On So-Called "Gay Marriage"

I try not to use too much space on this blog talking about political issues but this will be one of those rare occasions. In December I posted “A Response to the Response to Prop 8” thinking that from then on I had said my piece, contributed to the conversation, and would not have to address it again. However, for whatever reason, things are beginning to heat up again (not that the controversy went away) on the so-called “gay marriage” front.

Note: the following video is offensive to Christians and may contain advertising that is in no way endorsed by this blog.


The video above shows where this debate is now headed. It is an issue that John Stewart brought up in debate with Mike Huckabee and we see it here in this video. The issue is that it seems hypocritical to give preference to people who make decisions on the basis of religion when religion is more of a choice than sexual preference. I don’t want to address this argument at face value but instead I am going to look at the difference in worldview.

We live in a postmodern society. The basic implications of this is that because society has figured out that it’s really hard to say that anything is absolutely true we should instead keep truth claims subjective. This means that all truth is relative to the person evaluating that truth and, especially, given weight in proportion to that person’s education or popularity. It is this way of thinking that sets forth the argument “religion is more of a choice than sexual inclination.”

Of course the implications of this way of thinking are most explicit in the liberal/progressive philosophy of government. For example, if marriage did mean one thing but the popular opinion of the country has shifted, the meaning of marriage must be altered in order to keep in step with society. This is where the argument goes back to old laws that didn’t allow interracial marriage. We changed those laws because we became less racist, so why not change our current laws in order for society to further progress? (biblically this is a regression, Romans 1:18-32).

So why are Christians so hung up on keeping a definition of marriage that was better fit when it was written than now? I will now bring us back to a very simple principle, namely, “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck…” and so it is with marriage and even more so with the Bible.

You see to a non-Christian it is strange for me to base my definition of marriage on a standard that was made thousands of years ago claiming to be the word of God. Many people make the argument that the Bible was not complied in total until centuries after the final books were written and is therefore an unreliable source of authority. They would say that the authority of the Bible is, at best, as good as the authority of the group who compiled it, namely, the church. This is, of course, a misunderstanding based in only a little bit of truth. The fact is that the books of the Bible were known as Scripture in the centuries leading up to the final decision. The church didn’t get together to make several books Scripture; they came together to make clear their recognition of the books of Scripture. Very few books were even up for debate when this decision was made. This is because Scripture is self-authenticating as “God breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) and does not need to derive authority from the church; rather, it is in Scripture that we base any authority the church has.

What’s the point in bringing up Scripture? It is that we know what Scripture is because we can see that it is what it claims to be. We trust the accounts of those who lived in the time of its writing and see the impact that it has on our lives. In other words, the Bible walks like God’s word, talks like God’s word, and looks like God’s word.

It is in the Bible we find the definition of marriage, namely, the uniting of a man and a woman before God in covenantal love (Genesis 2:24). This is the authority on which the founders of our country would have based their understanding of marriage. That means that we must decide if the better philosophy is of the progressive who seeks to change this definition to fit society or the conservative who seeks to keep the definition as it has always been.

The problem with the progressive approach is that they are borrowing a concept from the biblical source of authority and then taking away the definition of that same authority. Now it gets interesting because a progressive could appeal to traditions such as Christmas trees and Easter eggs that Christians adopted and still practice with the knowledge that they are rooted in pagan practices. So what’s the difference between Christians making the tradition of a completely different system of beliefs their own because of progression within tradition? I think it has to do with the fact that we don’t hear any pagans complaining that we stole their tradition. In other words, the source of authority no longer exists to maintain the historical aspects of the tradition. However, with marriage we do still have the source of authority and those who recognize its authority. So in order for so-called “gay marriage” to be recognized the nation must first recognize their unbelief in marriage as an institution. Therefore, so-called “gay marriage” can never truly and meaningfully exist.

What about the argument made in the video? If we deny a person who practices homosexuality the ability to legally “marry” their partner aren’t we opening the door for the government to deny us certain rights? My response is simple: are you kidding me? Try making a realistic video of Christian suppression. I honestly don’t mind the thought of the government taking away religious rights as much as you think (though I am grateful for religious freedom in America). Take away our tax exemptions, civil benefits, and right to worship freely. You would only be doing us a favor because you would help rid us of the Osteens, Jakes, and McLarens who are expediting the damnation of millions.

The difference between the church and those who practice homosexuality that this video failed to mention is the fact that the church does not need civil liberty in order to exist. Go ahead and make Christianity illegal, it sure worked for China. The church is not a governmental institution, it outlasted Rome and it will outlast America. So please stop the mockery, the blasphemy, and the attempts to scare us. Perhaps we can engage in a civil discussion that will allow you to live your life without being unnecessarily harmed. However, we will continue to tell you that if you don’t repent of your sins and cling to the cross for salvation you will only be enjoying a comfortable ride to damnation. We will preach this whether it is legal or not because we want to see our kind God glorified in your salvation and because we want you to experience the superior joy of being in Christ.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

P.S. I know that most of you are aware of the "Miss California situation" and thought I would comment on that. Honestly, I am disappointing in her. Is her position any different than Barack Obama's ? I don't think so. All this shows is how much hypocrisy there is in this debate.