Tuesday, January 17, 2012

The Same-Sex Marriage Debate: A Different, Hopefully, More Biblically-Grounded Approach

  • The argument for or against same-sex marriage really boils down to the Bible's stance vs. the selfish desire within mankind to do what he or she desires. the Bible expounds in much detail on the dying to one's self and pursuing a "Spirit-led" lifestyle. The debate cannot begin with homosexuality, but with the progressive heterosexual stance which has become the norm in America, a biblically founded nation. Pre-marital, extra-marital, & everything in between gives rise & promotion to the homosexual debate, because if the former lifestyles are acceptable outside of one man/one woman, why can homosexuals not have their choice? The First Amendment comes up because of God vs. self - or Christianity vs. Atheism. Let's first admit that the two stances are fundamentally incompatible and that self chooses to put man's desires over God's desires. Self only reasons away the solution, ignoring revelation altogether, becoming the standard in each person's life. It has nothing to do with verbal or physical persecution of any person or persons, but everything to do with a heart devoted to God or self. Here is my response and always open for discussion...

         Without getting too deep into heavier, philosophical matters, it is crucial to note that the debate for or against same-sex marriage really boils down to Christianity versus self. Self-desire is usually placed within the confines of the secular humanistic [or atheistic] thought. That being said, the atheist believes in reason only whereas the Christian believes in reason and revelation together. Any person who claims to be a Christian and support same-sex marriage is simply one who has allowed outside influences to mire the Gospel they claim to believe. There is indispensable knowledge pertaining to the Founders and what their desires were for this nation. Religion was a crucial aspect of this. However, as our post-modern society continues to drift further away from its Christian heritage, it becomes increasingly difficult to ascertain truth and morality. The real focus of the same-sex marriage debate is whether or not the “state” should have the final word and if those that control the state are to be regarded, by the people, as morally right.
         Historian Peter Marshall notes that an anti-Puritan phenomenon grew within the last one hundred years and that the Puritan way has largely been maligned into today’s history books. Contrary to what is more commonly known, the Puritans did not arrange marriages, but they could exercise a veto for their children if they felt the marriage was outside the will of God or if they simply felt the timing was too soon. However, they did request counsel from Christian brothers and sisters and as marriage was so important to the communities of the era, it was crucial for each member to recognize that they could not be entirely certain of God’s will, so they must all work together in unity (Marshall, 1977, p.221).
         To note so early a time in America’s history where a generation laid a strict code of conduct, in the area of marriage, is important in understanding that early Americans believed wholeheartedly in the Bible. By the time of the Founders, the same belief in the God of the Bible rings true. Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration states, “Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion whose morality is so sublime and pure… are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments” (Barton, 2008, p.326).
         In the case, Vidal v. Girard’s Executors [1844], a wealthy Frenchman, Stephen Girard, bequeathed a large estate in which he desired that a college would be built excluding clergy and any religious teaching, but it was to have the “purest principles of morality” (Barton, 2008, p. 62-63). However, the Supreme Court was unanimous in its decision to fulfill his wishes except that the law and Christianity were one. Their verdict in this case was that while clergy were prohibited, in accordance with his wishes, yet laymen were so instructed in that day, that Christian instruction would still be taught at the college.
         No one could exclude Christianity from education because they considered that repugnant. The system of morality that is understood in America is derived from the Bible. Whether or not all people in America believe in Jesus is not the debate, understanding this nation’s moral and religious heritage is crucial to defining any law. This brings the First Amendment to the forefront of the debate. The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The freedom of religion issue, from a biblical perspective, is now upon 21st century America. By leaving the door wide open for any and every religion, the case can be made that the Framers inadvertently made a woefully unbiblical error. Jesus himself said that no man comes to the Father but through him (John 14:6). So how can freedom of religion be biblically sound when the God of the Bible is so explicit in his statements? Christianity has begun to lose its relevance as its people are instructed in the classroom in accordance with secular humanism, another religion. In the Supreme Court case mentioned above, Justice Joseph Story stated, “It is unnecessary for us, however to consider… the establishment of a school or college for the propagation of Judaism or Deism or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country” (Barton, 2008, p.63).
         The Bible is very clear in Leviticus 18 that mankind was to adhere to one man and one woman when it comes to the institution of marriage. Israel was to lead by example because the other nations had committed incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. The God of the Bible was setting them apart. When one looks at the Old Testament’s historical lesson of the kings of Israel & Judah, God warned them that if they chose a king as other nations had, he would take their sons and daughters to do with as he willed (1 Samuel 8:7). The lust of the kings, David & Solomon, ultimately split the nation of Israel, which never recovered until 1948.
         The Book of Acts (15:20) instructs that the people are not to fornicate. Fornication is defined as sexual intercourse outside of marriage. However, if marriage is considered, in America, a biblical institution, then those advocating homosexual marriage are attempting to redefine the very meaning of the institution itself. Is such a thing permissible? To redefine an institution of any kind to fit one’s mold, let alone the definition to a word itself? It is a valid question.
          Bishop John Shelby Spong makes the claim that the Church should give its blessing to homosexual partnerships. He says that homosexual men and women have unique gifts to offer humanity and from a biblical perspective, he is right to some degree: “for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). However, willful sin accompanying each individual’s gifts and talents ignores the Spirit of God and the revelatory gifts such as conviction as well as transformation of the heart & mind. It is by reason only that this bishop goes on to say, “If my conclusions are valid…” (Sullivan, 2004, p.67, 69). As a member of the clergy, he biblically must adhere to God’s will regarding any issue, not succumbing to the “tolerant” point of view that secular humanism pretends to embrace. Nowhere in the Bible can he find evidence to support his claims.
          While Bishop Spong defines the legalities of the state and the church involved in marriage, he does not define the covenant of marriage, only the contract. The Bible is very intolerant on the marital issue, but Jesus still commands us to loves our brethren, even those steeped in hetero/homosexual lust. This does not mean, however, that Christians embrace biblically sinful issues as normal and lawful. We do not tolerate murder, bestiality, rape, or incest because of the biblical aspect of Americans' differing worldviews. Secular humanism is intolerant in its demanding that Christianity pull down its moral fences and replace it with secular humanism’s own morality. However, where did that morality originate?
          In Ravi Zacharias’ “Oxford in Asia” podcast, he says, “You can’t go on the basis of feeling. When you assume there is such a thing as evil, you assume there is such as thing as good. When you assume there is such a thing as good, you assume there is such a thing as a moral law on which you can differentiate between good and evil. When you posit a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver and that’s whom you’re trying to disprove and not prove, because if there’s no moral lawgiver, then there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, then there’s no good. If there’s no good, then there is no evil.” So secular humanism must provide a moral framework outside of the Bible in which they can provide answers for why the biblically based Christian is wrong in claiming that marriage is for one man and one woman only.
          One issue in American society, which has helped the homosexual debate, has been the co-habitation of heterosexual partners. In light of the biblical institution of marriage, a man and woman are to be married in accordance with 1 Corinthians 7. The Apostle Paul instructs that man is to not touch a woman, but to have a wife. However, in America, it has become so commonplace to embrace the co-habitation and extra- or pre-marital status of heterosexual couples. If one were to debate that issue in the public arena, they would very likely be laughed to scorn.
This makes the case for homosexual relationships. If it is okay to embrace one sexual lifestyle outside of the biblical mandate, then all lifestyles would eventually be embraced at some point, even pedophilia and bestiality. If there is no moral Lawgiver [God], then there is no one, from a secular humanistic point of view, who can claim that any act is immoral. Ravi Zacharias explains, in the same podcast, “Love is expressed in some cultures by loving their neighbors and in other cultures they eat them.” Who is to really say they are wrong?
         Another example of the breakdown of traditional marriage can be found in the cohabitation factor of heterosexual couples. Andrew Cherlin points out that there are four stages of cohabiting that gradually have made marriage a less “mandatory” aspect of societal norms. In Europe specifically, stage one is extreme and rare while stage two makes living together a test to decide on marriage as a future prospect. The last two stages move further still as number three makes it an acceptable alternative and four makes cohabitation nearly identical to marriage (Cherlin, 2004, p.849).
In a study by Sandra McGinnis, she says that cohabiters are statistically more likely to pursue marriage than those that are just dating (McGinnis, 2003, p.112). However, if there is no biblical standard for heterosexual couples and there is no covenant between God, husband, and wife, then really who is to judge whether divorce, remarriage, or homosexual relationships really matter at all? One could redefine the institution of family as we know it and then the degradation of the family unit really becomes a non-issue in and of itself.
         One can note that while watching certain programs on television, there are very handsome, well built, homosexual men who instruct married heterosexual couples on dressing well, redecorating their homes, and so on. Homosexual hairdressers are seen as fun, whimsical, and the life of the party. When one is constantly bombarded with visual media of any sort, it is no secret that people become numb to what they see, in terms of sex and violence. Is it not interesting that producers have decided to search out these people to host their new programs?
         Recently, this writer watched a homosexual documentary called “The Adonis Factor,” on the lifestyle itself, out in [mainly] California. One of the key focuses of the documentary was the constant pressure to be in top physical condition. One had to be seen in the best of clothes and in the closest knit of circles or risk being outcast and shunned by the rest of the homosexual community in those areas they filmed and interviewed in. One can make an assessment that there was much vanity and many of the men enjoyed the sexual pursuits rather than a monogamous relationship, but even the most celebrated men would come clean on the pressures to stay fit, the drug use, and the overall desire to just be needed and loved, which many of them did not feel they were getting in such a lifestyle (Hines, 2010). Everything about the documentary was about the freedom to please self. Which, technically, under the freedom of religion aspect of the Bill of Rights, is “legal” and would conflict with any sodomy laws given the option to choose secular humanism as their religion of choice.
         There are some basic factors to consider without continuing to hammer home the religious and ideological debate. If everyone on the planet married one person of the opposite sex and they stayed faithful to one another, could not every sexually transmitted disease be wiped out within one generation? Do children respond to a loving father and mother in one home, under one roof, better than any other domestic situation? Consider another factor: According to Richard Rogers, of the University of Colorado, “Those who are married consistently exhibit lower mortality than those who are not” (Rogers, 1995, p. 515, 516). He elaborates by pointing out that married [heterosexual] couples tend to focus on each other’s health while single people tend to take up more risky endeavors as well as live a less balanced lifestyle, in terms of drinking and eating habits.
         Right from the first chapter of the book, “Same-Sex Marriage: The Personal and the Political,” author Kathleen Lahey, has some statements that beg questioning. She attempts to promote the historical fact that yes; indeed, homosexual relationships have been common “since time immemorial” (Alderson, 2004, p.15). Leviticus 18:24 supports that statement. However, murder is chronicled as being done by the third person, Cain, mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 4:8). So from a secular humanistic point of view, there is no origin for morality in terms of murder either, so why does Kathleen Lahey not make a case for the issue of murder also since it cannot be substantiated as something immoral? People cannot pick & choose what they themselves define as right or wrong. There must be an absolute to which all of humanity can refer back to. Otherwise, one's pleasure may be at the expense of another's pain and there would be no justification for reprisal since the former could not be accused of having done anything immoral.
           Murder is defined by a biblical worldview. One might ask how one can equate homosexuality with murder. From within a biblical framework, all sin is sin worth repenting of and humanity is to be restored to the Creator. If the men mentioned in the documentary above are so desperate for true love and affection, should they not all have found it by now, indulging in any pleasure they chose? “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets [biblical morality], even the righteousness of God [moral Lawgiver] through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith” (Romans 3:21-25).
Lahey’s interpretation of marriage can be deemed false when she says that the nature of marriage has changed over thousands of years (Alderson, 2004, p.15). If that were true, then why do the majority of Americans understand marriage as being traditionally of biblical origin - dating back thousands of years? Kevin Alderson, in the same book, interviews homosexual couples to get an accurate grasp on their real-life perspectives. As with the couple, LaCroix & Keener, the focus of the homosexual couple is on societal concerns and equality issues, never recognizing a covenant relationship with God. One comment during their interview was this, “We don’t need organized religion to recognize us or a particular church for that matter” (Alderson, 2004, p.113). However, they still demand approval from the church and the state. Sexual preferences and lifestyles cannot be equated to race and gender issues in terms of equality. Also, if they do not need a faith and/or church to recognize their “marriage,” then why call it marriage at all? One cannot simply change the meaning of a word, but in today’s post-modern worldview that Western Civilization has been brought up in, there really is nothing else for couples like LaCroix & Keener to grab hold of.
         When one sees the benefits of a biblically founded marriage and how the government recognizes such an institution, how is it fair for those in heterosexual marriages to see their beloved institution being torn apart by those who do not believe in their way of life? Why is the Christian the one deemed intolerant in this case when such a breakdown is happening through the machinations of non-Christians?
         Taking an objective look at the First Amendment, it is very clear that the Founders were focused on the Christian religion when the Bill of Rights was established. George Mason, a member of the Constitutional Convention and considered to be the Father of the Bill of Rights, stated, “All men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others” (Barton, 2008, p. 29).
         However, “religion” is itself, a broad term and because of it, America finds itself in the predicament it is in today. When the state [or government] has wrested away from the people every educational & lawful avenue that produces biblical fruit, all that is left is a secular humanistic agenda. The only fruit it can produce is the complete opposite of everything found to be morally right in the Bible. The real focus of the same-sex marriage debate is whether or not the “state” should have the final word and if those that control the state are to be regarded, by the people, as morally right.
So if the “state” has the final word from a reasoned perspective, then yes, homosexuality will become a norm within America and legally so, from the secular humanistic ideology & religious point of view, believing it is morally right. However, if God has the final word, from a people understanding revelation as well as reason, will America repent of its heterosexual and homosexual lusts and stay true to its biblical roots? This country is not a Christian nation because everyone here believes in Jesus, but because of the spiritual foundation upon which it was built. As President John Adams once stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (Barton, 2008, p.188).

References

Alderson, K. & Lahey, K. (2004). Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political. London, ON, CAN: Insomniac Press.
Barton, D. (2008). Original intent: the courts, the constitution, and religion. 5th Edition. Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press.
Cherlin, A.J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(4), 848-861.
Hines, C. (Director). (2010). The Adonis Factor. [Documentary]. United States: Break Glass Pictures.
Marshall, P.J. & Manuel, D.B. (1977). The light and the glory: 1492-1793. 2nd Edition. Revell Publishing.
McGinnis, S.L. (2003). Cohabitating, Dating, and Perceived Costs of Marriage: A Model of Marriage Entry. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65(1), 105-116.
Rogers, R.G. (1995). Marriage, Sex, and Mortality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 515-526.
Sullivan, A. (May 2004). Same-sex marriage: pro and con. Westminster, MD: Knopf Publishing Group.

No comments:

Post a Comment

...On the Other Side of the Fence

Dirk Benson   had a thing for Latinas. Always had. Ever since he’d worked his grandfather’s farm and the hired hands would have their famili...