The Delusion of Gay Marriage

Prejudice and Inequality?

     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?

Redefining Parenthood

     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 Parenting has evolved over the years, so perhaps it is time to modernize the outdated usage of terms such as “human,” “mother,” “father,” “parents,” “children,” “sons,” “daughters,” and “family.”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?

Redefining Marriage

     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

Apples and Oranges

     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.² 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.

The Destruction of Traditional Marriage

     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.

The Biblical Model

     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

Endnotes:

     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.
     ² “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal” -- Aristotle.

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: Born Gay?, The Queen James Bible, Postmodernism & the Homosexual Christian Part 1, Part 2, Part 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; Dan Satherley's Incest "Marriage Equality"; OpIndia staff, Incest marriage

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

Psalm 14: Proclaiming God's Existence to the World

     The collection of poetic verses known as “the Psalms” served as a hymnbook for the corporate worship of the Israelites. Above fifty-three of these texts is the heading, “To the Chief Musician,” probably alluding to the one who organized and supervised the song service. What makes this so intriguing is that a number of these psalms contain little or no expressions of praise. With statements of doctrine and even cries of complaint, they appear to have been used not only to worship Jehovah but for teaching and admonishing the assembly. The words of the fourteenth Psalm, with slight modification, occur again in Psalm 53 and are then quoted in part by the apostle Paul in the third chapter of Romans.

THE FOOLISHNESS OF UNBELIEF

     “The fool [senseless one] has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1a).¹ Beyond the foolishness of rejecting the Creator, having done so one becomes a fool in the way he lives. A person can deny the reality of fire, but that will not prevent him from getting burned. Likewise, to dismiss God’s existence does not eliminate the consequences of so doing. And the denial is not limited to formal atheism. People deny the Lord when they dismiss Him from their thoughts and leave Him out of their lives, saying in essence, “There is no God for me.”

     Does a man first become an unbeliever in his head or in his heart? “The fool has said in his heart . . .” If one’s affections are set on truth and righteousness, there is no difficulty acknowledging the reality of the Supreme Being. Alternatively, if one’s affections are set on the earth – worldly pleasures and selfish ambitions – then it becomes much easier, more convenient, and even necessary to deny that God is real. Such a repudiation is not due to a lack of evidence (Psalm 19:1). All the proof in the world will not convince a man whose heart is set on earthly things (cf. Luke 16:31). It is therefore not a problem that can be solved in the realm of intellect alone.

     The bottom line is, if a person does not first have a willingness to believe, he will not be convinced regardless of the evidence that is available (see Acts 17:21-34). It is ultimately a matter of faith, but it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the issue is faith vs. science or faith vs. evidence or faith vs. reason. I exist, you exist, and this universe exists. From where did it all come? Whether one accepts the origin of our universe as having resulted accidentally from absolutely nothing or from a primordial clump of non-intelligent matter or purposefully from the intelligent design of a supernatural Creator, it is still a matter of faith.

     No one looks at an intricately designed, carefully constructed edifice and concludes that it came from nothing or randomly fell into place or gradually evolved into its current state. “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4). While this is reasonable, believable, and even self-evident, unfortunately it is not enough to convince the Richard Dawkins of this world. The problem is one of the heart.

OUR RESPONSE TO AN UNBELIEVING WORLD

     When it comes to the highly complex intellectual debates, I am happy to leave that to the capable apologists among us.² But what about those of us who deal with ordinary, everyday people who disbelieve, not because of outright antagonism and immersion in naturalistic philosophy, but simply because they have not had the opportunity to hear the alternative?

     In my experience, when meeting people who say they do not believe in the God of the Bible, the biggest obstacle for them is the problem of evil and human suffering. The irony is that evil and suffering exist, not because there is no God but because people reject Him and then live accordingly. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good” (Psalm 14:1). While the basis of the world’s evil lies in a practical denial of God, this is frequently twisted around to serve as what appears to be one of the most powerful objections to God’s existence.

     The argument goes all the way back to Epicurus (300 BC): If God is all-good (omnibenevolent) and all-powerful (omnipotent), why does evil exist? If He desires to take away evil from the world but cannot, He is not all-powerful. If He can take away evil but does not, He is not all-good. If He is neither willing nor capable, He is neither all-good nor all-powerful. If He is both willing and capable, why does evil exist?

     While this may sound like a compelling argument on the surface, is it valid? Let us first acknowledge that there are some things God cannot do. He cannot lie (Titus 1:2), for instance, or be tempted by evil (James 1:13). He cannot realistically be expected to do what is logically impossible (like make a square circle). If He is indeed a God of love, would He force us to act against our wills or would He grant us freedom? The blessing of freedom involves choice, and choice includes not only the possibility of making right decisions but also wrong ones. It is impossible for God to have made man a free moral agent and yet take away his capability of making wrong choices.

     Now the Lord has given mankind an instruction manual to guide us in the right direction (2 Timothy 3:16), but when people disregard divine directives and make bad decisions, pain and suffering often result. It is man, not God, who has created slavery, whips, bombs, death camps, liquor, pornography, pollution, environmental devastation and waste, false religion, et al. The gift of freedom, when it is misused, accounts for the majority of human misery.

     At the same time, the imperfections of this world serve a purpose in allowing individuals to grow and develop into mature, responsible beings in a way that would otherwise not be possible (see Romans 5:3-4). God’s desire for His creation seems to be, not the suffering itself, but the positive and beneficial effects.

     Pain, loss, and hardship also help to create a realization of human weakness and the need for God in one’s life. Pride and arrogance are self-destructive traits (cf. Proverbs 16:18), but suffering has a way of helping put things in perspective. "My flesh and my heart fail; but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever” (Psalm 73:26). Moreover, the suffering we see in the lives of others provides opportunities for compassion and volunteer service (both of which would otherwise be superfluous).

     The trials we face help us to avoid complacency and to look forward to that place where “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying; and there shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4). It would appear that the Lord desires a loving relationship with His creation more than a perfect world. Out of suffering, pain, hardship, and loss God can and will accomplish His good purpose (Romans 8:28-39).

GOD’S RESPONSE TO AN UNBELIEVING WORLD

     “The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God” (Psalm 14:2). The Lord is seeking those who seek Him! “But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deuteronomy 4:29); “so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27); “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened” (Matthew 7:7-8).

     For anyone who sincerely desires to know God, God will provide a way. And this more often than not involves a connection with the people of God (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). May we be diligent, not only in seeking the Lord ourselves, but in proclaiming His message to a world that is lost and dying without Him.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ All scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ² See, for example, Apologetics Press, Focus Press, Christian Courier, et al.

*This is a modified version of the lecture “Preaching God’s Existence to the World” presented at the 2009 FHU Lectureship.

Related Posts: The Great Commission

Related articles: Eric Metaxas' The Case for God

Image Credit: http://www.amaremet.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/genesis10645132thb-520x220.jpg

Related Posts: Bible Miracles