A Religious Response to the Legalization of Gay Marriage

If the debate were simply about inclusion in terms of equality of rights, I think homosexuals should receive rights for unions. But why the effort to redefine marriage? Marriage is defined by a monogamous, legal and religious relationship between a man and a woman. It is a religious institution. Therefore, this debate is not about equal distribution of rights and privileges, if it were I think this would be an easier debate. Simply because homosexuals in certain states do have the same rights and privileges afforded to a married couple. The debate is really about forced acceptance of a way of living. I think that is intolerable.

As to the issue of the government’s role of inclusion versus exclusion, I wonder where the line is. If we are going to redefine a long held, culturally practiced religious institution such as marriage because a special interest group carried out an effective lobbying campaign, what is to stop other groups from wanting the same? For example NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), they argue that what they do is nature and feels right. They are essentially advocating pedophilia. Why should we suppress their rights to freely express the love that feels natural to them?

Some have objected and associated the Gay rights movement with slavery. To equate the SSM movement with slavery I think is untenable. Slaves were regarded as less than humans. A slave constituted 3/5 of a person and from that supposition the atrocities of slavery were justified. Homosexuals are not regarded as less than a person; in fact individually they have the same rights as a heterosexual person. In the case of legally recognized unions, as I have stated before several states afford the same rights to same-sex unions as they do to married heterosexual people and I think that is appropriate. We need not redefine marriage to afford SSM’s the same rights as heterosexual people.

Where the trouble comes in is that homosexual lobbying groups not only wants parodied union rights, but they also want to change the definition marriage so that their lifestyle is accepted. This to me is ridiculous. To we live in a free country where people can have various and conflicting viewpoints. But for one person or group to then go a step beyond that and say, not only is my lifestyle allowable, it must also be accepted and legalized. I say if you want to live a gay lifestyle then live a gay lifestyle, however, to demand that we redefine a long held, culturally practiced, religious institution is wrong.

In regards to the objection of, “What two consenting adults do is their own decision, if it doesn’t affect anyone else, why is it wrong?” If I didn’t hold a Christian worldview then I would wholeheartedly agree with this with it not being wrong. But you have to understand that this question assumes moral relativity. Meaning, what’s right for you is right, but what is right for me is also right, regardless of any apparent differences or contrasts. There is not final arbiter of right and wrong, it is merely a social construct that is subject to change depending on the culture or individual within the culture. This I cannot agree with, I believe morality is objective, in that is true, binding, immaterial and invariant regardless if a person or culture recognizes it or not. If this were not case then murder for some would be right and no one could say otherwise. Or lying would be right for some and no one could contest that, the result would be chaos.  

These are pretty common mistakes; moral relativity seems on the surface the fairest position to take. However, if you were to really examine the logic of moral relativism and all of its logical entailments, the picture would be somewhat frightening. In his book When God Goes to Starbucks: A Guide to Everyday Apologetics Paul Copan, an apologist, discussed four central maxims or moral relativism that seem on the surface an appeal to fairness, but have a hidden assumption underlining its arguments that are riddled with problems.

·         ““You can do whatever you want— as long as it’s between two consenting adults.” What if the two consenting adults engage in sadomasochistic acts? Aren’t such actions deviant? And why limit the discussion to adults? What’s ultimately wrong with lowering the age of sexual consent, as the North American Man/Boy Love Association desires?

·         “You can do whatever you want— as long as it’s in the privacy of your own home.” Again, why should absolute autonomists insist on privacy as opposed to doing whatever one wants in public— including shouting, “Fire!” in a crowded theater or “Bomb!” on a transatlantic flight? And is child abuse or wife-beating okay since it’s done in the “privacy” of one’s home?

·         “People can believe and do whatever they want; they should just be tolerant of other’s views.” If the relativist believes that her views are true for her but not necessarily for others, then why should she insist on laying this standard of tolerance on everyone— relativist or not? Where does that standard come from? What is if a person doesn’t want to be “tolerant” (whatever that means)?

·         “You can do what you want; just don’t violate another person’s rights.” Why respect anyone’s rights? Where do rights even come from in a godless world? How can the relativist believe we can do what we want but, out of the other side of her mouth, insist that other’s rights ought to be respected? Isn’t it ironic (and contradictory) that our society both freely accepts the “true for you but not for me” relativism as well as insists on watching out for people’s “inviolable rights”? If relativism is justified, humans don’t have rights that ought to be respected. If humans have genuine rights, then relativism is false.” (p. 24).

There is much more I could say on this topic and would if I had the time, more could be said such as an argument from history— how homosexuality has been viewed historically. The argument of the slippery slope (already alluded to)— if we open the door for SSM what’s to stop any group, fetish, or desire to be limited if we assume moral and cultural relativity? The argument from identity and purpose— do we define and shape the way we live based on our own preferences and desires, on upon a higher law or are there fixed norms that are inherently obvious from an outside source namely God? The argument from false neutrality— it is patently false to claim neutrality and a non-bias in this issue, for to say that the state should be neutral about gay marriage is a moral stance and position. To be neutral on the issue is passive agreeance. For example, the statement there is no right and wrong, to say this is not being unbiased, this is absolutely a position with a consequent truth claim of moral relativity. I could go on, there are many more arguments that could be made, but I will stop here.