Recently a site entitled "You Can't Hide Your Hate" was posted in response to the passing of Proposition 8 in the state of California. It contains fliers for various cities listing the names of contributors to the "Yes on 8" campaign and the amount of money they donated. The idea behind this site is to "out" those who voted "Yes" and supported the "Yes on 8" campaign through financial donations. The contributors to the site justify its existence by stating, "If Californians are proud of their elimination of marriage and attack on civil rights, than they should find no objection to their neighbors, co-workers, and friends knowing what they are hiding." This statement, and the site in general, serve as an excellent example in displaying what is wrong with the mentality of same-sex marriage proponents.
Before I look at some of the problems with this particular site, let me make just a few brief general comments about the nature of the same-sex marriage debate:
First, upholding natural marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the elimination of marriage as asserted in the statement above. Marriage is not being eliminated. It is being restricted to its natural definition. No society has defined marriage. Rather, all societies have recognized natural marriage since the beginning of human history and each is built upon this fundamental institution. Marriage and families must exist before societies can exist, hence, the definition of marriage could not have been formulated by society itself. Therefore, society has no right to redefine marriage as it sees fit. This brings us to our second point.
Second, the same-sex marriage debate has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights, especially here in California due to California Family Code 297.5. Same-sex couples are afforded the same rights, benefits, and protections under California law. It's just not called "marriage." And that brings us to what this debate is really about. This is not about civil rights. It is about a piece of paper called a "Marriage Certificate" which the gay community desperately wants in order to have their lifestyle legitimized and validated in the eyes of the government and society. It is about redefining marriage. But no one person or society has the right to redefine this institution based on their own personal desires. Same-sex relationships will never be equal to monogamous, long-term, committed, heterosexual relationships, no matter how hard one might try to make them. Simply redefining the word "marriage" to include your relationship doesn't make it a marriage. Marriage is something in particular. And it cannot be redefined to include unnatural relationships any more than one can redefine the nature of a carburetor to include a water pump and expect the two to function equally for the same task.
Third, even without this California Family Code, same-sex couples would still have equal rights. There is NO unequal protection under the law. The same definition of marriage applies to all, regardless of your sexual preference. Homosexuals CAN get married. They just can't marry someone of the same sex. And neither can a heterosexual. The same law applies to all equally. This point seems to be completely missed by same-sex marriage advocates.
Finally, I see no good reason as to why our government should place same-sex marriage on equal ground with natural marriage. The government has no vested interest in same-sex couples because same-sex couples can never procreate. This point alone shows why same-sex relationships can never be on equal footing with heterosexual relationships. It is natural marriage that produces the next generation and it is natural marriage that has been shown to be the best environment for raising children. And it is for this reason that the government supports natural marriage. No government or society can continue to function without a younger generation to take the reigns once the older generation passes on. To see the importance of this point one needs only to ponder the following questions put forth by Frank Turek: "What would be the effect on society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? It would result in a dramatic reduction in crime, welfare, abortion, and child abuse. On the other hand, what would be the effects on society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? It would be the end of society and the human race itself. While universal homosexuality, of course, would not occur, the two questions should help us realize that the two types of relationships can never be equated because they are not equally beneficial." I highly recommend Turek's e-book which you can purchase here.
Next, let's look at some of the problems with this site in particular:
First, given the title of this site, I hardly need to mention the inherent assumption that voters in support of Proposition 8 are hateful. This is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy. You know it's an interesting thing, those ad hominems. You can always tell how intellectually sound and well grounded your opponent is in their position by how quickly they resort to ad hominem fallacies. Someone who feels the necessity to resort to name calling right away probably doesn't have a lot of good arguments to support their position. And given the very name of this site and how quickly they play the hate card, I wouldn't hold your breath in anticipation of hearing sound logic or reasoning. In fact, conspicuously absent from this site is any argumentation, logic, or reasoning as to why our society should accept the legitimacy of same-sex marriage in the first place. Lest you be taken in by the standard assertions put forth by same-sex marriage propenents, read this. My vote was not made out of hate for homosexuals. Rather it was made out of respect for the sacred institution of marriage.
Second, by accusing their opponents of hate, gay activists are presupposing an objective moral law. In other words, proponents of same-sex marriage think it is wrong to hate. But where do they get their standard of right and wrong? Why is it that they appeal to the natural moral law in order to say that hate is wrong and yet they reject this same natural moral law when it says that homosexual behavior is wrong? It is easy invoke morality when it conveniently defends our position. But it is intellectually dishonest and inconsistent to selectively pick and choose which aspects of the moral law we want to believe and apply to our lives.
Third, on the very first page of the site, at the very top, it states, "We do NOT advocate blacklisting or boycotts, only informed decision making and awareness." However, as you scroll down to the right, you read this: "Share your story! Did this blog help you learn about your neighbors? Open a dialogue? Start a boycott? Tell us!" The obvious inconsistency in these two statements makes me wonder how the writer authored such blatantly contradictory comments. He says the site does not advocate boycotts and yet he wants you to share your story publicly if this site helped you start a boycott. Unfortunately, as in the point above, this type of inconsistency is common place among proponents of same-sex marriage and goes to show the true motivation behind a site of this type.
Fourth, another statement on the site says, "These lists provide us with a starting point so that [sic] know who is against us and we can begin the dialogue." Begin a dialogue? Is that what this is really about? I admit I have to adopt a hermeneutic of suspicion on this one. It is hard to get a dialogue going when your opponent begins with the assumption that your motivation is one of hate. Furthermore, in order to have any type of meaningful dialogue it is important both parties understand the issue at hand. And as long as same-sex marriage proponents continue to assert that this debate has anything to do with equal rights, meaningful dialogue will allude them. This is about redefining marriage. Nothing more.
Finally, and very ironically, this site does the very thing it claims it is attempting to uncover. It seems the contributors of this site are hiding their own hate and intolerance through a "You Can't Hide Your Hate" campaign. Rather than start a blog site which encourages intellectually honest debate, the contributors attempt to demonize their opponents by labeling them as hateful, preventing meaningful discourse from ever taking place. Recent news coverage of protests by gay activists in California has shown just how vehement and hateful some "No on 8" supporters really are. One Christian group in San Francisco was assaulted and needed to be escorted to safety by police, which you can read about here. Much of the hate from the "No on 8" campaign stems from a misunderstanding of the issues and a faulty view of tolerance. I highly recommend Greg Koukl's material on this subject which you can read here and purchase here.
In closing, I think Christians need to remember at least two points:
First, we should not be surprised by the hate that has been directed towards Christians after the passing of Proposition 8. Jesus said, "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you" (John 15:18-19). The Apostle Paul said, "Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (1 Timothy 3:12). While hate and persecution may come, we have a moral obligation and Christian duty to stand up for the truth of God's Word. But we need to so out of love. This brings us to our second point.
Second, we are called to love all people with the love of Christ, including those who may hate and persecute us. Jesus said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44). Individuals struggling with same-sex attractions are valuable human beings created in the image of God. But it does not follow from this that homosexual behavior is right or good. We need to love and pray for those within the gay community, continually calling them to repentance and offering healing in hopes that they may place their trust in Christ and receive the gift of eternal life.
For Further Study:
Legislating Morality, by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Marriage On Trial, by Glenn Stanton and Bill Maier
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, by Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl
The Truth about Tolerance, by Brad Stetson and Joseph Conti
Visit the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality at www.narth.com
5 comments:
As a gay person, my partner and I are committed to the social responsibility of love. We've adopted two children and will raise them to contribute to the next generation of society as loving, tolerant citizens. Unlike you!
Awesome post! I am going to link this to others! Good job!
Aaron thanks for the excellent article. I was especially pleased to see your point on the ad hominem fallacy. The gay-marriage proponents’ principal strategy is to label traditional marriage advocates as intolerant hate-mongers. Under this restrictive view a citizen who exercises his first amendment right to reject gay marriage by the democratic process will receive this disparaging label. However, the gay-marriage proponents find it completely permissible to raid churches during services or harass anyone who does not vote in their favor. This is based on a warped sense of entitlement to the institution of marriage.
The pro gay-marriage strategy has placed the average American in the difficult situation of choosing to be tolerant or intolerant. In the past several decades American society has been conditioned to be tolerant of everything including sexual orientation. Using tolerance as an anchor has permitted the gay movement to place gay-marriage into realm of civil rights; hence their assertion that gay marriage is a civil right. Americans are extremely sensitive to the concept of civil rights because it is engrained into the fabric of our society. This leaves traditional marriage proponents in the position of proving that gay-marriage is not a civil right, especially since the phrase sexual orientation has been repeatedly categorized with righteously protected classes such as race. Unfortunately, an examination of what constitutes a civil right will fall into the hands of the judiciary which is clearly sympathetic to the gay-marriage movement.
Aaron, ultimately I agree with your bible verse selection (John 15:18-19). This world is becoming increasingly hostile to anything which based on the word of God.
D.A.,
Thank you for commenting. There are several things I would like to say in reply.
First, if you and your partner are truly committed to the social responsibility of love then you should be concerned with what is true, good, and beautiful. You should be seeking what is good and right for you, your partner, society, and children. But this would mean supporting natural marriage. No other relationship in any culture provides individuals or societies with the benefits that natural marriage provides. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, has not been shown to provide any benefit to culture. Our society would continue to function just fine if there was no such thing as same-sex marriage or civil unions. In addition, love means looking out for the best interests of those you love. But there is nothing loving in the endorsement and practice of inherently destructive sexual behavior. If you are really concerned with love you would be looking out for the best interests of you, your partner, society, and children. This brings us to our second point.
Second, every child needs a mother and a father. I'm not sure what could be more obvious than that. Every person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has a mother and a father and it takes the two of them to bring a child into this world for a REASON. This is not arbitrary. It is in accordance with the natural order. Mothers and fathers are different and each contribute something unique to child rearing and parenting. To say that moms and dads can be interchanged at will is to deny the inherent differences between men and women which in turn dehumanizes the both of them. There are plenty of studies showing children do best when raised by both biological parents. Two same-sex parents are simply ill equipped. How can two women teach a little boy how to be a man? How can two men teach a little girl how to be a lady? Same-sex marriage proponents want to subject children to a giant social experiment, denying EVERY child with same-sex parents either a mother or a father.
Third, if you really value tolerance, why don't you tolerate my position? Tolerance is not a one-way street. While advocates of same-sex marriage cry "tolerance" they fail to tolerate anyone who disagrees with them! But the word tolerance IMPLIES disagreement. Otherwise, there would be nothing to tolerate! In effect, homosexual activists display their own intolerance by not tolerating those who disagree. By the way, in asking for tolerance, homosexual activists are implicitly admitting there is something wrong with their behavior. After all, nobody ever had to "tolerate" good behavior.
Finally, you are not merely asking for tolerance. You are asking the government to endorse and validate your relationship and behavior. The burden of proof is on you to make a legal and moral case as to why the government and society should legitimize same-sex relationships by placing them on equal legal and moral ground as natural marriage.
Aaron & David,
Thanks for the excellent information & resources so I may better defend my beliefs. It is unfortunate I must use the word defend, anyway I strive to state my position on an issue as intelligently as I can.
Post a Comment