Why I Do Not Support “Homosexual Marriage”

My more libertarian friends seem to believe we as Christians can get off scot-free in the political debate over so-called homosexual marriage. “Why not let the homosexuals have their heyday in the secular realm?” I am afraid I must vehemently disagree. Right off the top of my head, here are five reasons I do not support homosexual marriage even though I strongly sympathize with libertarian sensibilities:

1. “Homosexual marriage” is an oxymoron.

Christians have conceded the debate before it has begun by adopting the language of “homosexual marriage.” Marriage is, in terms of Christianity, between one man and one woman. The very concept of homosexual marriage is incoherent. How can any incoherent concept do anything other than harm society? While legal language and laws cannot put asunder that definition which God has joined together, legal language does define marriage in the legal realm, right where biblically derivative concepts have, until very recently, resided.

2. Homosexual marriage promotes a culture of death.

Homosexual couples, in principle, cannot bear children. Children are necessary to the continuance of a culture. The very existence of homosexuals depends upon the proliferation of heterosexuals. Homosexuality is a parasitic perversion of heterosexuality. Homosexuality rips the pro-life aspect of sex right out of heterosexual practice and thus promises only death. A homosexual race is self-destructive. There’s no such thing as a pro-life homosexual. But life is necessary to liberty.

3. Homosexual marriage harms children.

Homosexuals will, of course, want children to go along with their marriage. Since homosexuals cannot have their sexual interfail and children too, they will want to take children from others. A society where homosexual marriage is recognized is a society where homosexual couples attempt to raise children. The difficulty is the overwhelming amount of research showing that children, to oversimplify matters, turn out better with a father and a mother at home, not a father and a father or a mother and a mother. Advocates of homosexual marriage cannot consistently condemn the adoption of children by homosexual “parents” even though this practice permits the psychological rape of children.

4. Homosexual marriage infringes upon the rights of others.

Not just children, but others as well, must be harmed by homosexual marriage before all is said and done. Already we have seen report after report of Christian business owners who are forced by law to violate their consciences in serving, in some significantly symbolic way (wedding cakes and photos, for example), the desires of the homosexual lobby. Legally, all looks well and good. Christian business owners just need to deal or face the consequences. And that is where the problem is. What was once no legal implication at all has become one, and that legal implication infringes upon the rights of Christians who desire to both liberally exercise their religiously informed consciences and own and/or operate a place of business without the strong arm of the state government intervening. Not much legal wiggle room stands in between that corrupt state government and the church.

5. Homosexual marriage is far too socially conservative.

The arguments proffered on behalf of homosexual marriage aren’t nearly progressive enough. Some have rightly pointed out that homosexuality is an “extra right,” if you will. Given a number of legal conditions, all have the opportunity to marry in the United States of America. That is, if one meets the proper legal conditions to marry, then one may marry a person of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have that opportunity just like everyone else. But homosexuals have twinkered with the system. They argue that this age-old system is in some sense unfair to them. Homosexuals want to loosen the conditions people must meet in order to be married. The difficulty is that the slippery-slope argument does not a fallacy make in this situation. Why should homosexuals have the “right” to “marry” and not polygamists? Of course the homosexual lobby will fire back with arbitrary social norms and supposed psychological and sociological facts. But if the Word of God did not stop the homosexuals, if thousands of years of anthropological data did not deter them in the slightest, what makes anyone think a little sexual taboo here or there is going to amount to a hill of beans when it comes time to redefine our policies again?


7 responses to “Why I Do Not Support “Homosexual Marriage”

  1. Oh, wow! Here was I thinking I am a moderately decent Christian trying to make my way in the world, and you tell me I am “The end of civilisation as we know it”. How many gay people do you know, exactly? Is it that “some of my best friends are gay”?

    • Clare,
      I took a quick glance at your blog and saw that you are more than capable of critical thought. I don’t mean that to be a snarky comment. I mean it as a compliment and as a basis for further conversation.
      What, exactly, characterizes a “moderately decent Christian,” in your view? I am not doubting your self-reflection in this area, but am curious as to what the description means.
      I don’t recall telling you that you are the “end of civilisation as we know it.” What on earth would make you think I wrote that? For one, I was not addressing you as an individual. More than that, I specifically stated that I was targeting Christians who happen to be libertarians and support gay marriage. Finally, if you thought I was stating anything about homosexuals being the end of civilization as we know it, then you completely misinterpreted (or perhaps you intentionally misrepresented?) what I wrote.
      Your question about how many gay people I know is particularly confusing to me. You see, I cannot tell how your question is at all relevant to my post. In fact, I struggle to see what anything you have written here has to do with my post. Perhaps you could clarify why you ascribed something to me that I did not, in fact, write, address the arguments I actually made in my post, and explain the relevance of your final, seemingly sarcastic, sentences?
      Because I know that you are capable of critical thought.

      • Conversation is always worthwhile.

        I used hyperbole and mockery. To read what you say about equal marriage, it sounds like a death knell for society, or the end of civilisation as we know it. Instead, it is legal recognition of existing families, some of which will be more stable as a result, and a movement towards equal treatment on tax and pensions.

        Beyond that, I do not want to get into definitions. I write by allusion and implication, not like a drafter of statutes. I could not fully explain my Christianity. It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies because I am a human being. Any attempt would take far too long, and open up fruitless disputes rather than meaningful dialogue.

        You talk about the Consequences for Society, but what I see is the consequences for individuals, trying to live our lives. You see a mass which must be restricted and controlled, I see decent people who could contribute, but respond to control with resistance. This may make me a bit of an anarchist.

        Our views are very different, and so are our ways of responding and thinking. One way forward could be to look through each others’ blogs and find something in the other’s we can like or admire. I am a conciliator, so that is my favoured approach- though when I see something like your post I want to convey pungently and quickly how much I disagree with it. In comments I do not go into great detail, which you might reject out of hand- I do that on my own blog.

        So. The Agreement Challenge. Are you up for that?

      • Thank you for your comment.

        By way of brief response, I would reiterate that I am open to hearing how the implicit contradictions and negative consequences pointed out in the post do not follow from what you are calling “equal marriage.”

        You are right to recognize the contradictions and inconsistencies of your Christianity, just as I would be right to recognize mine, but they exist because we are sinners, not because we are human beings.

        The difficulty with philosophical anarchy is that it universally restricts restrictions, making it a self-referentially problematic position, as opposed to a theonomic minarchist position, but these labels may be unhelpful.

        You are right to spot the radical antithesis in our views stemming from, in my view, different sources of authority, but that brings us straight to the topic of the Word of God, which will require more than this post and its comments to flesh out.

      • I went on Wikipedia, to correlate the Failed States Index most stable states, and those with equal marriage.

        Failed states index (states with equal marriage marked with x)
        159 United States x
        160 United Kingdom x
        161 France x
        161 Portugal x
        163 Slovenia
        164 Belgium
        165 Germany
        166 Austria
        166 Netherlands x
        168 Canada x
        169 Australia
        170 Ireland
        171 Iceland x
        172 Luxembourg
        173 New Zealand x
        174 Denmark x
        175 Switzerland
        175 Norway x
        177 Sweden x
        178 Finland
        States with equal marriage.
        Argentina Belgium Brazil Canada Denmark:· Denmark proper France Iceland Mexico:· DF, QR Netherlands:· Netherlands proper
        New Zealand:· New Zealand proper Norway Portugal South Africa Spain Sweden United Kingdom: · England and Wales · Scotland
        United States: · CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, IA, ME, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, RI, VT, WA, 8 tribes Uruguay

        You will note the high degree of correlation.

  2. Ever considered freedom of religion? Or should extremist Muslims be permitted to stone your mother because according to them women who don’t wear burqas are immoral whores?

    • In answer to your first question, yes, of course I have considered freedom of religion, if I understand what you mean by that.

      In answer to your second question, no, extremist Muslims should not be permitted to stone my mother for not wearing a burqa, but I answer that way because I do not endorse freedom of religion as you apparently understand it.

      Now, might I ask, what your questions have to do with the subject matter of the post?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s