WARNING: Today’s post IS NOT for young children or those easily offended (and most whom are difficult to offend). It is graphic in nature, controversial in subject, and will be divisive to most.
Several readers here have asked me if I intended to address the recent United States Supreme Court decision that strikes down the U.S. Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) on June 26, 2015. I have intended to, however I wanted to think about the response for a period of time before commenting on it.
In a nutshell, the U.S. Supreme Court decision makes same sex marriage legal in all 50 states of the United States, compelling the individual states to recognize, and indeed, to authorize and codify marriages between individuals of the same sex.
This has been viewed as rather divisive here in the U.S. A number of the proponents of same-sex marriage have hailed the victory and called any opposition to the cause as hateful. Opponents to the view have been rather vocal in their opposition stating that the ruling erodes the traditional family.
From the atheistic point of view this might seem like a good thing. After all, if you are not hurting anyone else, why not pursue happiness however you see fit? But is this really a valid view point? The question here is: ‘are we witnessing a change in both cultural and biological evolution?’ Of course one might consider as the more relevant question how homosexuality even survives natural selection to begin with, as is found here. Of this myriad discussion, the one that catches my eye is the answer from Dr. Richard Dawkins found here. But prior to even getting to Dr. Dawkins answer, Ms. Clara Santa Maria gives us this brilliant piece of logic:
From a modern perspective, I am very cautious to apply Darwinian natural selection to the human population, since we have decommissioned evolution in so many ways (medicine, technology, etc.).
Huh!?! We’ve decommissioned evolution in so many ways? So we’ve actually shut down segments of evolution? Really? And could someone explain to me how that is not, in and of itself, evolution? The problem the evolutionist has is they must acknowledge there is no free will. Everything was determined at the point of the Big Bang and the vast plethora of molecules out there bumping around in the universe are on some set course determined by the natural laws (which we may, or may not, understand) and everything is being played out on that grand stage. Once on the evolutionary course, there is no getting off of it and there is certainly no “decommissioning” pieces of it.
The idea that we’ve co-opted evolution in any way, shape, or form is pure balderdash. You either believe in evolutionary theory (and are a slave to it), or you do not.
Dr. Dawkins’ answer on the survivability of homosexuality is fairly typical. The gene (if there even is such a gene) survived through bi-sexual individuals; homosexual individuals who participated in the unthinkable abomination (heterosexual sex); or more recently through contaminated products (milk, baby food, etc.). This is fairly ludicrous even for Dr. Dawkins who knows full well that genetic material is built at the time of conception and is not passed into a host organism through other means. Dr. Dawkins even admits, when asked point blank, that should modern homosexuals refrain from heterosexual activity, the homosexual gene would (or could, he supposes) become dormant and die out. Homosexuals beware! Dr. Richard Dawkins, arguably the worlds leading evolutionary expert, at least speculates there is a possible path to your eventual distinction.
For the agnostic the answer is “Who cares?” After all, that is generally the answer to any question for the agnostic. As long as the fight on either side of an issue doesn’t spill over to their own discomfort or change their comfort zone, then why should they care one way or the other?
For the theist however, the answer is a little more grounded. It derives directly from the Creator and one must decide whether the Creator would choose to make one segment of the population one way, and another set another way. And in answering that question, the theist must answer the question as to why? What is the purpose behind the Creator’s intent in creating homosexual behavior? In answering any question, the theist must try and discern the intent of the Creator and understand the forces of the creation around them.
For the Christian however the matter is much more succinct in that the Creator has already stated his intent on the matter. And his intent is rather clear. One blogger, Whitney Kay Bacon (who identifies herself to be a Christian) questions the Christian perspective on gay marriage this way:
What I don’t understand is quite simply, this: why does gay marriage bother people so much? If you are making an unnecessary palava because you’re offended by gay marriage then you seriously need to look at your own life and educate yourselves a bit. If the sole reason you feel that gay marriage is wrong because it’s a sin, and the Bible tells you this is wrong, then I sure as hell hope you don’t have bacon with your eggs or indulge in shrimp. Oh, or better yet, do you have any tattoos? Ever been drunk, told a white lie or been divorced? Yep, whoops. Those are all sins, too. And all sins are equal, right? I don’t see anyone going off the handle because of any of these ‘sins’ and I most certainly don’t see protests or hurtful propaganda against those. Just because you disagree with something — and we all have the right to do so — it is an absolute disgrace to treat the LGBT community the way you do. What if we treated all sins in this way? Bacon eaters would be doomed.
Despite Whitney Kay Bacon’s warped theology (apparently she never got to the New Testament, at least not the part where Paul said it was OK to eat the meat off the alter I Corinthians 8:3-8, nor Peter’s vision of the unclean food Acts 10:9-15) as eating unclean foods was a commandment given to the nation of Israel in order to keep them pure and set apart, a white lie (as she puts it) is clearly a sin and is denoted in the 10 Commandments. I suppose given this point of view we should all lobby for the abolishment of perjury laws, as clearly there isn’t a person here on earth that has not lied.
Whitney Kay Bacon builds other weak arguments in her blog as well. Such as this one here:
As a Christian, I wholeheartedly believe that God does not make mistakes and he would not have accidentally made millions of people (and animals) gay by chance.
As a Christian, and fortunately as a Theologian, I can assure Whitney Kay Bacon (and I can assure you) that God did neither accidently nor mistakenly make gay humans (or animals). However he did (and has) given them over to their own reprobate minds to commit un-natural acts (Romans 1:27-32). Furthermore, the idea that we see such a representative population of gay animal behavior is a sheer fallacy and a propagation of bad science. There has been no credible study that shows this case and certainly none that can quantify the numbers and cross different animals kinds.
My uncle used to raise poodles when I was younger. He had a couple of particular poodles that were really glad to see you. And when I say really glad, I mean these male poodles would become excited. And yes, for those that just don’t want to go there, I specifically mean they were sexually excited. Those dogs would run up and wrap themselves around your leg and get the happiest look on their face I ever seen on any animal ever. Am I to conclude from this that those dogs were both gay (or perhaps bisexual) and that they desired a relationship with humans? And hey, who are we to deny them their happiness?
I know you find that greatly offensive today, but I assure you beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the same sex lobby has taken us down that path. They, like Whitney Kay Bacon, want to point to nature as an example to be followed. However only THEY are wise enough and discerning enough to state which acts in nature are acceptable and are to be followed. One day their one arguments will break down against them and a Holy God will literally give us over to our own complete destruction.
However, at the risk of running quite long on this particular post, none of these issues are what I wanted to address about the U.S. Supreme Court decision. What I wanted to do is: I would like personally (for myself) answer Whitney Kay Bacon’s question:
What I don’t understand is quite simply, this: why does gay marriage bother people so much?
The reason gay marriage offends me is for the same reason that abortion offends me. It is because a group of people have taken a piece of God’s design and co-opted it for their own purposes. In the case of abortion they refuse to acknowledge that life comes from God’s own hand (and his alone) and they presume to be wise and discerning and able to state when and where life begins (and therefore justify in their own minds that it is OK to terminate a nine month old baby as yet unborn, yet it is murder to terminate a nine hour old baby that has just been delivered). And yes, this is offensive and contrary to what my religion would teach. In the case of gay marriage they have co-opted the God given union of a man and woman and twisted it for their own purposes to mean what pleases them.
In the case of abortion, I’ve had to live with it as the law of the land in the United States since 1972, but they have never forced the Church to actually support or perform abortions.
But I am not so sure about gay marriage. Where do the vast majority of weddings take place? In Churches across the land. Because marriage has never been the purview of the Government, the Government co-opted it from the Church. It has always been within the domain of the Church, which first gave it rise.
The Government stepped in and legislated marriage when it became clear that legal disputes through joined properties would come about. The Government had a need to regulate how certain equities were treated between husbands and wives, and between parents and children with-respect-to common family property. These situations arise due to divorce, death, infidelity, and other reasons. But the institution of marriage always was the holding of the Church.
In the case of same sex marriage the court had a perfectly reasonable alternative, that of civil union. Civil unions could have addressed all of the legal ramifications within society faced by both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Civil unions could have addressed all legal and social issues and concerns and left the entity of marriage itself to the Church, a religious ceremony, one practiced by religious and God fearing individuals.
However, the community would not accept that answer. They had to co-opt the religious ceremony for their own. They persisted until they had perverted the very religious freedoms we feign to protect in this country. Indeed, Associate Justice Kennedy, during oral arguments, acknowledged when asked, that he supposed an individual refusing to perform a wedding ceremony for same sex couples could be found to be in violation of those individuals Constitutional rights. Quite a serious charge.
So why am I offended by so called “gay marriage“? Because it is a sin and the most offensive of all sins? Not exactly. It offends me because we are headed down a path of lost religious freedoms. Oh, I support most all other arguments one way or the other; it hastens the destruction of the family; It hastens other un-natural and sinful behavior; It forever alters our society from one of “In Whom God we Trust” to one of “I don’t care about God, I’ll do whatever I please”. But the biggest reason is because it threatens (greatly) our religious freedoms, compromises our Churches, and redefines what is consider lawful for debate or opinion. It sets us on a path, for the first time in recent history, of compelling the Church to act in a way contrary to the religious teachings the Church may follow. In other words it forces a world view upon the Church that the Church does not accept and neither allows it to tolerate that world view, but rather compels it to actually participate in that world view.
And that is why, as an Ordained Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and as one licensed to perform wedding ceremonies, no Church I am ever associated with in the future will undertake “wedding ceremonies“. Wedding ceremonies are now the ward of the State and the Church does not have to participate in them. Any union ceremony I officiate over will now be a “Godly Union Ceremony“. And a Godly Union is as defined within the Bible and is between one man and one woman. I will encourage any young couple to follow Christian teachings and to be joined together before God and company within the Church, and then to immediately follow all legally prescribed sanctions of the State. I’ll even sign an affidavit of their Godly Union ceremony, but not a marriage certificate. That is now the purview of the State which co-opted it.
And should any same sex couples seek to be married under my tenure, in the Church, well I am sorry, the Church (any Church I officiate at) does not perform marriages. Only Godly Unions, and those are strictly reserved for members of the Church in good standing, and as Biblically defined. And any Church I officiate at any time in the future, will be strongly encouraged to adopt this practice and state it within the Church constitution and by-laws.
Yes, I take offense at same sex marriage, but not because people want to live their own sinful lives. God himself knows I live with my own burden of sin (perhaps more than the rest of the world – see my earlier post – I AM CHIEF AMONGST SINNERS). No, I take offense at the U.S. Supreme Court ruling because now, within my lifetime, they have threatened my own religious freedoms and co-opted that which was never theirs to begin with. And that my friends, takes us into very, very dangerous territory.