BY BOB ELLIS
DAKOTA VOICE
This is the seventh installment in a 8-part series examining the DVD "For the Bible Tells Me So."
Introduction - Why the DVD Deserves a Closer Look
Part 1 - Building Sympathy Without Exegesis
Part 2 - The Bible as a 'Truth Buffet'
Part 3 - Understanding the Bible...Or Rewriting It?
Part 4 - Science or the Bible...or Neither?
Part 5 - Why Was Sodom Destroyed?
Part 6 - What Does the New Testament Say about Homosexuality?
The next segment of "For the Bible Tells Me So" is yet another designed to elicit sympathy without regard for what the Bible says (such segments comprise the bulk of the film). Dick and Jane Gephardt affirm that they have "unconditional love" for their daughter Chrissy, and that this means their love has no conditions.
Unconditional love is a good thing, and certainly something parents should have for their children. However, I believe the Gephardts, like many people, misunderstand what Godly "unconditional love" looks like. It does not mean you adjust your morality to accept whatever the loved one is doing as correct, and it doesn't mean you excuse the wrong committed by the loved one.
God has "unconditional love" for humanity, but it doesn't change or negate his holiness one iota. Unconditional love is not unconditional acceptance or unconditional approval. Wrong is still wrong, and sin is still sin, and sin remains unacceptable to God. Only the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, which each sinner must accept individually, can make us "right" in God's eyes. And even then, the Bible makes it very clear that we are not to continue sinning once we've received the regeneration of Jesus Christ--we are to start acting like the holy person Christ has enabled us to be.
In fact, if God had the same kind of “unconditional love” promoted by this film, there would have been no need for Jesus to come to earth, live as a human, and die on the cross to pay the price for our sins. God would have just adjusted his definition of right and wrong and would “accept us just the way we are.” He didn’t do that, though. God’s holy and just nature required that our sins be paid for; since we were unable to pay that debt, Jesus suffered and died in our place. We can take advantage of the pardon bought by Jesus, but we have to renounce our sin and walk away from it in order to do so.
The film includes a segment where Jake Reitan, his parents and others go to Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs and stage a protest. A Baptist minister speaks negatively of Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson, stating that while Dobson "has no theological training whatsoever, but "He claims on the airwaves to be the lone interpreter of what is God's will for everyday families in America."
One does not need formal theological training to understand the basic moral instruction God has issued to humanity in the Bible. It is quite clear with only minimal study. Regardless, Dr. Dobson has far more Biblical study and understanding than this detractor gives him credit for. And Dobson does not in any way paint himself as the sole interpreter of right and wrong; he places himself under the authority of the Bible.
The film also briefly examines ministries like Exodus International which help homosexuals who want to get out of the lifestyle to become healthy again. They claim the phrase "reparative therapy" is a misnomer because "there is nothing to repair." Yet homosexuality is, on a number of levels, obviously not a normal or healthy lifestyle.
Until homosexuals harassed and lobbied the American Psychiatric Association relentlessly in the 1970s, homosexuality was listed as a disorder. It obviously violates the natural design for human sexuality, since no reproduction is possible between people of the same sex, and God makes it very clear not only what that design was ordained to be, but that he disapproves of any sexual expression other than that.
Homosexuality also brings with it a much higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including not only AIDS but gonorrhea, syphilis, Chlamydia and hepatitis. There is an increased risk of anal cancer, bowels that no longer function properly, and an increased risk of depression, substance abuse and suicide.
Homosexual apologists, of course, claim that the high rate of depression and suicide is because of the condemnation of society, but could it perhaps be the emotional toll that anyone, regardless of what sin they live with habitually, will pay? Whether they are an alcoholic, drug user, philanderer, or whatever--when we suppress the conscience, there is a mental and emotional price to be paid.
As the film nears the end, it again treats us to images of Adolph Hitler, the KKK and other hateful people as the dialog talks about how some groups (implying Christians) want to "get rid of others." The parallel is clear here: Christians hate homosexuals and want to eradicate homosexuals through whatever means necessary, including violence.
"The Bible is an incredibly powerful weapon, people use it as a weapon, justifying violence and justifying torture and justifying death,” we are told by Rev. Susan Sparks. “We have to be terribly careful about this Scripture that people hold tight to. And be clear about compassion and love because what it otherwise will do is wreak havoc and torture and death."
Violence does occur against homosexuals sometimes, but it is not condoned by the Christ and is not condoned by any Christians I know; Christians are commanded by God to love homosexuals and tell them about God's truth, not commit violence against them.
When conducting some "on the street interviews," one lady in the film says "Jesus, he always embraced the outcasts. So how a church can make someone an outcast and call themselves 'Christian' doesn't make any sense."
This is a common misconception, but the primary goal and focus of the Bible and Christianity are not about "inclusion." While inclusion is positive in the proper context, God is first about obedience and holiness. In 1 Corinthians chapter 5 Paul instructs the church at Corinth to remove the unrepentant immoral person from their congregation; obviously not an “inclusive” act.
Christ said he was "the way and the truth and the life," not simply A way, and not very inclusive of other belief systems. He told sinners to "go and sin no more," not "go and do as you see fit."
Christ also said in Matthew chapter 18 that if a person is unwilling to listen to Godly counsel, you are to disassociate with him.
Jesus made it clear in Matthew chapter 7 that not everyone would make it to heaven (not very inclusive), and that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will make it to heaven, "only he who does the will of my Father." If we are willfully doing what the Father has said he doesn't approve of, how likely is it that we're on that "straight and narrow" path to heaven?
Another misleading idea presented by the film was that marriage commitments are fluid. Some of the homosexuals who had been married discussed the end of their marriages. For Bishop Robinson, he and his wife decided the only way they could honor their marriage vows to one another was to "let each other go." His wife said they didn't "renounce our vows, but release our vows."
Whether one is homosexual or heterosexual, such twisted logic of honoring a vow by breaking that vow dishonors not only the individuals in the marriage, but God's design and commands regarding marriage. We are not allowed to "release our vows" even if, as Chrissy Gephardt put it, "the spark, the romance" goes away.
In Part 8 next week: what questions does this DVD answer and which ones does it fail to answer?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
For the Bible Tells Me So: The Real Story, Part 7
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Bob,
All this talk about honoring God's design for marriage has me wondering -- should atheists be allowed to marry?
They couldn't care less what God says about marriage, so how could they possibly honor something that doesn't even matter to them? From a Christian worldview, this seems very disrespectful.
Do you think it's honorable to God that people can get married in a courthouse, without even mentioning God or the Bible? Should that be legal?
Atheists are under God's authority whether they recognize it or not, just like you and I are under the speed limit laws whether we like it or not (or even recognize it), or whether we think the cop is around to catch us speeding.
The only Biblical requirements for marriage are a man and a woman; two men or two women in a sexual relationship, which is the primary subject of this article, don't meet that requirement, and even the sexual activity itself is called a sin by God.
There also is no requirement, in the Bible or anywhere else, that a person must believe in God to get married. Though it would be best if they did believe in God, I don't think there should be a requirement to do so. Do you?
Bob,
No, I don't think that should be a requirement. But I also think it's rather silly that the only criterion a marriage has to meet in order to receive God's blessing is that one partner be a man and the other a woman.
By this logic, the husband could be a former child molester and the wife a convicted murderer. But simply because one has a penis and the other a vagina, this doesn't matter? And these known criminals have God's blessing to marry and raise children? According to the Bible, they do.
On the other hand, two men who have no criminal record, health problems, or psychological disorders cannot marry, simply because of their anatomy. I can't think of a more blatant example of prejudice. Yet this country celebrates it! God bless America!
This child-molesting, murderous couple would likely be in jail where they couldn't consummate their marriage in the first place.
But you're trying to relate two things that have absolutely no bearing on one another.
The Bible doesn't list any sort of requirement for good behavior in order to merit marriage. Good behavior or bad behavior, whether we're talking about heterosexuals or homosexuals, has absolutely nothing whatsoever with qualifications for marriage.
It has absolutely nothing to do with prejudice, either. Prejudice is, for one thing, a judgment made without all the facts. All the facts are available regarding whether homosexuality is moral or natural, and whether such a union can qualify as "marriage." The answer is a flat "no."
Prejudice also usually involves a bias against a physical characteristic of another human being. Can you point out a homosexual in a crowd? Unless they're dressing or carrying themselves in an effeminate manner, you can't. Homosexuality is a behavior, not an innate human trait that is neither moral nor immoral.
You said you think it's silly that the only criterion for receiving God's blessing on marriage is one man and one woman. That's your right to think that, but read the Bible and you'll find out that this is the case. You'll also find out multiple instances where God clearly says he doesn't approve of homosexual behavior period, whether someone is trying to call it "marriage" or not.
"Can you point out a homosexual in a crowd? Unless they're dressing or carrying themselves in an effeminate manner, you can't."
Wow, that's not a prejudiced statement at all, is it?
No homosexuals ever dress or act effeminately? Could have fooled me: http://www.catholic.org/adv/catholicleague/folsom1.php
So can you identify a homosexual in a crowd, like you can a black man, a white man, or a woman?
Well, judging by the tasteful photos you provided, you obviously meant "homosexual" to mean "gay man" when the term also applies to gay women, which shows your gender bias.
Also, you assume that if there's an effeminate man in the crowd, he must be gay. He could just as easily be straight. You can never really know unless you ask him.
So yes, you're quite prejudiced. And as it turns out, a little kinky (it's funny that anti-gay Christians usually use the hottest porn in their propaganda).
I said that might be one way to identify a homosexual, not that all homosexuals are effeminate.
I'm still asking: can you identify a homosexual in a crowd, as you can a black man, white man or woman?
I understood what you said, Bob, but you still used "homosexual" with the implication that you meant a man, not a woman. So if you're not homophobic, you're at least sexist. Try to work on that.
No, I cannot identify a gay person in a crowd -- by the way, why do you insist on calling them "homosexuals"? Why not "homosexual people"? -- but you can't always identify someone's ethnicity based on their skin color. A man who appears white may turn out to be Asian or even a very light-skinned African-American, and a woman may turn out to be a soft-featured teenage boy upon closer inspection. There are always exceptions, which is why generalizing is inaccurate and unfairly convenient for one's argument.
Did you know that the term "homosexual" includes both male and female homosexuals? It is a composite of the Greek "homos" meaning "same" and sexual.
Did you also know that most homosexuals are male? So yes, I meant a man, since men make up most of the homosexual community.
You made my point for me. If you can't tell what ethnicity someone is, it's a little difficult to display prejudice against them based on that, isn't it?
Homosexuals look like anyone, enjoy the same rights as anyone, and receive the same legal protections as anyone. Society is not discriminating against them.
But people are free to object to homosexuality on a moral basis, and if they believe the Bible (which is the group this DVD is ostensibly aimed at), then they should object to homosexuality on a moral basis, since the Bible is clear in both Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is wrong. That's not pre-judging; that's making a determination on what the Bible clearly says.
Bob,
Does engaging in homosexual behavior mean that a person is homosexual?
And yes, I do know what the term "homosexual" means. Being gay myself, I'm quite familiar. It's just interesting that you define these people based on what they do, not who they are. Makes it easier for you not to see them as people, doesn't it?
You seem to be implying that people "are" homosexual, rather than practice homosexuality; in other words, you seem to be implying they are born that way and have no choice in the matter.
That is not the case. God made it clear that he created human beings to express their sexuality between a man and a woman in marriage. Further, God says that homosexual behavior is a sin; God wouldn't create someone with no choice but to sin.
I see homosexuals as people, just as I see drunks, thieves, adulterers, gossips and any other sinner as people. I'm a former drunk, so I'm well versed in that sin. I'm also well versed in it's addictive nature, and in the fact that, like homosexuality, it can be successfully resisted despite the desire to indulge. I haven't had a drink in 15 years, and the desire eventually faded, thanks to God.
Bob,
While I agree that homosexual behavior is a choice, I believe that homosexual attraction is not a choice and cannot be changed -- in other words, some people simply "are" homosexual. If you disagree, then I invite you to have sex with a man.
If it's a choice, and something you can do with enough prayer and determination, then you shouldn't be feeling nauseous right now.
If you're a Christian (which is who this DVD is aimed at), it doesn't matter what you believe, but what the Bible says.
The Bible says God created human beings to express their sexuality between a man and woman in marriage; there is no other approved way of expressing human sexuality.
Further, God specifically says that homosexual behavior is immoral, both in the Old and New Testaments. It's non-negotiable.
I could choose to have sex with a man, just as I could choose to get drunk again. But I choose not to have sex with a man, just as I choose not to drink again. It so happens that I have no temptation to have sex with a man, but I do have temptations to get drunk...and I resist them, as many men who have left the homosexual lifestyle behind resist their temptations to have sex with men.
God doesn't condemn us for being tempted (or attracted), but he does hold us accountable if we act on that temptation. I once heard the temptation issue described like this: you can't stop birds from flying over your head, but you certainly can stop them from building a nest in your hair.
What is the homosexual lifestyle?
It's commonly understood to be a lifestyle in which one regularly engages in homosexual behavior, or when they do engage in sex it is usually homosexual in nature.
Do you agree or disagree with anything in this article?
That's really all it is to you -- sex? What is it with Christians and their obsession with gay people's sex lives?
And no, I do not agree with anything in the article. I think it's just as closed-minded and opinionated as the DVD. But I'm the only one commenting, so you should be grateful for the attention.
Christians wouldn't even have to think about the sex lives of homosexuals if homosexual activists would be quiet about it.
But this DVD illustrates they won't do that. And Christians have a moral obligation to speak out when lies and deceptions are being foisted on society--which is precisely what this DVD is doing.
Not all gay people are activists, Bob. Most of us, in fact, are ordinary, everyday, average people who just want to live our lives in a way that makes us happy. People like you think it's your business to see that this is never possible. That's why it's necessary to make our voices heard. It's not about sex, Bob. It's *hardly* about sex. It's about knowing that we have the right to visit our partners in the hospital, to make funeral arrangements, to receive life insurance benefits should the unthinkable happen, to raise a family and know that it's protected by law, to be validated by the state if not by the church.
But that's not good enough for you. You would prefer it if we would just shut up and disappear. If so, we will continue to make a life with our partners, but it would be nice if the law could protect us -- not just as individuals, but as couples, as families. Call it something other than "marriage" if you want; you can have the word. You can call our relationships "abominations" for all I care. Just treat us like legitimate, loving couples who deserve respect.
No matter what federal amendments, referendums, lawsuits, protests, or rallies come to pass in opposition to equal rights for gays, we will not go away.
Sex is obviously involved; otherwise homosexual couples wouldn't be homosexual couples--they'd just be friends.
There is no legitimate sexual relationship other than a man and a woman in marriage. To provide recognition and the benefits that go with that undermines marriage by counterfeiting it.
I know you don't like that, and if I wanted what you wanted, I wouldn't like it either. But that isn't what God says is right, and it isn't healthy for individuals, couples or society itself.
Nothing is going to change that, not even what some pandering politician allows couples to call themselves.
I found out when I was a drunk that I could either continue fighting reality--and in doing so make a shipwreck of my life and my eternal destiny--or I could accept reality, deal with it and begin becoming the person God wants me to be.
My hope is that you and others in your situation would be able to make that change, too, though Christ himself said only a few would. Still, Christ wants us to tell everyone about his Good News, so that's what I'm trying to do.
Bob,
See, that's the problem. What you can't accept or deal with, you must assimilate. You won't settle for agreeing to disagree, so you try to make opponents see things your way. That's not how the world works.
Not everyone will agree with you. In fact, I guarantee that not everyone will agree with you. I don't think I have to ask how likely you would be to try and change your orientation to homosexual, or even to convert to a different religion. It's simply out of the question. Yet you expect others to do just that. It will not happen.
Gay people don't want to change, because there's nothing TO change. We just want to live as freely as you do, with the ability to marry whom we want. Saying that our relationships and sex lives are unnatural, sinful, immoral, and illegitimate is deeply offensive, to a degree you cannot imagine, and no analogy you can conjure can do it justice. You -- and the gay community, for that matter, for there is blame to share on all fronts -- need to realize that you do not have the right to impose your way of life onto others.
I'm sure a big reason why you oppose gay marriage is that it makes you flat-out uncomfortable, perhaps even disgusted. Which is understandable! It's a big change. But don't let your personal distaste cloud your reasoning, don't cling to polls and statistics with the misguided hope that they apply to all gay people, and don't look to other countries and assume that the same things will happen here in America. You said in other comments that you know some gay people personally. I think you'd do yourself a great service if you would meet a committed gay couple who have been together for years, to see the struggles they face -- the financial burdens, the denied rights, and the fear of knowing that they are not protected under the law as a couple. Get emotionally invested in this couple. I think it will help you understand that behind the protests, the amendments, the lawsuits, and the debates, what it comes down to is PEOPLE, who are no better or worse than you.
I am no longer a Christian, but I do still hold to at least one principle: Love your neighbor as yourself. You wouldn't want someone to tell you that you're not allowed to marry the person you love, especially when you know that your relationship is not harmful or unhealthy, so why do you expect others to submit to your ideology?
Focus on your life, and let others worry about their own.
I'm not a Borg, I don't assimilate. I'll agree to disagree inasmuch as I can't force you to make the right choices. But I cannot and will not say those bad choices are okay, and I cannot and will not remain silent when homosexual activists are working very hard to undermine decency, marriage and the family. No person of integrity could do so.
You may not want to change, and I understand that, but God wants you to change. He'd rather see you offended than eternally condemned, and so would I. He wants you to have a better life, the life he intended for you to have. He won't force you to change, but if you insist on doing things your way instead of his, he says that one day you will face eternal judgment. I'd like to see you avoid that, and have the abundant life God wants for you here on earth. But the choice to accept or reject that is yours.
Knowing homosexuals or knowing homosexuals who have been committed to one another for years changes not a single thing in the end. The simple, stark reality remains that God says it's wrong, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and nature bears witness to that reality.
If you had a friend caught up in a destructive lifestyle, say drugs, would you celebrate their choice, affirm them and wish them well as they destroyed their physical and spiritual life? Of course not. God and people who follow him can't do that for homosexuality, either, because it's just as destructive. Standing by while someone makes a shipwreck of their life isn't a loving act. Friends don't let friends drive drunk, and they don't let friends get or remain caught up in homosexuality without trying to dissuade them.
From a purely selfish perspective, I'd love to never have to talk about this topic ever again. There are a lot more pleasant topics out there to deal with. And if homosexual activists would do what you recommended (focus on their own lives and leave everyone else alone), we wouldn't have to wage these ideological battles over special rights, marriage and family.
But as long as the error is being sold to society, that error must be confronted. And as long as the war on marriage and family continues, it must be resisted. It has to be done for truth's sake, but also out of love for the lives that will be hurt because of the deception.
Bob,
You make it sound as though you have no choice but to talk about homosexuality, rather than the more "pleasant" topics, as you say. If you don't want to talk about it, then stop talking about it. Trust me, there are plenty of other Christians out there who will pick up your slack.
It's truly sad that you've already concluded that knowing gay couples will not change your opinion. It's closed-minded, and you are cheating yourself out of a great deal of understanding. I doubt you would even feel the desire, let alone the need, to know a gay couple personally, would you?
I think this problem comes from how you keep comparing sins as if they were the same. Being gay is NOT the same as abusing drugs or driving drunk. And no matter what you say about dissuading people from lifestyles that you deem destructive, that is not what you are doing. Telling someone that he is not allowed to marry a certain person is not dissuading or helping. It is directly imposing your beliefs onto another person. And you have NO right to do that.
You keep talking about the "war" on marriage. What rights have you lost? What privileges have you been cheated out of?
I could neglect my duty to the truth and to God and just keep my mouth shut. But I don't consider that an acceptable choice.
Closed-mindedness implies a lack of information. I've pretty thoroughly researched the historical, sociological, scientific and theological information associated with human sexuality, so "closed minded" doesn't really fit. "Convinced" would closer to the truth.
Being homosexual IS essentially the same as abusing drugs or driving drunk; all three place the perpetrator and anyone around him in potential peril. Homosexuality and intoxication are also condemned by the Bible.
I wouldn't mind knowing a homosexual couple...but it wouldn't change the facts. That is one of the hoped-for deceptions of this DVD; they hope that if they can get people to "know" some homosexuals, their emotions will kick in and override any vestiges of knowledge they might have had about the issue...and it frequently does. But it doesn't change the truth. I can "know" a murderer, but it doesn't change the immorality of murder; I can know an incestuous couple, but it doesn't change the immorality of incest; I can know an adulterous couple, but it doesn't change the immorality of adultery. Facts don't change based on feelings; feelings SHOULD, however, change based on facts. We are not animals but are human beings, and should be able to tame our emotions.
I cannot "impose" my beliefs on anyone and force them to change their beliefs; I don't even want to. I do hope that once exposed to the truth they will think it through and make the right decision.
But if they don't, that's their prerogative...as long as it doesn't affect others. But I still have a moral and Christian obligation to warn others who MIGHT listen.
And this attempt to hijack or counterfeit marriage does affect others by destabilizing marriage and families, which will result in even more harm to children, which will result in even more chaos in our society which will manifest itself in more health care costs, more crime, more cost to crime victims, more lawlessness and more lost productivity. And I have EVERY RIGHT in a democratic society to fight that attempt.
Bob,
We differ on our definitions of "closed-minded." To me, it means denying yourself an exposure to information, and doing so because you assume you already know all there is to know. But if that were true, how would you know?
Your rhetoric is getting tenuous. You say that marriage is under the threat of destabilization...but how? Will it destabilize YOUR marriage? You chose not to answer one of my last questions, so I'll ask it again: what rights have you lost during all of this? List them.
Your entire argument relies on the slippery-slope fallacy. You assume that if one thing happens, it will result in a downward spiral of chaos. If the opposite has even the slightest chance of happening, then your position is flawed.
No one can ever know everything, but as I outlined, I've examined the issue pretty thoroughly from several angles, so I doubt there's going to be some new revelation out of left field that will change everything.
Further, you seem to pin your hopes for "understanding" on emotional connections. Emotional connections don't change facts one iota, either. They usually tend to distance us from the facts, however.
I've already explained how marriage will be destabilized. And I'm not so self-centered that everything must personally affect me before I consider it a problem. It will not destabilize my marriage because I know where my moral center is (God); most people unfortunately aren't well grounded, and our society will start to degenerate.
This has already started in Scandinavian countries where marriage numbers are in drastic decline; if marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing, so why bother. This places children in even more jeopardy than they're already in.
I have not lost any rights, and will not DIRECTLY from the hijacking of marriage. Religious and speech rights are already under assault though from the overall homosexual agenda. Here are a few examples:
- Catholic Charities in Boston was forced out of the adoption ministry because they refused to put children in homes of homosexual couples.
- Boston school teachers have been threatened with termination if they fail to cast homosexuality in a positive light to students.
- In Montgomery County in Maryland, women and children have lost the right to be secure in restrooms because the government has allowed men who "feel" like women or "think" they're women to use women's restrooms and locker rooms
- In the entire state of Colorado, they have done what Montgomery County in Maryland has done. Women and children will not only be subjected to discomfort in sensitive facility, but will also be in danger from perverts who may want to come into the restroom or locker room and get an eyeful.
- With this outrage not sufficient for the government of Colorado, they also made it illegal to print or display anything critical of homosexuality outside of a church. This is egregious enough to the First Amendment regardless of the location, but this may even affect churches which often have community outreaches and ministries, including Christian publishers.
The legitimization of homosexuality is being done at the expense of children, families, marriage, Christianity, and even our First Amendment rights.
So you see, it is threatening my rights, including the rights and welfare of my children who have to grow up and inherit this morally bankrupt world.
Bob,
Have you been to Europe? Many countries, such as the Scandinavian ones you mention, are vastly different from America, so comparing the two is inaccurate and illogical. It's like trying to pass off a hammer for an engine chassis, or a $20 bill for a paper plate, or whatever simplistic analogy it is you prefer.
And it's good that you admit that you haven't lost any rights. That's because no one is trying to take them away from you. Yet you do all that you can to make sure no one else enjoys a fraction of the rights and benefits you receive as a married man. How selfish.
I lived in Europe for three years. While there are some cultural differences, human beings are human beings, especially when it comes to marriage. It's something that every culture throughout human history has understood (until now) to consist of a man and a woman. And human beings all tend to act the same way when something loses it's intrinsic value: they abandon it.
I just explained that my religious and free speech rights are in jeopardy, as the ones of people in Colorado are already in the crosshairs.
And I'm not trying to deny anyone the rights and benefits I receive as a married man; every man has the right to marry a woman, and every woman has the right to marry a man.
But two men or two women have no right to call their relationship something it isn't. It takes a man and a woman to be married; nothing else will do, no matter how much we try to fool ourselves.
Very well said, Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Anonymous, will you please tell me if any limits on who can marry who should ever be applied? Polygamy? Incestual coupling? Bestiality? Pederasty? If your answer is 'no' then you have made Bob's case. If the answer is 'yes' then you've forfeited yours.
Bob,
You have said that you haven't lost any marriage rights, and while your religious and free-speech rights are in jeopardy, they still exist. So to date, you've lost nothing.
Since two men have no right to call their relationship a marriage (except in two states and six different countries, of course), are they allowed to use the term civil union or domestic partnership? You're obviously unwilling to share the word "marriage," so maybe the creation of an entirely new word would solve the debate and end this cataclysmic "war" you're so upset about.
Dr. Theo,
Why do some people assume that if you allow one thing, you MUST allow anything and everything else?
Actually, I couldn't care less if a man takes three wives or if a woman marries her brother. The number of polygamists and "pro-incest" folks in this country is far lower than the number of gay people, so it really wouldn't have a noticeable impact on our society either way. I mean, really, do these kinds of people even exist outside of Utah, Texas, and West Virginia?
And besides, I'm not so insecure in my relationship as to think that I'd be affected by the personal lives of total strangers.
As for beastiality and pederasty, the day I meet a goat who can sign its own name on a marriage license or a child who somehow qualifies as a legal adult, I'll consider these two examples as relevant. Until then, I'll say to you what I say to anyone who relies on the slippery-slope argument: worrying about something that MIGHT happen in the future is not a logical reason to ban something else in the present. Grow up and get over it.
To answer your question about a new "term" for homosexual unions: no. Like heterosexual shackups, they don't deserve an official "term" or legitimate recognition of any type. They don't deserve any legitimate or useful function for society, and they certainly aren't sanctified by God, so they don't deserve an official "term" of any type.
BTW, I think Dr. Theo got your goat (excuse the pun). His point was one I've made repeatedly (only he put it more directly): when the meaning of something specific becomes negotiable (especially definitions that are fundamentally different than the genuine article), it's up for grabs. And it is. Polygamists are already pressing for recognition of their unions, and homosexual activist Frank Kameny recently said "As long as the animal doesn't mind (and the animal rarely does), I don't mind, and I don't see why anyone else should."
So thanks for making my point, Anonymous. Baah!
Bob,
Well, frame a question in such a way as to trap the respondent into giving you the conclusion that you want and yeah, I guess you can get anyone to prove any point for you. "Heads I win, tails you lose" is not an intellectually honest approach.
Post a Comment