Saturday, 27 April 2013

The Delusion of Gay Marriage


     Mona and Larry desperately want to be parents. The problem is, they don’t have kids, they don’t want kids, and they don’t even like kids. But they do have a poodle and a parakeet, and they are just as devoted to these pets as any parent could possibly be to a human child. Legally, however, they are not classified as parents and therefore do not share the same status, recognition, or rights as other parents. Mona and Larry, and many others like them, feel as though they are treated as second-class citizens just because they do not fit the traditional parenting model.
     Due to this inequity, Mona and Larry face unfair disadvantages as they try to care for their beloved dependents. They do not qualify for financial aid, food subsidies, health benefits, or even tax credits like other parents do. Even though they dearly love and are deeply committed to their poodle and parakeet, no government assistance is made available to them.
     Is it not the purpose of government to protect civil liberties? Do not Mona and Larry have the inalienable right to be parents? Being denied this legal recognition deprives them of freedom, equality, and personal choice in matters of family. Why shouldn’t interspecies parenting receive the same privileges and protections that traditional parenting is afforded?
     Now for the pet-hating bigots who claim that parents by definition are caregivers of offspring in their own species, Mona and Larry believe this definition is too limiting. Parenting has evolved over the years, so perhaps it is time to modernize the outdated usage of terms such as “human,” “mother,” “father,” “parents,” “children,” “sons,” “daughters,” and “family.” More inclusive and non-species-specific designations would be less discriminatory and more politically correct.
     It is no one else’s business if pet owners want to enjoy equal acceptance as parents, and it doesn’t harm anyone. People who adore their animals should be allowed the same parental benefits and public acknowledgement as the parents of homo sapiens. If the current legal definition of family results in blatant discrimination against parents of furry and feathered loved ones, is it not time for change? Who will support Mona, Larry, and all other pet lovers and take a stand for parental equality?
     I hope you realize that the preceding paragraphs are satirical. To change the definition of “parents” to include pet owners, with all due respect, is nonsensical. And to keep the definition as it is cannot realistically be construed as discriminatory. The very essence of parenting in all societies unquestionably involves the raising of human children.
     How, then, is “homosexual marriage” not an oxymoron? Marriage necessarily involves a bride and a groom, which by definition means a man and a woman. Marriage is the union of a husband and wife, which by definition means a man and a woman. To redefine marriage to include same-gender couples would require the elimination or radical change of all the terms and concepts that have always been integral to this cherished institution. Marriage never has been nor can it ever be gender neutral. It would be like trying to change the rules of mixed-doubles tennis to include teammates of the same sex.
     Marriage is also pre-political and therefore a non-political entity. While lawmakers may recognize and sanction marriage, they neither created it nor are they at liberty to redefine it. Moreover, when marriage produces children, the marriage (according to design) naturally provides a mother and a father, something homosexual relationships simply cannot do. Even the reality of childless couples and single parents does not change this indisputable fact. Neither do childless couples and single parents redefine marriage. Proponents of gay marriage and gay adoption have yet to adequately explain which parent a child does not need – a mother or a father?1
     Is there a legitimate case to be made for so-called marriage equality? Is the rejection of homosexual marriage a matter of human inequality? Equality entails the correspondence of things that are alike. I may think it’s unfair that barn owners pay less for property insurance than house owners and then lobby to have my house reclassified as a barn. But the insurance company will simply remind me that my house, by nature, is not a barn. Even if I call it a barn, this does not change what it actually is.
     Pet owners and parents raising children are not the same, so to refuse to categorize pet owners as “parents” does not create parental inequality. Same-sex couples and heterosexual couples are inherently different, so to limit marriage to a husband and wife, and to withhold the descriptive terms “bride” from men and “groom” from women, does not constitute unfair treatment to those who simply do not meet the fundamental criteria.
     If parenting is the relationship between a father, mother, and kids, then Mona and Larry have no legal or ethical justification for crying “discrimination” if they do not fit into this category. If marriage is the conjugal union of a consenting man and a consenting woman along with certain commonsense restrictions, then two men or two women cannot feel discriminated against any more than a woman and her adult son or daughter, or a man and his adult son or daughter, or biological siblings, or two minors, or a grown-up and a minor, or a human and an animal, or multiple partners, or one who is already married to someone else. There are many who just do not qualify.
     There has to be a standard. To replace the traditional marriage model with another one (e.g. inclusive of homosexuals) is to destroy the institution of marriage all together. It is not a matter of maintaining the current model while simply allowing others to join in. The redefining of marriage is the eradication of marriage itself and substituting for it something entirely different. I, for one, hold my marriage in much higher regard, and there is a practical reason for affirming the sanctity of marriage.
     You will notice that the argumentation thus far has been based on reason and common sense. No appeal has been made to religion or to any religious document. For those who blindly dismiss opponents of gay marriage as closed-minded bigots or religious fanatics, you can stop reading now. Just ponder what has been written to this point.
     For those of us who accept the divine authority of the Bible, by considering the following scriptures with an open mind and no underlying agenda, the will of God on this issue ought to be crystal clear. No further comment from me is needed. On the practice of homosexuality, see Genesis 13:13; 19:4-7; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-10. On God’s design for marriage, see Genesis 2:22-24; Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:6-9; 1 Corinthians 7:1-3; Ephesians 5:22-33; Hebrews 13:4.
--Kevin L. Moore


Endnote:
     1 See Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” in Social Science Research 41 (2012): 752-70, <Link>. Also A. Ruse's Fake Science.

Addendum: Some will no doubt find this article offensive, whether advocates of gay marriage, or pet lovers, or maybe even tennis players and barn owners. But please don’t miss the point. It is not about homosexuals vs. pets, or barns vs. houses, or gender-specific tennis players vs. mixed-doubles tennis players. It is a reasonable challenge to those who are seeking to hijack and redefine a very special, centuries-old, well-established institution and are using irrational, defamatory, misleading bully-tactics to do so. 

Related Posts: The Queen James BiblePostmodernism & the Homosexual Christian Part 1Part 2Part 3

Related Articles: Adam Faughn's A Personal Letter to My Homosexual Friends; Wes McAdams' Homosexuality: Handling the Issue Biblically; Dave Miller's The Battle of our Times. Watch Keith Mills & Paddy Manning, I'm gay and I'm voting No

Image credit: http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/06/same-sex-marriage-problem-is-that-its.html

8 comments:

  1. Kevin, that is an excellent article. Would you give permission for us to use it in a future issue of The Voice of Truth International? We need to educate people to strengthen the resistance to the destruction satan is planning for the world. Betty

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your whole argument is invalid because a) the United States is NOT a Christian society and therefore your interpretation of the Bible has absolutely no bearing over how the rest of us live our lives; b) heterosexual couples who are unwilling/unable to have children do not have their marriages voided; and c) there are other rights (property rights upon death, hospital visitation, etc.) beyond parental rights that are denied to same sex couples in violation of the Constitution when same sex marriage is prohibited.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I apologize for the delay of this reply, but I've just now discovered your comments. While I sense your own non-biblically-defended bigotry against Christian values and the Bible, I’m wondering if you’ve even read my “whole argument”: a) the Bible isn’t mentioned in the article until the final paragraph (note particularly the next to last paragraph), and even there I haven’t offered my “interpretation of the Bible” but simply listed a few scriptures prefaced by the statement, “No further comment from me is needed”; b) in response to your ‘childless heterosexual couples’ comment, I refer you to the paragraph that begins, “Marriage is also pre-political …”; and c) the “other rights” to which you appeal can easily be addressed by government without redefining marriage, and with respect to your “violation of the Constitution” comment, I refer you to the paragraph that begins, “If parenting is the relationship between a father, mother, and kids …” I genuinely appreciate your response to the article, and if I’m correct in gathering that you’re not a Bible-believer, I would love to discuss this with your further. My e-mail address is kmoore@fhu.edu

      Delete
  3. Brother Morris,
    I agree with you on your general proposition and some of the points you make I believe are good but I feel that your analogy falls short in a couple ways. Part of what you're dealing with is how God defines marriage and how the government defines marriage; God's way is for all time, the government has provided certain advantages to those it deems to be married, which it has traditionally agreed with the religious outlook. While that issue alone could be talked about for quite some time I believe that is a distinction. Of course I would prefer and I assume you would too see the land we live in to be in full harmony with God's law, but sadly that is not the case, and even sadder, increasingly so.

    The problem I have with the analogy is that the pet owner is that a pet owner is not really denied rights of their pets as a homosexual person would be their partner. A person may be denied hospital visitation, ability to share benefits and other factors. Personally I would not be opposed to hospitals giving critical patients the option of a list of one or two people who are allowed to visit or of people having a document they could similarly use. As beyond just the married population a single person may desire for a close friend, or brother or sister in Christ, to help them through hard times.I think the comparison of pet to child can be unintentionally demeaning in that the homosexual partner is being compared to a beast rather than man. It may be compared to some who have used the analogy of if you make homosexual marriage acceptable why not make bestiality. This is an unfair comparison, rather the legality of homosexual marriage may be better compared to that of polygamy, because polygamy being between consenting adults is not honored legally, yet there is no understandable reason why other than the religious definition still pervading.

    Part of the reason I want to point this out is in part to consider how the church is perceived by the outside world. While the church should not support sinful acts, the church should be careful to not minimize the other position into an unfitting box so that the message is overlooked. The sin of homosexuality is a gripping sin as I have seen brothers who have wrestled with it for years. I hope I have written appropriately and have presented my message with care and gentleness. In Him,
    Your Brother

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. I do not disagree with what you have said. I anticipated that some things in the article would be misconstrued, and that’s why the Addendum was added. The pet-to-child comparison is demeaning only if it is distorted and misunderstood. The analogy is about people who desperately want to be parents but do not qualify, and people who desperately want to be married but do not qualify. To redefine marriage as the solution to the latter situation makes as much sense (to me) as redefining parenting as the solution to the former. I realize that I’m preaching to the choir, but just wanted to further clarify. I appreciate your wisdom, your caring spirit, and your commitment to the Lord's cause.

      Delete
  4. Excellent writing, love the link to pet owners as parents. How can people not see it?

    ReplyDelete