Jordan
Roberts A Deadly
Love
Page 1
01/18/05
It
is extremely vital to the well-being of our nation that civil liberties be
preserved. However, there are those who
would strive to establish for themselves certain rights that are not only
nonexistent in our nation, but rights that will bear the most startling and
damaging consequences if issued. The
legalization of gay marriage is one such threat to our nation; severing
marriage from its historical and current universal definition, harming our
children, our church, and our society.
In the past there have been those
who have harmed our nation by hardening the public conscience to great evil, and blinding the eyes of justice
to their atrocious acts of deception; [If you mean deception about the
unchosen nature of their orientation, deception is quite a charge considering
how little you have done to demonstrate the contrary throughout this paper.]
but not one of these movements has ever
carried so much weight, or proposed so great
a threat to the traditional, ethical, and moral well-being of our nation
as the movement to legalize gay marriage.
Spurred on by their surprising political success, gays and gay
supporters have resolved to push their shoulders into the wall of our national
conscience until it buckles under the pressure, and they are able to carry
their lifestyle to the extreme limits.
The traditional definition of marriage is the focus of this dangerous attack. Marriage, in nearly every nation, for
virtually the entire history of mankind, has been defined as a legal union
between one man and one woman. Webster’s
Dictionary of the English language defines marriage as “the state of being
married; relation between husband and wife.”
The word “marriage” itself is derived from a root word meaning husband,
while the word “matrimony,” which could be used as a synonym for marriage,
comes from a root word meaning “mother.”
Expanding this definition to include homosexual relationships will
drastically impact the nature of family relationships. Homosexual union has never been considered
worthy of the title “ marriage.” The
movement to make it so is a dishonest attempt to piggy-back a rejected practice
on the sacred and honored institution of marriage. This definition of marriage is not discriminatory. All men and woman have the right to enter into
matrimony with an opposite sex spouse. [As long as we understand that for
gay people this means lying about their desire to marry an opposite sex partner
to conform to social norms. I wonder if
you have read any testimonies about heterosexual partners who found out only
later that their spouses were incapable of feeling sexual desire for them,
because they in fact were closeted homosexuals?] 1“Eliminating an entire sex from
the equation creates something other than marriage.” Never before has a movement had the right to
change a nationally accepted definition so easily. In addition to all this, the inclusion of gay
marriage in the definition of this word will weaken the already unstable
institution.
In
spite of all this, gay activists claim that they have the civil right to
marriage. A civil right however is a
right that belongs to a person by citizenship, 2“including
especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and
14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal
and social and economic equality.” This
social and economic equality is what gives every person of any race in this country the right
to marry. However, it does not give them
the right to marry someone of the same sex.
The right to be able to redefine marriage so as to include any given
relationship does not exist, regardless of the feelings of the two parties
or the benefits it will yield to
them. The issue of homosexual marriage
cannot be protected by or compared to the freedom of religion clause in the
first amendment, as some have tried to do.
Religious freedom is made possible in our pluralistic society because
belief does not require approval through licensing by the government: people
have the right to believe what they want, even if it is false. However, licensing to marry stamps the union
with governmental approval as a relationship that is healthy and beneficial to
the society, while other relationships (such as between siblings or multiple
partners) are excluded as wrong or “unhealthy.” If the goal of the legalization
of homosexual marriage were merely to gain its acceptance as a valid
alternative lifestyle, that objective has already largely been achieved. The goal is not to simply tolerate gay marriage,
as some religions are tolerated, but to promote it as equal in every way
to heterosexual marriage. However, once
gay marriage is included in the same category as heterosexual marriage, which
is considered “right” and “beneficial,” it opens the door for all kinds of relationships
to be legitimized by law. Jordan
Lorence, a lawyer working for the Alliance Defense Fund, says this: “There's
not a [constitutional] right to marry whoever you want, or else the U.S.
Supreme Court would not have repeatedly rejected the lawsuits brought by Mormon
polygamists in the 1800s to redefine marriage." Allowing gay marriage would be giving
homosexuals access to a right that they do not possess. [All the arguments
in this paragraph can be, were at one time used, to argue against mixed race
marriages prior to the 1960’s.]
Our
government has the right to recognize that there are certain relationships
which are helpful for society, as well as relationships which are harmful for
society. Marriage between a brother and
sister, for example, is forbidden by
law, regardless of the fact that they love each other and are two consenting
adults. The fact is that it would cause
severe social and biological consequences.
It has been said that 3“marriage is a public institution
because it brings together men and women for the purpose of reproducing the
human race and keeping a mother and father together to cooperate in raising to
maturity the children they produce.”
Otherwise, what business would our government even have in issuing
licenses and regulating entry and exit into relationships “whose only or even
principle purpose is emotional attachment”?
Interpersonal love and
relationships should not be regulated by the government, however, when a
type of relationship is dangerous for society, the government has the right not
to support it. Same-sex civil marriage
would carry with it severe social and
biological consequences.
First
of all, the legalization of gay marriage is not beneficial to our
children. Statistically, it is better to
promote heterosexual marriage. An
article in a publication entitled “At the Podium,” says this: “... thousands of
years of human experience and a vast body of contemporary social science
research both demonstrate that married husbands and wives, and the children
they conceive and raise, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than
people in any other living situation.”
This and other evidence suggests that children raised by homosexuals are
more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Without the traditional role models of both a
mother and a father, a heterosexual child adopted by a homosexual couple is
more likely to grow up confused and unsure of his proper place in society. [By
this principle neither should the government grant divorces to married couples
with children.] Furthermore, same-sex marriage would diminish the
expectation for paternal commitment. To quote from an article in InFocus
Magazine, “same-sex civil marriage would institutionalize the idea that
children do not need both their mother and their father. This would be particularly important for men,
who are more likely to abandon their children. Homosexual civil marriage would
make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment
of their children.” [Don’t quite follow.
Two gay men would need to adopt
children, and go through all the expense and effort of procuring that
privilege. For this reason adoptive parents are less likely to abandon their
children than those who had “unwanted” offspring biologically. Or do you mean
that men would be more likely to abandon their wives and children for a
relationship with another man if gay marriage were an option? But plenty of men
who are inclined to abandon wife and children do it for any reason at all,
whether for other women or for the mere freedom of it. They don’t need gay
marriage as an incentive one way or the other.] There is evidence, however, which shows it to be more
beneficial for children to have access to both a mother and a father. Besides this, evidence regarding same-sex
parenting is far from adequate. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of
Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, says this in
response to a review of the studies conducted which showed same-sex marriage to
be as equally effective as heterosexual marriage: 4“I draw my
conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal
flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was
conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.” Do
we really want to risk such a major experiment in our society based on those
conclusions?
Another
consequence of the legalization of gay marriage is made evident when one
considers the harm that it will cause our society by weakening the foundation of heterosexual matrimony. In the Netherlands, after the legalization of
same-sex marriage, there was a drastic increase in heterosexual divorces, as
well as a decrease in heterosexual marriages.
Same-sex marriage will destroy the stability of an already weak, but
still extremely beneficial institution, and has not been proven to be a
suitable substitute.
One
other consequence of same-sex marriage can be glimpsed in the biological state
of practicing homosexuals. Forty-four
percent of all new HIV and AIDS cases are among homosexual men. The legalization of same-sex marriage
probably will lead to a wider practice of homosexuality, especially in children
raised by same-sex couples, and may lead to another widespread epidemic of STD’s
unequaled by any we have yet experienced.
Clearly, same-sex marriage would be harmful to our nation. The government therefore has the right not to
support it. [Is this because gay men might teach children to be promiscuous?
Then we should ban all person, whether homo- or hetero- from getting married
who might possibly teach these values to their children. Or would the example
of being homosexual make the children homosexual? That presupposed
homosexuality to be a choice, which as I said you don’t convincingly
demonstrate.]
Just
as the government has the right not to support same-sex civil union because it
is detrimental to our society, it has the right to promote relationships that
will benefit society in the long-run with stability and prosperity through tax
and property rights. Gay marriage does not and will never benefit society to
the same degree as heterosexual marriage, and therefore does not have the right
to be treated as if it does. Allowing
same-sex marriage so that homosexuals in committed relationships can provide
financially for each other is not necessary.
Homosexuals are able to provide for one another through arrangements
already provided for them by the law.
The whole point of the legal regulation of relationships is to benefit
society by encouraging parental responsibility in regard to the raising and
supporting of children, and promoting financial faithfulness and honesty within
families. Gay marriage is harmful to the
traditional family unit and therefore does not deserve to be rewarded. [By
this standard, infertile couples should be denied marriage licenses, and single
mothers should not be allowed legal protection as parents. Children raised by
single parents are actually at greater risk than children raised by two
same-sex partners. Two parents can take on the financial burden and the
responsibility of parental nurturing better than one parent alone.]
Because
homosexuals do not have the civil right to marriage, we, as Christians, are not
required to support the legalization of gay marriage under the biblical
principle of “submission to authority” found in Romans thirteen, as some would
claim. The legalization of same-sex
marriage would put the church in jeopardy of having its rights violated;
for it faces the very real possibility of being prosecuted, sued, and maligned
on all fronts if it refuses to recognize same-sex marriages. [This has not
happened in the case of divorces recognized by the state but not recognized by
the church. The separation of the spheres of civil and ecclesiastical have
remained solidly in place.] Living in a democracy, we have the right and
the responsibility to speak out against the possibility of evil laws and
practices being endorsed by our government; not only for the church’s sake, but
also for the well-being of our
nation. Proverbs 28:12 says: “When the
righteous triumph, there is great elation; but when the wicked rise to power,
men go into hiding.” The legalization of
same-sex civil marriage will obviously harm our society, as it has already been
shown. Even if same-sex marriage is
legalized, Christians have the responsibility to oppose it. The nature of our democracy affords us the
civil right to speak out against laws that we consider unjust, evil, or
harmful. Were this not the case, what
right do we now possess to oppose abortion?
Was it then wrong for Christians to speak out against slavery in this
nation during the 1800's? As American
citizens and, more importantly, as Christians, we are obligated to promote what
is best for our country; and marriage as God has defined it in scripture is
historically the most beneficial and foundational unit of society.
Approaching
this issue from a more scriptural standpoint rather than a social one, it is
clearly evident that God condemns even the practice of homosexuality. First Corinthians chapter six, verses nine through eleven say: “Do you not know
that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolater nor adulterers nor...homosexual
offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God.”
In Leviticus, God refers to homosexuality as an “abomination.” How can we then sit placidly by and allow
that practice which God abhors to be institutionalized in our nation? God
despises homosexuality. Clearly, if a Christian in this nation is to be
consistent, he must oppose any law which seeks to justify and even promote
homosexuality. [In the Bible idolatry is emphasized as a worse abomination
than homosexuality. It is the “mother sin” of all sins. We have already given
freedom of worship for idolaters in this nation via the First Amendment. The government gives temples and mosques the
same tax breaks and exemptions as Christian churches. Why are you not arguing
for the abolition of the greater abomination of idolatry in this country, and
only focus on the lesser abomination of homosexual practice?]
Sadly,
there are some Christians, fellow believers and worshipers of the holy God of
scripture, who not only promote same-sex marriage as a supposedly helpful
resolution to the problem of unfaithfulness and instability that is common
among homosexual relationships, but they also tolerate the practice of
homosexuality with a calm acceptance which is, in the very least, greatly
disturbing. The main principle behind
these people’s actions (or lack of action) lies in the faulty presupposition
that homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle, and therefore should not be
discriminated against as such. This
argument is weak for several reasons: First of all, there are countless
instances in which former homosexuals
have “converted” to heterosexual
lifestyles. To propose, as some may,
that all of these people are currently living in a state of self-denial remains
a very difficult and very unstable position. [Doesn’t sound like you’ve done
your homework here. First of all, no one denies that the causes of
homosexuality may be multiple, which means that we would expect a small
percentage of curable cases that were brought about by trauma or childhood
sexual abuse. However, there is a vast majority of cases in which homosexuality
cannot be accounted for because of trauma or abuse, where treatments,
therapies, hypnosis, or the joining of ministries such as Exodus have done
little or nothing to change the orientation. Most surprising is Exodus
ministries’ own lack of success, and Exodus represents a cross-section of
homosexual people who are the most likely to change in that they are the most
highly motivated, are the least accepting of their homosexuality, and are
willing to go through the most rigorous therapy due to their religious beliefs.
Even amongst this promising cross-section homosexuals, the percentage of people
who can give a credible testimony of change of orientation is a small
minority.] Secondly, there is no proof as of yet, which supports the
assumption that homosexuality is not a chosen orientation. Even the fact that homosexuals are often able
to trace the roots of their feelings back into childhood is no more relevant to
the issue than is the fact that many convicted murderers or oath-breakers can
trace the roots of violence or dishonesty back to earliest childhood as
well. Should we allow them to go
unpunished because, since their habits did develop at young ages, they must
have been born that way? [Punishment? I thought we were just talking about
refraining from granting them certain rights. How do we move from denying
rights to proactively punishing people?] If anything, the fact that
homosexuality often takes root in childhood only works to confirm the biblical
idea of the sin nature being inherent in humanity, which causes perversions of
all kinds, even in children. Certain
sinful tendencies are more powerful in some people than in others. As it says in Deuteronomy 5:9-10: “...for I,
the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the
fathers to the third and fourth generation...”
Obviously, certain people will tend more towards homosexuality than
others, just as some tend towards violence or theft. But this does not fully or even partially
excuse the sin. On the contrary; it
confirms the sin. To encourage same-sex
marriage based on the argument that homosexuals cannot “help” their orientation
is a dangerous, unstable, and misinformed path to take. [What would be your
positive solution, then, for people who have this problem? Tell them they must
be celibate? Require them to enter treatment centers? What is the humane
solution for people who claim they have this problem?]
All
this being said, it is clear that the legalization of same-sex civil marriage
would be harmful to our society, our children, our families, the church; our
entire culture is at risk. Homosexuals
do not have the right to demand the beneficial institution of marriage be
expanded so as to include such a destructive and potentially harmful
practice. On all sides, the
preservation of the traditional view of marriage is obviously the wisest
choice. We are under obligation to
defend it. Gay activists do not have the
right to the legalization of same-sex marriage; we have no right to allow
it.
1http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PD04B01
2www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
3http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PD04B01
4Ibid.
* It would be a great
improvement to your paper if you would take more seriously the claim by the
majority of gay people that they did not choose to be homosexual, even as a
hypothetical situation.
* I wonder why you do not
argue for implementing a full-on Christian theocracy in this nation, given the
implications of your view of how sin ought to treated (denying rights and
liberties to those who practice certain sins, which it seems to me, has to
include idolatry).
* The tone and rhetoric of
your paper is much better!