly rewarded and incentivized marriage.

Consider that tax credit for children. Is this fair to those couples who do not have children? Probably not. However, childless couples do not have the financial expenditures that couples with children do. The government was not attempting to reward couples with children as much as to financially assist them.

This seems to be the issue at the heart of the gay marriage question. Should gay couples receive the same financial breaks and rewards as non-gay marriages. What Dan and Greg seem to be suggesting is that government institutions are rewarding marriages because marriages are good for society, but I’m not sure that this is the government’s way of thinking. I’m guessing that the government has simply made a tax decision unrelated to anything other than financial assistance.

The real political question is really whether or not gay couples need financial assistance and tax breaks like other married couples. Social security benefits support one person if a spouse dies so as to assist with the loss of child care, home care, etc., not loss of wages. A gay couple has no need of this support because they normally do not have children and the loss of one partner does not have a huge impact on the other financially. From a pure economic perspective, the issue of gay marriage should not really be one of reward, but of necessity. Do gay couples need assistance? I think not.

Our conversation has been focused upon the morality, social expediency, and such of marriage and gay marriage. Gay marriage has become a discussion of agendas. It seems that the real question for fiscal policy should be why gay couples need a financial benefit. You don’t here me demanding I should get social security?!