From the outset I have sought to make the point that different perspectives on issues are inevitable based on our personal experience, bias, or worldview. To resolve this dilemma, there are a few options before us. They are as follows:
- Organize societal laws and regulations to impose a singular ideological stance on issues; imposing penalties on anyone who fails to conform.
- Be in a constant state of conflict with each side pushing their agenda in an attempt to dominate through force, numbers and any method that achieves victory for their side.
- Learn how to coexist by granting rights of people to dissent and live according to their values as long as those freedoms don’t deny essential rights or pose a danger to anyone.
While the first prospect may bring about a veneer of unity; it comes at the cost of human dignity by resulting in a dictatorship where the ideology will be imposed by the powerful few at the top. The second is needlessly divisive and creates a nation that is constantly in flux and unstable and could easily mean civil war and collapse. The final alternative is the one I advocate and, curiously, few of those who even identify as liberal grasp – even though it should perfectly reflect a liberal philosophy. Since so many listen to the siren song of the radical left, we are far closer to the first scenario which may bring us to the civil war response.
Perversely, common sense has been so eroded that mere dissenting viewpoints constitute a threat that needs to be put down. Worse yet, huge swaths of non-believers can have front row seats to the corrosion of religious freedom for Christians who just want the same basic rights that should exist for all and believe we haven’t surrendered enough. One of the battleground issues where they believe themselves justified to beat Christians into submission over is same sex marriage (SSM).
While the issue is far deeper than SSM and began much earlier, that is a topic for a future article. For now, I want to address how we are in the early stages of options one and two because leftist propaganda has duped many into thinking that forcing participation and advocacy of Christians is a hill to die on. Additionally, the grounds for the premise itself is completely without foundation. I will prove this using the arguments given by the secular left.
- Many argued, especially early on, that homosexuals should have the right to have their partners visit them in hospital or leave money to them. On it’s face, if this is a problem, it is a contract law issue. After all, does one need to marry everyone they want to grant these privileges to? If marriage is a necessary prerequisite for one to have their wishes honoured by the state, is expanding the parameters for marriage the solution? Is that a solid foundation for a marital union whatever the sex of the couple?
- What should it matter to anyone is Adam wants to marry Steve? It doesn’t hurt anyone and anyone not wanting to extend the same rights given to heterosexual couples is just being discriminatory and haters just need to get over it. This argument does nothing to address the duty put upon others to endorse and actively participate in providing for same sex unions – a concern raised early and often by Christians.
- Anyone unwilling to endorse and provide services to same sex couples is showing the same level of unjust discrimination that the minorities and women have suffered in the past. This will be the subject of my next post.
- The slogan “love is love” became the dominant message which essentially maintained that there is no difference in the relationship between those of the same and different genders. The guiding consideration should be the love felt for one another and it is no less heartfelt for homosexual couples and therefore should warrant equal consideration. This final point requires further elaboration.
Defenders of SSM insisted that Christians were introducing a red herring by suggesting that expanding relationships beyond homosexual pairing was specious. Based, however, on their own premise of “love is love;” merely cracking open the marriage gate to include same sex couples is also exclusive. It rejects marriage between people and animals. It denies necrophiliacs from marrying a dead person. It excludes polygamous unions and marrying furniture (as one woman sought to marry a lamp). Also left out are siblings marrying one another, a parent marrying their child, or even the new craze – sologamy (marrying oneself).
While I understand that some want to accuse me of being demeaning toward homosexual couples by lumping them in with these other categories, this only serves to make my point. Even those espousing SSM have their limits on what they deem appropriate. Suggesting that these alternative arrangements are somehow lesser or denying the emotional attachment of those who experience attractions differently from them. To classify a relationship as inferior based on social acceptability puts the SSM argument on shaky ground.
Yes, I will deal with the argument of “consenting adults” which is frequently raised, but what does this standard rest upon. It remains an ideological position that undermines the argument from felt attraction. A dead body, lamp, animal or baby can’t consent, but neither can they refuse. Since the marriage union is no longer about children and procreation, then sexual activity need not enter into it. Furthermore, siblings could be old enough to give their consent or a teen or young adult could consent to marry their parent and depending on the sex could procreate. If anyone argues that the children would likely have a genetic problem, they this upsets the pro-abortion argument of the right to control one’s own body and would have the argument, “What business is it of yours” turned back on them.
Each of these arguments is insufficient to make the case for the inclusion of SSM because of the one consideration left out of each of these arguments: Namely, what is the purpose of marriage? Is marriage only intended to be a social contract? If so, why does it require the force of law to tell bakers, florists, photographers and other businesses to lend their services or risk being sued or closed down? Why then was the prospect of “civil unions” as a compromise rejected as it would allow the state to determine who can be legally paired without undermining the traditional male-female arrangement that existed until yesterday?
The underlying problem for the atheist is much more rudimentary and ties into the point I made at the beginning. Atheism, as I am persistently being told, has no core worldview as it is merely the assertion that one “lacks a belief in a god.” Given this, where does a societal duty to extend and impose marital duties on society come from? To argue that the cultural zeitgeist has shifted and the majority has come to believe that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are equivalent and deserve sanctioning through granting marriage rights, is hardly a basis for a social obligation. It is entirely subjective and a show of hands and/or social pressure is not a healthy basis for determining the weight of government to impose sanctions.
Some insist that the New Testament and Christ specifically does not have anything to say about homosexuality. While it is true that Christ did not directly speak of homosexuality, other NT writers did (1 Timothy 1:10, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Jude 1:7). Jesus did, however, say the following:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart… And it was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of infidelity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” – Matthew 5:27-32
What is clear from this passage is not only does Jesus set the parameters for marriage, but for sexual activity outside of marriage as well as his view of divorce (which shows how seriously he took marriage). All those who identify as Christians and violate these laws go against Christ’s teaching and are acting sinfully. He is the arbiter for all believers. For those who think this is too cryptic and doesn’t address homosexual marriage, we read this:
Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.’ “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” – Mark 10:2-12
For those who like to claim the Bible sometimes was ambiguous in its pronouns, there is no ambiguity here. Once again, I remind you that this is not about Christians forcing non-believers to adopt our view of marriage or sex, but to say that the parameters are clear for the Christ-follower and forcing us to act against Christ’s teaching is to deny our religious freedom.
Atheists ultimately know the biblical view of marriage as most admit that a Pastor should not be compelled to officiate a SSM as this would clearly violate the state’s obligation to not interfere with the church. This tells us that the position of the Christian (as shown in scripture) is not based on hatred toward the homosexual or the Pastor’s refusal would be a hate crime. To say that the Pastor need not participate, but to deny the same standard for th Christian business owner is to tell the congregant that only their leader has the right to follow the teachings that they too hold as sacred.
I will dig deeper into the right of businesses to “discriminate” in my next post.