A long-time buddy of mine, whom I haven’t seen in many years, came out on his blog supporting the idea of “gay marriage” in the state of Iowa (where he lives). He listed a number of reasons; I’ve decided to simply give my responses to him (and if those responses spark discussion/disagreement here, so be it). Suffice it to say that the in-the-hip-pocket-of-the-homosexual-lobby media won’t raise these aspects of the debate, instead mindlessly trumpeting the shallow “reasoning” of the “intellectual elites”. Without further ado, I wrote:
This is an involved subject with many issues to consider. I’m going to give you a few things to think about, without going into much detail, and then come back and elaborate on them. Basically, you’ve given the standard media rationale for permitting “gay marriage”; I’ve heard this reasoning time and again. Dare I suggest that it is fundamentally flawed at a number of points? So let me suggest a few, ask you to “think outside the (media-constructed) box”, and think about why the following things I submit are true (and if you can’t figure it out, think deeper, dude!). At any rate, I’ll be back when time permits to elaborate. Ready?
1. The issue of “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “equal rights”. Nothing. Zilch. Zip. Zero. Nada. This is because
2. Homosexual Americans have always had equal rights with other Americans when it comes to marriage, no more, and no less (you don’t hear that from the media, do ya?). 🙂 The truth is that for every American, there are some people who a given individual can be married to, and some they cannot, and it’s equal for everybody. Currently. Without “gay marriage”. In fact, “gay marriage” extends a special right to homosexuals. And I can prove it. Easily.
3. To reduce the concept of marriage to a matter of gaining extra “rights”, anyway, is to badly misconstrue the meaning of marriage in the first place. This is what I hear from a lot of folks: “homosexuals” need “gay marriage” in order to have certain rights. But that’s not what marriage is all about…people who go into marriage primarily to obtain “rights” are seriously misguided.
4. Some of what you say you were taught is indeed incorrect–but it is not the Bible that is to blame at all, but rather the (perhaps well-meaning) misrepresentations/extensions of Scripture. The Bible doesn’t teach, for instance, that all temptations come from the same source; i.e., I fully believe (along with you), that there are some people who are, for lack of a better term, “born” with homosexual tendencies/temptations.
5. The logical leap you’ve made, though, is that having a certain desire (in this case, homosexual temptation) justifies behavior in keeping with those desires. This is true neither for homosexuals nor for heterosexuals. Having homosexual attraction, I agree, is not a “choice” with some people (and the Bible doesn’t indicate that it is). Engaging in homosexual behavior, on the other hand, is ALWAYS a choice.
6. The evidence you cite to support your belief that “homosexuals were born that way” isn’t nearly as strong as you believe it to be; rather, that’s a useful fallacy that has been repeated so long that it has become “accepted truth” (repeat a lie long enough, and people will start to believe it). A close friend of mine is a researcher on this very subject, and the results of studies that have been done do not paint NEARLY so black-and-white a picture as the media presents and as you have come to believe.
7. For the Christian, it’s one thing–and perfectly valid–to say, “some of what I was taught was wrong” (because that’s true for all of us, I daresay; I can point to things I was taught that aren’t true either). It’s a different thing–and I hope you aren’t saying this–to say, “the Bible is wrong”. I submit that a Christian is on shaky ground to take that position.
8. The old adage is, “before you knock down a fence, you ought to take care to find out why it was put there in the first place.” Our current rush to legitimize “gay marriage” demonstrates essentially zero concern to ask, “why was the ‘fence’ put there in the first place?” And there are plenty of good reasons.
9. I do hope that all supporters of “gay marriage” understand that
A. The redefinition of marriage (and that’s the issue, not “rights”) cheapens the marriages of every heterosexual couple (and that’s not hard to prove, either).
B. In states where “gay marriage” becomes legal, there is now no logical impediment to polygamy (which has a fuller historical pedigree than “gay marriage”), group marriage, even incestuous marriage (I could be wrong on that last point, but not the first two). Iowa can find no rational, logical, consistent reason to deny a marriage license to a man wanting to marry three wives now.
I hope my comments aren’t “un-pretty”; I make them with a smile on my face and love in my heart. But I think that on this subject, a lot of folks aren’t thinking NEARLY deeply-enough. At any rate, that’s an opening salvo; I can back up every statement I make with logic and cogent reasoning. Might I suggest that any readers consider how/why those arguments, many of which aren’t even being heard in this critical national debate, are true. More later!!!