There is much discussion these days, on the web and elsewhere, about the topic of so-called “gay marriage.” It is so-called because it doesn’t formally exist in the United States—yet. Heterosexuals have been reaping the benefits, financial and social, long enough, say the homosexual proponents. Why shouldn’t gays be allowed the same privileges as straights? Most homosexuals, as far as I can tell, are pro-gay marriage. It is heterosexuals, both liberal and conservative, who are left to deal with the problem, and there has been much debate. As best I can determine, the discussion generally falls into one of three camps.
First, there are those who say, “Go ahead, let homosexuals have legal marriage benefits, the same as traditional marriage.” Proponents of this view are either politically and morally liberal, siding with the gay rights movement, or they are conservatives who see that this is a battle that is imminently lost (because the issue is not going away), so this is a concession that must be made.
The second group consists chiefly of conservatives, both religious and political, who feel that allowing for homosexuals to marry each other subverts and threatens the traditional state of marriage and should therefore be banned. Many (cf. Rick Santorum) believe that the allowance of gay marriage is a “slippery slope” that will lead to a cornucopia of deviances to be permitted, such as polygamy, bestiality, etc.
The third group is an emerging one in the discussion that wishes to simply redefine marriage altogether, separating the religious and governmental spheres of the union. This group feels that traditional male-female marriage will be best protected if relegated to the religious realm. A much clearer articulation of this view can be found in this blog entry by Charles Murray.
As an evangelical Christian, I naturally fall into the second group. I believe the Bible to be the word of God, and the Bible clearly denounces the practice of homosexuality in every instance it is mentioned. Some have made claims that the Bible is neither for nor against homosexuality, but these theories rely on some pretty amazing feats of hermeneutical gymnastics and have more than adequately been proven false by both liberal and conservative biblical scholars. Appeals to scientific evidence have also been proven to be insufficient (most adeptly by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse in their excellent volume).
“But,” a pro-gay marriage supporter might say, “not everyone in this country is Christian, and the constitution of the United States shall make no law establishing a religion!” Whether I like it or not, many think that some things are not verified simply because the Bible, God, or my religion says it true. While that it is the strongest reason I have for opposing gay marriage, it is not the only one.
For starters, homosexuals have never in this country been denied the right to marry. The have enjoyed the same rights as heterosexuals. Yes, they can only rightfully marry someone of the opposite sex, but heterosexuals are restricted to that stipulation too.
What homosexuals want to change, then, is the entire perception of family that has been present since the dawn of civilization. They want to change what has been the societal recognition of a sexual union between a man and a woman to something completely different. What the homosexual movement wants, in effect, is to be heterosexual. It wants to emulate heterosexuality without going so far as having heterosexual sex.
I’m surprised more people haven’t picked up on this. Homosexuals, who have gone completely out of the societal norm to have sexual relations with their own sex, are trying desperately to legitimize their exploits by trying to look as much like heterosexual unions as they can.
In doing so, however, they are attempting to change a standard that transcends the current popular standards. Take, for example, the relationship between a parent and a child. A parent raises the child because not only is there a biological connection, but there is present a standard that defines that relationship. Another mother could not just take different children at random simply because she is a “mother” and the other children are “children.” Each position must be filled with one who is uniquely qualified: a mother is a mother only of the child she gave birth to, she is not the mother to any child she sees on the street.
Where am I going with this? I am trying to illustrate that because there is an inherent standard, a man cannot marry another man and it really be marriage. They can call it marriage until the cows come home, but it will never be so: the two parties are not uniquely qualified.
I fear that we may indeed see some sort of so-called gay marriage launched in the near future in the United States. But I do believe that the project will ultimately fail. It is destined to by its own design. Will it hurt the status of real marriage and real families? Probably so, but it remains to be seen. Should those of us who are opposed to the issue make our voices heard, damning the consequences of speaking an unpopular opinion? Absolutely!