Gay Marriage?

Marriage And Sexuality

Unlike today, when I was growing up, society’s prevailing attitude toward marriage was positive.  This would be from 1945 when I was born, until 1963 when I graduated from high school.  Television and movies portrayed marriage as an ideal to personally hope and strive for.  It not only offered individuals the promise of shared fulfillment, love and happiness, but it also enhanced the community by modeling a standard of maturity, responsibility and stability.

Marriages were expected to last a lifetime because the institution of marriage was designed with mature, responsible and stable couples in mind.  Marriage as an institution provided a model, a standard to measure up to.  Failed marriages were not only the source of personal pain and embarrassment, but of public censure.  The stigma of divorce was that it represented a tear in the social fabric.  Likewise, sex outside of marriage was considered shameful, and pregnancy outside of marriage carried with it the same shame.

As a consequence, many couples got married when the woman became pregnant … to cover up their shame.  But the failure of individual marriages does not make the institution of marriage a failure.  Neither does the fact that not all married couples have children alter the principle of marriage.  Despite the failure of marriages, the structure of society continues to be maintained by the integrity of the “family unit”, consisting of a man, a woman and their offspring.

Although marriage wasn’t strictly thought of as a religious rite (A civil ceremony was an option.) many non-church-going couples chose to get married in a church setting because church weddings were more highly regarded, and provided a bigger stamp of approval, so to speak.  In any case, growing up, I saw that couples had options.  They could get married in a church, get married by a judge, have a common-law marriage or just sleep together and risk public shame.

I saw marriage as having as much to do with social cohesion as with sexual attraction.  Marriage was part of the natural progression of living a responsible and respectable life.  In other words, to me it was the polar opposite of sex, drugs and rock & roll.  So, my attitude toward marriage did not change when I became aware that society around me was changing — more marriages were failing, ending in divorce, and more couples were choosing to “shack up” together rather than making the commitment to marry.  In all of that, the individual’s responsibility to adhere to social mores remained the crucial issue for me.  In the context of marriage, homosexuality was never acceptable and never part of the picture.

Homosexuality

I learned about homosexuality as a teen-ager.  My parents met a lesbian couple who became our good family friends.  Bert (Berta) and Alice were well-read, well-traveled, fun and interesting to be around.  Alice was the quiet intellectual and Bert was the entertaining raconteur.  They broadened my mind and introduced me to such books as D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterly’s Lover.  One summer Bert got me a great job.  She was working for Doris Duke as house manager of Falcon’s Lair, a mansion in Beverly Hills once owned by Rudolph Valentino.  She hired me to do the gardening for two weeks while the regular gardener was on vacation.  That was a super experience for a teenager.

Bert & Alice had been a “couple” for many years, but never referred to one another as “wife” or “husband”.  To them, those words were only euphemisms.  They introduced us to two male friends of theirs, who referred to each another as “my partner”.  At first I thought they meant business partner, but eventually I got the message.  Even though their relationship was long-term and monogamous, they also did not claim to be married, nor did they use the words “husband” or “wife” to describe each another.

Around the same time, through my participation in community theater, I met other homosexuals.  At the time, I had no reason not to accept these friends and acquaintances for who they were.  Their sexual attractions were different from mine, but I considered that to be none of my business.  The operative word was “different”.  They chose to live differently.  However, that in no way excluded them from accountability to the same laws and institutions everyone else was held accountable to.

When I was in college, a roommate of mine told me about some gay Catholic friends of his who found an “underground” priest to “marry” them in secret.  I remember thinking how hypocritical and rebellious it was for them to insist that their religion conform to them; to do what they wanted, even when their religion forbad it, and yet to still have the effrontery to self-identify as Catholics.  My roommate (as well as the homosexual couple) considered their union “sanctified” because they loved each other so much.  That made me uncomfortable.  I didn’t think the standards of any religion should be changed in order to accommodate personal feelings.  But this was the era of “If it feels good, do it”.

I was not a sexual bigot.  I had homosexual friends.  Neither was I a religious bigot.  I wasn’t a Catholic, nor did I identify with any religion.  In college, my only association with churches was as a music major.  I sang in choirs, including paid positions as section leader, soloist and choir director.  I wasn’t a member of any church, therefore I felt no obligation to follow any church doctrine.  However, I expected anyone who did belong to a church to follow their church doctrines.  To me, anyone who wanted to change the rules to fit their own feelings were simply rebelling against authority and being hypocrites.

My views on homosexuality began to change when I became a Christian and began to study the Bible.  I learned that God doesn’t see homosexuality as just another “alternative” behavior, but as a sin.  The plain meaning of Scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments, is clear on this point.  I have heard arguments claiming homosexuality is not a sin.  However, in every case these arguments either distort or completely change the meaning of the Scriptures.

Refuting such false and deceptive arguments can be accomplished through the faithful adherence to sound exegesis.  That is an issue that deserves a full explanation.  I will address it separately, at another time.  For now, the point I wish to make is simply that I was not opposed to homosexual behavior until after I had read and studied the Bible.  My attitude was changed by faith, not by ignorance, fear, hatred or bigotry.

Same-sex Marriage

For millennia society in general has considered homosexuality immoral.  The Bible labels it as sin.  But for the past 50 years or so, social mores have been changing.  There is now a moral argument that society should accept diverse expressions of sexuality, including same-sex unions, based on the assumption that all gender roles are equal, including those of bride and groom.  Also, there is a political argument that says marriage between two individuals of the same gender should be legally recognized and made socially acceptable on the basis of “equal rights” for homosexuals.  The problem with these arguments is summed up in the old saw: “You can’t legislate morality.”

The institution of marriage specifically ordains the union of a man and a woman.  Historically, in the West, the institution of marriage took its definition from the Bible.  But traditionally, elsewhere in the world, all the major non-Biblical cultures shared the same institutional concept of marriage.  It was an institution designed specifically to sanctify a man and woman for the revered purpose of ending their dependency on their parents and beginning a new family.  Specific laws did not create this institution of marriage.  Rather, the laws of each society merely reflected that universal essence of what marriage is — not a relationship built on rights, but of a man and woman’s moral accountability to God, society and each other.

Institutions are foundational.  They sustain fundamental values and hold society together by establishing a meaningful social identity.  The institution of marriage has been accepted by society at large, including many of those who fall outside the norm — those who for one reason or another reject the cultural or religious views that give rise to the institution.  Until the mid-twentieth century, most individuals who rejected society’s standards did so discretely.  Heterosexual couples who lived together out of wedlock gave the impression they were married, and gay couples gave the impression they were roommates.  But they did so knowing they were flouting social standards.  They chose to live according to their own divergent lifestyles, without presuming to change the institution of marriage.  They saw themselves as outside the norm.

But since the 1960s the gay lobby has been aggressively working to redefine the institution of marriage by breaking down society’s traditional moral standards.  They do this both by undercutting religious beliefs opposed to homosexuality and by changing the argument from one of moral standards to one of legal rights.  They are making an end run around the traditional moral values of the majority, by making a bogus claim that all they are seeking is “equality”.  But the gay demand for equality is a non-sequitur.  Homosexuals already have the same legal right to marry as heterosexual couples do — to someone of the opposite gender, because that’s what marriage is.  What they are really demanding isn’t a right, but a special privilege.

Regardless of any changes in the law or the dismantling of the institution of marriage, homosexual couples will never be “married” in the eyes of God.  The purpose of marriage is not for providing equal access, equal opportunity or equal rights.  God designed marriage for his purposes, not ours.  And for that reason, marriage is a holy union of a woman and a man.  For that reason, the family is sanctified and society is blessed.  A homosexual couple may love each other, but their union is sinful at its core.  Such a union is neither sanctified nor a blessing to society.  It is not equal to that of marriage.

Libertarians and “Leaving People Alone”

Recently, I was surprised by the level of passionate support for same-sex marriage exhibited by libertarian college students in the audience of a John Stossel program on the Fox News Channel.  He was interviewing Ann Coulter.  Judging by the students’ jeers and smirks, they didn’t simply disagree with traditional conservative values, but they seemed genuinely astonished anyone could possibly hold such traditional views.  Their demeanor toward Coulter was condescending.

When Stossel asked Coulter, “Why can’t gays get married like straights do?”  Coulter’s answer was legally and logically to the point, “Um, well, they can.  They have to marry a member of the opposite sex.”  The audience groaned and booed at her answer.  Stossel then asked, “Why can’t they marry a member of their sex?”, interrupting her to interject, “We believe that individuals should be left alone.”  Coulter pointed out, “…my reasons I’m telling you … for libertarians or gays or anything else, marriage is the most important institution for civilized young people … I want to make divorce a lot more difficult, too.”  Again there were derisive groans from the audience.

For a libertarian to say the legalization of gay marriage is just a way “that individuals should be left alone” is a perverse contradiction of terms.  How does undermining one of the most basic and commonly held institutions in all of civilization “leave individuals alone”?  It doesn’t.  It rips apart the moral fabric of society.  It forces the majority to recognize and accept something that is so morally offensive that the Bible calls it an abomination in the eyes of God.  That is not an example of government staying out of our personal lives.  Forcing all of society to accept same-sex marriage by passing laws to give equal standing to homosexuality usurps the right of society to set its moral codes according to traditional and religious standards.

The law is a standard.  The phrase, “all men are created equal” is a Biblical principle.  It means that there should be one standard for all, applied equally to all.  Gay marriage violates this principle.  If the law is changed to allow for gay marriage, then the government is redefining the institution of marriage, rather that reflecting the will of the people.   If the will of the people changes and comes to accept the redefinition of marriage,  it will not reflect so-called “equality” but the rejection of God’s standards, as typified by Sodom and Gomorrah.  

Such a forced redefinition on the part of government is an abuse of the law because the law is intended to support the institution marriage, not design it.  Society at large has already done that a long time ago, and our traditions have sustained the institution for thousands of years until the present time.   If homosexuals wish to live intimately as couples, that’s their business.  However, they do not have the right to make the rest of society condone and sanctify their lifestyle, particularly since it offends so many on moral and religious grounds.

The Intolerance Of Political Correctness

And yet, that’s exactly what they are trying to do.  One of the most offensive tactics employed by pro-homosexual forces is to malign anyone who disagrees with their agenda.  They have established the misnomer “homophobe” as a pejorative to demean anyone who doesn’t fall into lockstep with their position.  All opposition to homosexuality is ascribed to motivations of fear, hatred, ignorance and bigotry.  In effect, while loudly demanding the nonsense that same-sex marriage is their “equal right”, the homosexual lobby insults and demeans anyone who stands against them.  They deny that any genuine grounds exist for opposing same-sex marriage.

The homosexual lobby does not tolerate or respect moral or religious arguments against them.  They relegate such arguments to moral and religious bigotry.  Rather than addressing the actual arguments, they revert to the old stand-bys of name-calling and accusation.  The difference between right and wrong holds no significance to them when the wrong is identified as homosexuality.  And they particularly don’t have any respect for Biblical arguments against homosexuality, because they have their own way of looking at Scripture in order to make it comply with their own wishes.  Bottom line, they consider both moral and religious arguments against homosexuality to be bigoted and irrelevant.

The sad thing is that the gay agenda has managed to upgrade an aberrant behavior to the level of a genuine controversy.  Controversy feeds emotional rhetoric as dry kindling feeds a burning fire.  But resolving a controversy is like extinguishing a fire before it destroys everything it touches.  The gay agenda is out to destroy the time-honored institution of marriage.  Their demand for the so-called “equal” treatment of gays is accompanied by an assault on the rights of anyone who does not approve of homosexuality.  The mob mentality of gay activists leads them to trample over long-held doctrinal teachings of Scripture.  They do not seek to resolve controversy.  They choose to fan the flames.  But this fire needs to be extinguished.

Advertisements

About retiredday

I am Michael D. Day, a regular, everyday guy -- retired. I stand for God-given freedom, which means I think for myself. I believe in being civil, because the Bible teaches that we should love our enemies. But I also believe in saying it how I see it, and explaining just why I see it that way, sort of like 2 Timothy 4:2.
This entry was posted in American Culture, Christian Attitudes, Gay agenda, Gay marriage and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Gay Marriage?

  1. Amy says:

    An excellent commentary on the onslaught against morality perpetrated on society by the LGBTQ Mob. Their tactics are vicious, but that’s to be expected from a gang who equates pain with pleasure. They pretend they’re harmless and victims but their agenda is very dangerous, especially to the young by indoctrinating them into their sick deathstyle by way of the schools and TV. So far they’ve been pretty successful at it. Parents need to do their duty and get their kids out of the government schools. Homeschool if necessary to protect them from succumbing to those who want to warp their minds and souls to go against God’s own laws.

    Like

  2. retiredday says:

    I agree with you about public schools. They aren’t educating as much as they are brainwashing. Parents have largely handed over the responsibility of inculcating moral values in their children to educators who’s very agenda is to destroy those values and replace them with “Brave New World” values. What amazes me is how so many people still don’t have a clue.

    Like

  3. Boo says:

    If it was the government’s business to enforce religious doctrine, or if each and every marriage was submitted for public approval before it was entered into, then you might have a point. The majority disapproved of TomKat, yet they were not forbidden to marry. And in case you haven’t noticed, the majority is now in favor of marriage equality, so even if you were right you’d still be wrong. Also before Loving vs. Virginia, everyone had the same right to marry someone of their own race. That argument didn’t work back then, why do you think it works now? Do you have any arguments that actually make sense?

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      In order for an argument to make sense, you have to be able to understand it. And in order to win your opponents over to your side, you have to respect them. Your mind is so bound by your own bias, it is hostile to all opposing arguments, thereby closed to the truth.

      “And in case you haven’t noticed, the majority is now in favor of marriage equality”

      The very term “marriage equality” is meaningless. I haven’t noticed the majority in favor of same-sex marriage because it’s only a figment of your imagination. Your reality is a fantasy based on a lie. Despite the pro-gay policy that government has forced upon us, when the public is allowed to vote on it, they vote it down.

      “so even if you were right you’d still be wrong”

      That really sums up the framework of your “thinking”. You have made up your mind and refuse to allow any evidence to the contrary to make the slightest dent in your view.

      “the same right to marry someone of their own race”

      Really? This is supposed to mean something? The gay agenda wants to convince us that just as interracial marriages represent a more egalitarian application of human and civil rights to the institution of marriage, so do same-sex marriages. But just the opposite is true. A person’s race is irrelevant when it comes to the righteousness of social institutions and equality before the law. However, homosexuality, characterized by behavior, is destructive to those institutions and to the concept of equality before the law.

      The whole purpose of laws and institutions are to set standards of behavior, not to give carte blanche approval to any and all “alternative lifestyles” based on some misguided sense of moral equivalency.

      “That argument didn’t work”

      Your emotionally charged comment has failed to identify, address, engage or disprove any of the arguments in my post. All you have done is to angrily get in my face. You can intimidate some people this way, but you will never convince anyone.

      Like

      • Boo says:

        “The very term “marriage equality” is meaningless. I haven’t noticed the majority in favor of same-sex marriage because it’s only a figment of your imagination. Your reality is a fantasy based on a lie. Despite the pro-gay policy that government has forced upon us, when the public is allowed to vote on it, they vote it down.”

        So… you were asleep during the last election and you haven’t read a poll in the last year? You really don’t know that marriage equality went 4 for 4 in 2012, and every poll now shows a majority in favor? I’m sorry, but that really is reality, even if you’re desperate to be in denial of it.

        “That really sums up the framework of your “thinking”. You have made up your mind and refuse to allow any evidence to the contrary to make the slightest dent in your view.”

        No, it sums up the problem you encounter when you choose to ignore evidence. Remember all that “Romney’s gonna win in a landslide” stuff? How did that work out again?

        “Really? This is supposed to mean something? The gay agenda wants to convince us that just as interracial marriages represent a more egalitarian application of human and civil rights to the institution of marriage, so do same-sex marriages. But just the opposite is true. A person’s race is irrelevant when it comes to the righteousness of social institutions and equality before the law. However, homosexuality, characterized by behavior, is destructive to those institutions and to the concept of equality before the law.”

        Sorry, but you’re just proving my point. The people who argued against interracial marriage were equally as convinced that it was destructive to social institutions. And it wasn’t the biological existence of black people they objected to, but what they considered the destructive behavior of race-mixing. I’m not sure where you’re getting this bizarre idea that behavioral characteristics are destructive to the concept of equality before the law. Do you think it would be Constitutional to forbid people from marrying anyone of a different religion?

        “The whole purpose of laws and institutions are to set standards of behavior, not to give carte blanche approval to any and all “alternative lifestyles” based on some misguided sense of moral equivalency.”

        Except that’s not the argument for marriage equality. The argument is that banning it serves no legitimate government interest. The anti-equality side has never come up with an argument that doesn’t boil down to the desire to force their religious beliefs on other people or false claims about parenting fitness (which is irrelevant to marriage rights anyway). That’s why you guys have always lost in court.

        “Your emotionally charged comment has failed to identify, address, engage or disprove any of the arguments in my post. All you have done is to angrily get in my face. You can intimidate some people this way, but you will never convince anyone.”

        Actually I did, you’re just in denial. But you go on telling yourself that you still have the majority on your side, and you didn’t really lose 4 out of 4 votes last election (5 if you count the attempted Iowa recall). Pretend that opposition to marriage equality isn’t concentrated more and more among the elderly as every poll indicates. And you go on denying you’re making the same arguments made against interracial marrieg even as you continue to make more of them. That should work out just great for you. (And fyi, I’m not angry. What do I have to be angry about? My side is winning and you’re flailing around in denial. Mainly I’m amused.)

        Like

      • retiredday says:

        I have no desire to bandy words with you. Your comments have sufficed in expressing your disdain for my opinion, and no further comments from you are welcome.

        You are correct when you cite the four victories for your “side” that occurred a few months ago. For the first time in history, four state electorates supported same-sex marriage, perhaps a bellwether of changing social mores and a reason for your gloating. I do not deny that fact.

        In my post, I addressed the gay lobby’s aggressive efforts to change attitudes toward homosexuality by eroding traditional morals and destroying the institution of marriage. I pointed out that they have indeed achieved some success.

        Their battle plan hinges on how they frame the issue, which is politically, not morally. What you call “marriage equality” is a political construct which bypasses the question of morality. This has been made possible by the increased acceptance of moral relativity.

        The end result is that by gaining control of public school curricula, gay activists have ensured that young students are taught to reject the values of their parents. Thus, a tipping point has been reached after a half-century of concerted efforts and society has begun to accept a whole array of deviant sexual behaviors.

        You (everyone supportive of the LGBTQ agenda) obviously see this as a good thing, but you go one step further. You hatefully and condescendingly denigrate anyone who opposes you. In the political sense, you may claim that “might makes right”, but the political correctness of same-sex marriage will never rise to the level of righteousness in the eyes of God.

        I pray for you and this lost generation. You don’t stand opposed to outmoded morals, religious doctrines, or out-of-touch, aging seniors. You are rebelling against the God who created you, who loves you and who has the authority to set universal moral standards.

        It is to him you will be held accountable, not me. May you truly come to experience his forgiveness. And may God have mercy on your soul.

        Like

      • Michael D. Day, instead of worrying about someone else’s love life and hating on the LGBTQ community, why don’t you just mind your own business?

        Like

      • retiredday says:

        Jeffrey Liakos, just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they hate you. That’s a non-sequitur. I don’t hate the LGBTQ community. But it sure sounds like you hate me. My reason for opposing the LGBTQ agenda is that it rejects the authority of the God of the Bible. Instead of projecting hate on me for my rational, reasoned article, why don’t you try to be honest? It’s not me you’re upset with, it’s the clear Biblical standard of sexuality that you reject.

        As to your statement that Gay and lesbian people do not choose to “be that way”, I will say this: None of us choose to be born sinners, but we all are. Yet in our free will we can choose to exercise self control, and acknowledge the authority our Creator has over us and how we live our lives. Jesus told the woman caught in sin, “Go and sin no more.” That’s good advice for all of us.

        You told me not to be naive. I’ve witnessed every form of human behavior in my 72 years. I assure you, I am not naive. I would admonish you: Don’t be deceived. Just because you feel something is right doesn’t make it right. As a human being, I have the right to freely express my convictions (as do you). As a believer in the God of the Bible, it is not only my right, but my duty to speak the truth to error when I see my society forsaking the morals God and the Bible teach. Moral decay in my society IS my business. And on the other hand, you do not have the right to shut me up.

        Like

      • Michael D. Day, I don’t hate you at all. Don’t put words in my mouth.

        Like

      • retiredday says:

        For the benefit of the very few who may read this, according to WordPress statistics, the last time my post, “Gay Marriage” was viewed was in March of this year. So, Jeffrey Liakos, I seriously doubt if you even read it. More likely, you’re just a troll, trying your best to be annoying. Whatever you are, you come across as a mental midget. My words to you were, “it sure sounds like you hate me.” If you had a grasp of the meaning of language, you would understand that that was the impression you gave me. I was not putting words in your mouth. Frankly, I doubt if you understand the difference.

        My small, personal blog is designed for a very rare type of human being — those who actually think, ponder, conceptualize and seek to understand. I deal with ideas. I’m not into hostility and hate. I don’t throw stones and I don’t welcome those who throw stones at me. I will not publish any more of your comments. They are only abrasive and fail to reach any level of meaningful discussion. You obviously do not belong to my intended audience, so I kindly ask you to leave me in peace.

        Like

  4. WXRGina says:

    Mike, you make excellent points and wise and true arguments, and they are pearls of wisdom (we know what the Bible says about that and pigs).

    We know that the minds of homosexual advocates are sealed in their delusions, until or unless they turn and allow the Lord to remove the scales from their eyes. We try to reason with them, but our plainly-stated truths about the unhealthy, unnatural and immoral reality of homosexuality falls on deaf and hostile ears.

    Keep on bringing us your wonderful, insightful writings, Mike! You’re masterful!

    Like

  5. The MAD Jewess says:

    These ‘gays’ are fascists.
    They want to marry but they punch married people in the face.
    God will destroy this place for this filth

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      It amazes me how they argue for “equal” rights while forcing their views of immorality on on the rest of us. They don’t want equality. They want their way, period. And they dismiss anyone who bases his traditional morality on Biblical faith. But their battle isn’t so much against us as it is against Almighty God. And in the long run God will not be mocked.

      Like

  6. Retiredday, your facts are wrong. Gay and lesbian people do not choose to be that way. Don’t be naive.

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      I have previously responded to this comment by Jeffrey Liakos, but I want to reiterate the point I made previously, that he did not read or understand the article I wrote. Nothing he said addressed anything I wrote. In particular, here is just one point I made in my piece:

      “If homosexuals wish to live intimately as couples, that’s their business. However, they do not have the right to make the rest of society condone and sanctify their lifestyle, particularly since it offends so many on moral and religious grounds.”

      The point my article makes is that regardless of how one is disposed to sexually deviant lifestyles, such minorities do not have the right to force the rest of society into accepting same sex marriage as a proper institution. And yet that is exactly what they have done. It is just another sign of the times we live in — a sign that we are turning our backs on God. That’s a big mistake, and we will all have to pay the consequences when God judges us. So, I pray for his mercy, and speak the truth whenever I can.

      Like

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s