So Gay Marriage Biblically Offends You? A Response to Whitney Kay Bacon, Part 1

In the weeks following the SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” across all 50 states of the U.S., a host of articles, blogs, and other media have been circulating the internet both defending and critiquing the judicial fiat which redefined marriage. Within the Christian community, the issue of whether or not homosexual behavior is consistent with biblical teaching has once again become a hot topic of conversation, though in recent years it has never been too far from the forefront. Indeed, American churches have been split over this issue and the Supreme Court decision promises to ensure this matter is not going to go away any time soon.

Amongst the flurry of articles and blogs addressing this topic, of most interest to me have been those which attempt to defend the compatibility of homosexual behavior with Biblical teaching. This should be of interest to all Christians considering that for nearly 2,000 years the historical and consistent position of the Church has been that homosexual behavior is sinful and prohibited by Scripture. And prior to Christianity, this was also the historical position of the Jewish people which they based on the teachings of the Old Testament.

There is a reason of course that both Jews and Christians have been in agreement on this point, and it is not because of bigotry, intolerance, or hatred. It is because the univocal teaching of Scripture on homosexuality leads to this conclusion, and one must try very hard to deny or twist numerous verses addressing this topic in order to avoid their force. Unfortunately this is exactly what you see within the “gay Christian” movement. Given the clear teaching of Scripture and the historic position of the Church, I was shocked and dismayed to see the number of self-professing Christians who supported and celebrated this landmark decision of the Court.

Same-Sex Marriage: Equal Rights, Religion, and Bigotry

When it comes to controversial moral debates like same-sex marriage, trite sayings such as this one on the left are echoed quite often in a culture where the make-up man has become more important than the speech writer. It’s short, it’s rhetorically powerful, and it can be repeated, tweeted, and regurgitated faster than you can say “Anti-disestablishmentarianism.” Using only eighteen words, it gets the intended job done.

But often the truth of the matter takes a bit longer to unpack than can be offered in a thirty-second sound bite. A false assertion can be uttered in seconds, while offering a well thought out response which exposes the problem or mistaken assumption requires clear thinking, patience, energy, and time, virtues and luxuries many people either can’t afford or don’t want to.

The issue of same-sex marriage is a hot topic that is not going away anytime soon. Christian apologists need to be persistent in clarifying the issues, especially in the face of saucy slogans such as this.

So what’s wrong with this oft-repeated cliché?

Same-Sex Marriage: Anne Hathaway, Reason, and Rhetoric

Popular actress Anne Hathaway, who recently starred as Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises, received an award in 2008 from the Human Rights Campaign, an organization dedicated to the rights of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community. In her acceptance speech, Hathaway explained why she supports homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Read carefully the reasons she offers:

“In my household, being gay was, and is, no big deal. When my brother came out, we hugged him, said we loved him, and that was that…Just for the record, we don’t feel that there is actually anything alternative about our family values…I don’t consider myself just an ally to the LGBT community, I consider myself your family…if anyone, ever, tries to hurt you, I’m going to give them hell…There are people who have said that I’m being brave for being openly supportive of gay marriage, gay adoption, basically of gay rights. But with all due respect I humbly dissent. I’m not being brave. I’m being a decent human being. And I don’t think I should receive an award for that, or for merely stating what I believe to be true, that love is a human experience, not a political statement. However, I acknowledge that sadly we live in a world where not everybody feels the same. My family and I will help the good fight continue until that long awaited moment arrives, when our rights are equal and when the political limits on love have been smashed.”

Same-Sex Marriage

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

Either there’s a natural teleology to marriage or there’s not

Who are you to say?”  That challenge works both ways.  First, if my disapproval isn’t legitimate, then why is my approval legitimate?  If I don’t have the right to judge something wrong (“Who are you to say?”), I certainly don’t have the right to judge it right (“Who am I to say?”).  Second, why is it that I can’t make a moral judgment here, but apparently you can?

The appeal for a change in marriage laws is an attempt to change the moral consensus about homosexuality.

You invite me to make a moral judgment, then you challenge my right to make a judgment when I don’t give the answer you want.  Who am I to judge? You asked for the peoples’ moral opinion by asking for the people to vote on an initiative giving homosexual unions equal status with heterosexual unions.

Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry?  Because it’s “fair.”  In what sense is the present situation unfair?  Because homosexual relationships don’t get legal/social recognition equal with heterosexual relationships.  You’re right, they don’t, but why is that unfair?  Because those relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships?  But that’s the very thing under dispute.

If there is no natural teleology to marriage and families, then the definition of marriage is simply a matter of convention.  We can define it how we want.  Now, I don’t accept that view, but even if I did, this doesn’t help homosexual marriage.  Society has voted, and they’ve voted it out.  On what grounds do you appeal for a change?  Moral grounds?  You’ve surrendered that opportunity when you claim that there is no right or wrong definition of marriage.  If so, I have no moral obligation to opt for one view over another.   If marriage is merely defined by society, well then, we voted and defined it as one man and one woman.  You asked for a social consensus, you got it. 

Second, if marriage is merely what we define it then what keeps us from expanding the definition of marriage beyond the inclusion of homosexuality to other kinds of relationships?  Can I marry my daughter, or another man and his wife?  Can two men marry the same woman simultaneously?  Believe me, these aren’t outlandish examples.  There are already groups moving for further redefinition if that’s all marriage is.  There is no limit to how marriage might be defined in this view.

The only way a claim of injustice or unfairness can stick is if we have a moral obligation to view all sexual or emotional combinations as equal.  But that depends on an objective standard, and that is a concept already jettisoned when society is asked to define marriage as they wish.  If there’s a moral standard of fairness to appeal to, then there’s a moral standard for marriage to appeal to, as well.

Same-Sex "Marriage" Loses Support

(Onenewsnow.com) Charlie Butts

A recent poll indicates that Americans are not as supportive of homosexual "marriage" as they once were.

A CBS-New York Times survey shows that support for redefining marriage to include same-gender couples has declined. Jenny Tyree of Focus on the Family Action tells OneNewsNow that, according to The New York Times, the figure dropped slightly -- but she believes nine percentage points is more than slightly.

"I think that this really digs into what Americans really feel about marriage -- that they like that [marriage is] defined between a man and a woman," she contends. "And also it's a bit of a backlash against the five states whose legislative bodies have redefined marriage very recently within the last several months."

Part of the drop may also relate to the continuing battle to defeat California's Proposition 8, she says, in which voters defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

"I think Americans really saw the intolerance that occurred after the Proposition 8 vote back in November," she recalls. "They saw that many who want to redefine marriage were not happy with really what the people decide, and what the people decided in California was to continue to define marriage the way it has been defined."

After the election, several lawsuits were filed to try to overturn the voters' decision. Another federal lawsuit challenging it was filed just last week. Tyree believes the poll also sends a strong message to the White House, which has stated as a goal to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Same-sex Rhetoric & Miss America

(www.str.org) Greg Koukl

Rhetoric is winning the day.

Lately when I hear public crossfire-type discussions on the issue of same-sex marriage—discussions that have filled the airwaves since the unfortunate incident at the Miss America pageant—traditional marriage wins on the merits, but the other side wins the rhetoric game.

It’s time we stop letting others frame the debate in terms of “tolerance,” “fairness,” “equality,” and “compassion,” in a way that pushes us into defense mode trying to neutralize the loaded language, but never really gaining any ground for our side.

The fact is, decent Americans are the ones being bullied here, citizens who are people of conscience, overflowing with tolerance in the classic sense, but are being pushed around and oppressed because they disagree with the extreme views of the minority. Instead of making the case for traditional marriage, maybe we should also point out what's really going on behind the rhetoric that appeals to fairness and equality.

Let me tell you what’s really going on here.

Good people with honest differences with the Homosexual agenda are being bullied.

First, Americans are incredibly tolerant of homosexuality, especially considering the moral concerns lots of folks have with it. Same-sex couples have been getting married for years in private ceremonies. No one interferes, and no one should.

Americans are happy to give equal rights, and that is done virtually everywhere. However, they do not want their arms twisted into approving something they do not think is good for America or for families. That’s the real issue.

Think about it: The government represents the people. When the government steps in and gives its approval, it’s like the people are giving their approval. With a marriage license for same-sex couples, it’s the same as the people saying that same-sex relationships are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships.

Some of those people do think that, but the vast majority of Americans do not—witnessed by the dozens of state referendums—and should not be forced to act like they do.

Miss California was bullied, and good, tolerant, compassionate Americans are being bullied, too. Decent people around the country do not want that.

Decent Americans who step out of line with political correctness are being punished simply for dissenting.

And they also don’t want to be punished for their views. Miss California was clearly manipulated by a homosexual judge for his own political purposes.

Increasingly, homosexual rights extremists are repressing dissent and oppressing those who disagree with them. More and more often, good people are being punished because they hold a different point of view—punished through name calling, punished through harassment, punished through public humiliation and intimidation (like Miss California after the pageant), punished through lawsuits, and even sometimes punished through the loss of their jobs (after Prop 8 passed in CA, for example).

Same-sex marriage is a strong-arm attempt of a minority to force public approval of homosexuality from a majority who doesn’t approve.

A marriage license does not confer any significant liberties that same-sex couples do not already have. Instead, it is meant to give them what they’ve been demanding for a long time—complete, unqualified, unconditional, and undiminished, social approval.

This is not about equal rights. It’s about public validation and social acceptance. It’s about one group who has a minority view trying to use the law to force their views on other people who don’t agree with them. If people want to celebrate same-sex unions, fine. That’s their business. Let them do that in private ceremonies, even religious ones if they can arrange them. But the government shouldn’t get involved. That basically gives broad cultural affirmation by government decree.

The insistence for same-sex marriage is about a radical attempt to alter the foundational institution of civilization by using government muscle to strong-arm the decent Americans into affirming a lifestyle and set of behaviors they does not, by and large, approve of, but are willing to tolerate as long as it is not forced on them.

The challenges, on balance, are empty and manipulative.

As to the charge, “That’s discrimination!,” I only note that it’s the same discrimination we make against polygamy. The people are not going to endorse polygamy because they think it’s wrong, just as they think same-sex marriage is wrong. Every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for polygamy—and polyandry (multiple husbands), and polyamory (group marriage), etc. (get creative). If not one, why not the other?

Same-sex marriage advocates must support polygamy, given their logic. If they say, “That’s ridiculous,” I say, “You’re right. It is ridiculous. That’s my point. Ridiculous conclusions follow from the reasoning same-sex marriage advocates present.”

This is not about redefining marriage. This is about redefining civilization.

Rick Warren Disavows Support for Prop. 8

(Onenewsnow.com) Jim Brown

California mega-church pastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren says he apologized to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of California's Proposition 8, and now claims he "never once even gave an endorsement" of the marriage amendment.

Monday night on CNN's Larry King Live, Pastor Rick Warren apologized for his support of Prop. 8, California's voter-approved marriage protection amendment, saying he has "never been and never will be" an "anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist."

"During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going," Warren claimed.

However, just two weeks before the November 4 Prop. 8 vote, Pastor Warren issued a clear endorsement of the marriage amendment while speaking to church members. "We support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8," he said.

The following is a complete transcript of Warren's comments just weeks before the Prop. 8 election:

"The election's coming just in a couple of weeks, and I hope you're praying about your vote. One of the propositions, of course, that I want to mention is Proposition 8, which is the proposition that had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. And a court of four guys actually voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years.

"Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.

"This is one thing, friends, that all politicians tend to agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain, I flat-out asked both of them: what is your definition of marriage? And they both said the same thing -- it is the traditional, historic, universal definition of marriage: one man and one woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion for 5,000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman.

"Now here's an interesting thing. There are about two percent of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.

"This is not even just a Christian issue -- it's a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.

"So I urge you to support Proposition 8, and pass that word on. I'm going to be sending out a note to pastors on what I believe about this. But everybody knows what I believe about it. They heard me at the Civil Forum when I asked both Obama and McCain on their views."

During his CNN interview on Monday, Warren expressed regret for backing Prop. 8. "There were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them. That never got out," he admitted.

Additionally, Pastor Warren said he did not want to comment on or criticize the Iowa Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize same-sex "marriage" because it was "not his agenda."

Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance says Warren is abdicating his biblical role as a pastor. "For Pastor Warren to say that shoring up marriage is not something that's on his agenda is just something that's hard to believe for somebody who believes the Bible is our rule for faith and practice," Fischer notes.

Dr. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in the San Diego suburb of La Mesa, helped spearhead the Prop. 8 effort in California. Garlow admits he is confused and troubled by Pastor Warren's decision to apologize for supporting Prop. 8.

"Historically when institutions and individuals back away from convictional biblical truth, it is driven primarily by one single factor -- and that is the respectability of other people. In other words, much more caring about what other people think about them than what God thinks about them," he concludes.

Pastor Warren did not respond to a request from OneNewsNow for an interview.

Myths Die Hard in Hollywood

In case you missed the Oscars last week (I did), Sean Penn won the Oscar for Best Actor for his role in "Milk," a film depicting the life of gay rights advocate Harvey Milk.

In his acceptance speech Sean Penn said the following:

I think it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.

You can watch a video clip of it here:



Frank Schubert, Campaign Manager of ProtectMarriage.com, made the following observations about the Oscars:

...viewers weren’t two categories into the awards show when a gay screen writer bashed the Mormon Church, as much as said that supporters of Prop 8 are hateful bigots and promised that, soon, gays would have the right to marry. He even promised that the Obama Administration would make sure gays could marry “federally.” That brought a big round of applause.

It is perhaps not surprising that Hollywood liberals would use their “awards” show to campaign in favor of gay marriage. After all, many of these same liberals donated or raised millions of dollars to attempt to defeat Proposition 8.

What is perhaps surprising is their brazen attempt to influence public opinion against traditional marriage by manipulating people into thinking that this is a “human rights” issue, or a “civil rights” issue, or even an “equal rights” issue. What they don’t tell people is that gay couples in domestic partnerships in California already have equal rights! Gay domestic partners in California enjoy the same legal rights as married spouses.

Frank Schubert is right. Myths die hard in Hollywood. This particular myth which is so prevalent is the myth of "equal rights." This is the myth that says the issue of same-sex marriage is about equal rights and that homosexuals are being discriminated against. Nothing could be further from the truth. I addressed this issue a few months ago in two different blogs: the first part is here and the second part here. The two main related points were as follows:

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.

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.

These two observations alone completely destroy the myth of "equal rights." I have yet to hear any proponent of same-sex marriage adequately address these points. Yet the "equal rights" myth is continually perpetrated by agenda-driven individuals, organizations, and Hollywood, in an attempt to indoctrinate the naive and vilify critics. It is understandable why supporters of same-sex marriage want to make this an issue of "equal rights." The public is much more likely to be sympathetic toward the cause if they feel there is unfair treatment. Frank Schubert notes:

Liberal Hollywood activists like Sean Penn know a thing or two about reaching audiences. They make millions – tens of millions – learning how to connect with an audience. One audience they no doubt hoped to influence on Sunday night was the California Supreme Court, which is hearing challenges to invalidate Prop 8 in just ten days. Another audience probably watched the show from the upstairs of the White House in Washington. Still another audience is made up of voters here in California, enough of the 7 million of whom they hope to shame into repudiating their votes cast in favor of traditional marriage the next time the issue is on the ballot. Traditional marriage has served society well, and there are many sound reasons why people support one man, one woman marriage – including continuing the best institution to give children both a mother and a father. Prop 8 wasn’t an attack on gay couples, it was an affirmation of traditional marriage – but you didn’t hear that at the Academy Awards.

Again, Frank Schubert is right. Notice how Hollywood attempts to win the debate. Hollywood doesn't say, "We believe so strongly that supporting same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior is the morally superior and intellectually defensible position that we are going to sponsor 100 national debates in an attempt to persuade the public through sound reasoning and argumentation." No, instead, Hollywood spends millions of dollars creating sitcoms and movies which constantly portray homosexual characters and the homosexual lifestyle in a positive light. Think of shows like Will and Grace, The L Word, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and Boy Meets Boy. After our celebrity-obsessed society has watched these programs for several years they have formed emotional attachments and bonds with the characters. They begin to associate the homosexual lifestyle with the easy-going, fun-loving homosexual character portrayed on their television.

In other words, I have noticed that people often reach a moral conclusion regarding homosexual behavior based on how they perceive the individual practicing that lifestyle. If the individual is a decent, hard-working, "nice" person, these positive caricatures are often carried over and applied to homosexuality itself. Never mind the facts or inherent dangers associated with the lifestyle. Our culture has essentially been indoctrinated through slick rhetoric. And when you combine this type of emotion-filled rhetoric with the prevalent philosophy of moral relativism (which says there are no moral absolutes that apply to all people, in all places, at all times) you have a recipe for disaster. This was no more evident then in my discussions with supporters of same-sex marriage this last election year. I asked one relative why she supports same-sex marriage. Her response: "I have friends who are gay." The implication was that having gay friends somehow morally justifies the homosexual lifestyle and warrants the redefinition of marriage. This is the kind of sloppy thinking that results when you give up reason and morality for rhetoric and relativism.

Conclusion: Whenever someone says that same-sex marriage is about "equal rights" you can be sure of one thing: that person has no idea what this issue is really about. Furthermore, we need to be aware of how Hollywood portrays this debate in an attempt to persuade our society, especially younger generations. Ironically, for all his talk about "shame," it is actually Sean Penn who should be ashamed. Shame on you Mr. Penn. Shame on you for misleading the public and continuing in willful ignorance regarding what this debate is really about.

LET'S GO GET THEM BIGOTS!

Apparently sites such as "You Can't Hide Your Hate" don't go far enough in listing the names of donors to the "Yes on 8" campaign in California. Now there is a website showing exactly where these donors live! The site is simply called "Prop 8 Maps" and states, "Proposition 8 changed the California state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. These are the people who donated in order to pass it."

Mark Hemingway of The Corner writes "Here's a handy map Prop 8 opponents have put together showing you where donors to prop 8 live. You have to love the "Jump to San Francisco, Salt Lake City , or Orange County" feature. If someone put together a map showing where all the gay people in the neighborhood live that would properly be called an implicit threat, but this is altogether different, right?"

Proponents of same-sex marriage such as Raphael have not been afraid to post blogs openly endorsing this site, though he has been less enthusiastic about engaging in any type of meaningful debate. Raphael does say, "Now, PLEASE!!!!! Harassing donors is NOT going to achieve anything. Treat people with respect. And fight the bigotry, not the bigot." But it is hard for me to take this comment seriously. How could a website such as this be used to "fight the bigotry, not the bigot?" As Mark comments above, imagine if someone were to put a map together showing where all the gay people in the neighborhood live. To make the example analogous, suppose there was a disclaimer on the map which read, "Hate the homosexuality, not the homosexual." No one would view that map as a moral crusade against homosexuality but rather as a threat against homosexuals themselves. And so it is with this website. As I have noted before, this may just be one more example of Prop 8 opponents attempting to hide their own hate and intolerance for those who disagree with them.

Melinda Penner has rightly noted that this website is an abuse of freedom. Freedom is not the right to do whatever one chooses to do. Freedom is the right to do what one ought to do. And a person ought not to do this. This is especially true given the harassment and violence already sufferred by some Proposition 8 supporters.

You Can't Hide Your Hate...Or Can You?? Part 2

Earlier this month I responded to a blog site which was posted after the passing of Proposition 8 in the state of California. The blog is entitled "You Can't Hide Your Hate" and lists the names of those who contributed financially to the "Yes on 8" campaign. If you have not read my response you can do so by clicking here and scrolling down. After posting my arguments I contacted the author of the "You Can't Hide Your Hate" site and let him know where he could read them. Raphael, the site's contributor, responded as follows:

"Thanks for sharing, Aaron.I don't really think your arguments make any sense, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves. I'm not going to get into a point-by-point discussion about it, because we have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes "hate". In my view, support for Prop 8 is an act of hatred--and you clearly disagree. I don't think we'll be persuading each other on this issue."

Needless to say, I was very disappointed with this response. Attempting to dialogue on the issue of same-sex marriage can often end in frustration, perhaps because this is such an emotional issue and many individuals on both sides of the debate have not reflected long enough on the issues and arguments. However, I would contend that the most common arguments put forth in the public square to support same-sex marriage are intellectually unsound. Despite Raphael's comments above, I would like to respond to what he said:

"Thanks for sharing, Aaron. I don't really think your arguments make any sense, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves."

Raphael, I have had quite a few people read my previous post and so far you seem to be the only one who has thought my arguments do not make sense. I am assuming you read my entire post, so to simply say that my arguments don't "make any sense" does not make sense to me! I think it is important to read material that argues against our personal point of view, wouldn't you agree? Just to recap, the points I made in my previous post were as follows:

1. My first point showed that your assertion "Proposition 8 eliminates marriage rights" is false. Proposition 8 does no such thing. It upholds the natural definition of marriage which homosexuals are completely free to participate in if they so choose.
2. My second and third points showed that same-sex couples in California already have equal rights, especially under California Family Code 297.5. It's just not called "marriage." Even without the family code there is no unequal protection under the law. These two points alone completely undermine your entire position, so your lack of response here is glaring.
3. My fourth point showed that the government has no vested interest or good reason to elevate same-sex marriage to the level of natural marriage because the two relationships will never be equal: same-sex couples cannot procreate.
4. My fifth point specifically addressed your website and the fact that you are engaging in an ad hominem fallacy by assuming supporters of Proposition 8 are "hateful." Absent from your site is any argumentation, logic, or reasoning to support your position.
5. My sixth point brought out your assumption of the natural moral law when you say that "hate" is wrong. I would like to know where you derive your sense of right and wrong and why you are not applying the natural moral law to homosexual behavior.
6. My seventh point demonstrated the inconsistency on your site regarding boycotts. You say you do not advocate boycotts but then you encourage your readers to tell you if they were able to start a boycott. This seems blatantly contradictory.
7. My eighth point questioned whether your motivation was really to start a dialogue. And to be honest Raphael, from your response it seems my initial assumption was correct. You are not really interested in starting a dialogue because that is what I am attempting to do here and in my previous response to your site.
8. Finally, I pointed out the irony of your site in your attempts to label those who oppose you as intolerant and hateful. This is not very tolerant and loving of you.

I certainly hope we can all take the time to read these posts and make our decisions based on truth and reason, setting emotion and rhetoric aside.

"I'm not going to get into a point-by-point discussion about it..."

This is disappointing to say the least. Especially after you say on your sight that we need to work on beginning a dialogue. How are you going to accomplish that if you are not willing to engage the ideas?? If you have truth on your side Raphael you should be more than willing to engage those who oppose you. If you expect to be persuasive you are going to have to do more than play the hate card. You are going to have to argue, debate, and reason.

"...because we have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes 'hate.'"

How about we just look up "hate" in the dictionary? Webster's defines it as "to have strong dislike or ill will for; loathe; despise." Can we agree on this?

"In my view, support for Prop 8 is an act of hatred--and you clearly disagree."

Yes, we clearly disagree. But rather than stating the obvious, why don't you give me some good reasons as to exactly why support for Prop 8 should be considered an "act of hatred." Once again, it seems to me you are simply engaging in name-calling rather than addressing the arguments. I don't hate homosexuals. I do not dislike, loathe, or despise them. But it does seem that you "loathe; despise" those who supported the "Yes on 8" campaign. Hence your blog site.

Also, if support for Prop 8, or not supporting same-sex marriage, is considered "hate" on your view, what do you do with liberal democrats and homosexuals themselves who do not support same-sex marriage? Let me give you just one example: Elton John. Elton John came out publicly and said he supported Proposition 8, which you can read about here. So, on your view Raphael, does Elton John "hate" himself because he does not support same-sex marriage??

"I don't think we'll be persuading each other on this issue."

Why not? I am always open to being persuaded because I am open-minded. To say you are not open to being persuaded is a close-minded position. But we should be interested in truth. So if you are right and you can support your beliefs with good reasons and argumentation I am more than willing to listen. But maybe this comment is more about you than me. Maybe you are the one who is not open to being persuaded. And if that is the case, I have to ask "why not?" Are you afraid of what it might mean? Are you interested in truth? Or are you merely interested in confirming your own bias and ignoring any legitimate opposition?

Looking forward to your response Raphael.

Newsweek's Religious Case for Gay-Marriage

Newsweek magazine's cover story on December 15, 2008, read "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage." It featured an article by religion editor Lisa Miller entitled, "Our Mutual Joy," in which she attempted to argue a biblical case for gay marriage.

There have been several prominent scholars and theologians who have responded to this piece in length. Kevin Lewis, Christian apologetics professor at Biola University, has written an article which you can read here. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has responded here. The Family Research Council has also posted a point-by-point rebuttal on their blog which you can read here.

As these articles show, liberals must constantly take passages out of context, undercut Scripture, and resort to fallacious reasoning in endeavoring to make their point. If proponents of same-sex marriage want to defend their case, fine. Muster your best arguments and present them in public debate. But let us not resort to intellectual dishonesty, bad logic, and poor hermeneutics in an effort to distort the clear teaching of Scripture.

You Can't Hide Your Hate...Or Can You??

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