Saturday, November 8, 2014

In Defense of Gordon College

In Defense of Gordon College
                Today in the Advocate, Rachael Zoll of Associated Press, reported on the affect of President Barack Obama’s misguided aggression in favor of same-sex marriage. Underlying Obama’s mistakes is Massachusetts’ unintended social chaos, begun in 2003. This is to review the issues in response to the ethics of physics[1] as a basis for civic compromise.

Reviewing Zoll’s article[2]
                When President Obama ordered gay-favor by federal contractors, religious organizations with faith-based federal grants requested exemptions, to defend their beliefs. The passionate same-sex expose, “We’re in love and want marriage, too,” has, with Obama’s force, enjoyed emotional social support with unintended consequences. Institutions like Gordon College have come under social and financial attack by same-sex supporters.
                Like some others, Gordon holds that marriage is between a man and a woman and bars sex outside marriage, specifically noting homosexual sex. LGBT sponsor OneGordon asserts that the standards should be equal. “The college hires gays and lesbians, but . . . effectively requires them to be celibate. Some inhabitants claim Gordon is a public school in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage; therefore, Gordon must change its convictions.
                Gordon’s president, D. Michael Lindsay, asserts that civil unions should happen, but a religious institution cannot compromise its doctrine.

Discussion of the issues
               Marriage applying to a man and a woman, a couple, holds, not because of religious or divine rules. According to human physics, conception of a child is by a man and a woman. The mother, father and child are a biological unit. They are also a psychological unit, and indeed the mother and child psychologically attached during the latter months of gestation. An ethical father participated. According to the consequential ethics, the couple cultivates this biological and psychological unit for life. Detachment denies the child equality and dignity. Thus, “marriage” is a term that defends a child’s inalienable right to be reared by its couple. The word is not important: The child is important.
               Physics yields to neither religion nor law. Therefore, the prudent conduct for civic governance of by and for a people is to accommodate every personal pursuit of happiness that does not defy the ethics of physics. Religious practices may follow the hopes of believers as long as the practices are civically negotiated and accepted. Civil order that violates the ethics of physics must be amended. For example, after four centuries’ struggle, some Americans do not accept that white people are people (one person here calls them “Republicans”), in violation of the ethics of human physics.
               Sex before marriage is a controversial issue which should not be taken lightly. Many people, who are influenced by the aftermath of the Kinsey reports,[3] the sexual revolution sometimes reminiscent of Caligula (check the cannibal death in today’s news), overlook the significance of monogamy. In my view monogamy means intimacy with one person for life. Such monogamy for life is part of cultivation of personal autonomy, discussed in a separate essay at .
The Church has in this century held that marriage is for procreation, a view that denies the importance of bonding before procreation. Bonding does not necessarily involve sexual relations, but the Church, by focusing on a couple’s family has neglected personal bonding by partners. Another controversial factor is emphasis on the soul, which diminishes the urgency of this life—to some, makes it seem that anything goes, for now, since it may be "forgiven."
               According to physics, a human is comprised of body and mind that determine a unique person. Persons who fall in love, with the body each partner is in, are noble, and their monogamy is honorable. However, if they are same-sex, they cannot cultivate the monogamy through procreation. Furthermore, if same-sex partners break the monogamy to procreate, they impose on the child detachment from either its mother or its father. In any case, same sex partners cannot be father and mother to a child and thus are not a couple; union, yes, couple, no.
               I think President Obama’s legacy will be:  most liberal use of the English language in American history; in other words, he seems to be a master of doublespeak. Not only does this seem so in the above mentioned favor toward LGBT in government contracts, but in his use of Congress’s unfortunate Defense of Marriage Act to bring about US v Windsor.[4] Windsor is perhaps the worst Supreme Court opinion since Dred Scott, 1857. (Dred Scott is a clear example that a people overrule United States Supreme Court injustice.)
               We see doublespeak in OneGordon’s reasoning. They want equality in marriage, but exclusion from Gordon College’s ban on sex outside marriage: It equates to the requirement of celibacy between partners. Well, duh. No sex outside marriage is a requirement of celibacy between couples: It is a case of equal treatment. Obama seems to agree that abstention from sexual relations is not applicable for partners, and the Supreme Court is on record that sodomy does not entail the risk of pregnancy and therefore is of less interest than intercourse.[5] When understood in plain English, same-sex inversions[6] carry no civic justice. However, for same-sex supporters such as Obama, “[The] process of mental inversion . . .  inevitably undermines the very conception of facts.”
               There is a second doublespeak in the OneGordon assertion. Personal autonomy and cooperative autonomy by partners demands and involves privacy in mutual consent for sexual practices. People have known and practiced this ethics of physics ever since. What has not been widely recognized is the third-party personal autonomy--to be cultivated by any progeny of heterosexual practice. Society does hold parties responsible for their progeny, regardless of marriage, and when the couple defaults takes charge of the child. However, there is no risk of pregnancy in same-sex sex. Therefore, there is no reason for harmless same-sex practices to be made public---a civic issue, let alone an issue within a religious institution. The same-sex people and their supporters wield doublespeak and deny civicallity by making their privacy a public debate.
               Massachusetts and all the states that have approved same-sex marriage have the opportunity to reform, and the ethics of human physics is the basis for the negotiations. Reform is called for by this point: "The freedom of the subjective person to do as he pleases is overruled by the freedom of the responsible person to act as he must." [7]  For churches, seeking the ethics of physics strengthens their ultimate goal, which is to help people’s lives while they are living, perhaps giving hope for their afterdeath.[8] People need to be free to pursue the happiness they perceive for themselves: living in peace, having the family they want, serving society as best they can, cultivating psychological maturity, and not suffering to research some seven trillion man-years of personal history. But their church must possess integrity—keep their doctrine consistent with discoveries of physics. Some people perceive happiness their own way and will go their own way, discovering the consequences anew.
               Michael Lindsay proposes equality and dignity under the ethics of physics when he says partners are entitled to civil unions. Such an arrangement leaves one valid complaint about civil marriage: It grants to heterosexual partners the tax and other benefits intended to support children and their couple. We suggest, below, a remedy for that inequity.

Civil monogamy licensing
                To remedy the dilemma of honoring the same-sex commitment by partners and preserving the support of children to stay with their couple, we suggest civil monogamy licensing to replace civil marriage licensing. The application form starts with a question: can the applicant and the intended partner procreate in monogamy? If “no,” each partner is assigned the tax and other pertinent status as “single,” and if “yes,” the same status is assumed until progeny emerge. Also, with “yes,” the license contains the statement that each applicant is obligated to and responsible for any progeny (including grandchildren and beyond) until death do them part. Churches still manage marriage ceremonies according to their doctrine and believers apply if they choose. The civil monogamy license would strengthen the better guidance the Church has always offered regarding intimacy.

Copyright©2014 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.

[1] In the simplest form, a person does not spit into the wind. In a more pertinent form, a child is conceived by a man and a woman, a couple who are each responsible for respecting and protecting the child’s equality and dignity.
[2] Online at

[3] Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).  Kinsey, Pomeroy, Saunders.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Quoting Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, 1958, page 240.
[7] Ibid. page 309.
[8] That expectedly vast time after each person’s body dies.