Should Christians Support Gay Marriage? (II)

Transhumanism is a movement which seeks to transcend the limitations of human existence through the use of technology, e.g., genetic engineering, cloning, etc.

Homosexuals pervert God’s pattern for marriage at their own peril. For example, Genesis 19 contains the first reference to homosexuality in the Bible. There is no doubt about the intentions the men of Sodom had for the two men who visited Lot’s home; they intended to engage in sexual relations with them. Jude 7 provides an illuminating commentary on Genesis 19, stating that the sin of Sodom involved going after “strange flesh.” Leviticus 18 and 20 both call homosexuality an abomination, a term that is used five times in Leviticus to convey intense divine disapproval. Their intended purpose cannot be misconstrued.

Several passages in the New Testament address homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10. clearly identify homosexual practice as deserving of divine judgment and outside of the boundaries of acceptable human behavior. Despite aggressive attempts by various pro-homosexual commentators to explain these passages in a manner that treats homosexuality as morally benign, the tenor of Scripture is clearly and consistently against homosexuality.

If “homosexual marriage” can be justified by the equal protection language of the Constitution, so can polygamy and incest. Many gay activists reject this argument, calling it a “red herring,” or “slippery slope” fallacy. They are fond of saying that there is no connection between “gay marriage” and such outlawed practices as incest or polygamy. However, there is strong evidence that the slope leading from “gay marriage” to polygamy and incest is indeed slippery.

In a Friend of the Court (amicus curiae) brief filed in the case of Lawrence v. Texas (2002), gay rights activists argued that overturning the Texas anti-sodomy law would not directly lead to subsequent claims that homosexuals should be afforded equal protection under the law as it pertains to marriage rights. Yet, this is precisely what is being argued in both California and Massachusetts. Ironically, small town mayors, as well as their big city counterparts, have taken it upon themselves to interpret state constitutions as being “gender neutral,” thereby claiming that they (the mayors) have the right to marry homosexuals under the equal protection language of the Constitution.

The equal protection language of the Constitution guarantees protection to persons regardless of race, religion or national origin. The framers of the Constitution did not have in mind the protection of persons on the basis of sexual orientation or preference. If one’s sexual preferences become a protected class under the equal protection clause, there can be no argument that will be sufficiently compelling to prevent the Supreme Court from expanding that class to include those who wish to marry blood relatives or multiple partners.

The history of human civilization supports heterosexual marriage. Many gay activists contend that marriage is principally a religious custom and that the prohibitions against same sex marriage actually impose a religious interpretation on their relationships. Thus, they argue that marriages recognized by the State should not be forced to meet overtly religious standards.

However, while marriage does arise from religious traditions, heterosexual marriage itself serves a measurable good for secular society. Therefore, there is ample justification for the State to preserve and protect the special status of heterosexual marriage. A society can do just fine without homosexual unions, but it cannot survive without heterosexual ones.

Medically assisted procreation technologies notwithstanding, same sex marriages offer nothing distinctive to society. There is no historical precedent for state sanction of homosexual marriage. While homosexual practice has arguably been present in virtually every culture, there exist no records to support the notion that any society provided legal endorsement of homosexual marriage. Furthermore, there are no historical accounts of any society or civilization thriving where homosexual practice was considered normal human behavior.

We need state recognition of marriages because people who live together become intimately dependent on one another and we need to recognize, protect and manage those dependencies. Families are a different kind of social unit than individuals, and things work best when families are granted certain rights and responsibilities, so we need to have rules about what families are. Children, in particular, thrive best when raised by families and their care needs to be managed by binding contractual arrangements to protect their interests and those of their caregivers.

Again, marriage is heterosexual to support the proper rearing of children. In 1885, the United States Supreme Court felt so strongly about the importance of marriage to a stable society that it made marriage a requirement for new states to enter the union.

The Court said, “The life of the state rests on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent programs, social and political improvement.”

Innumerable sociological studies support the claim that children are best cared for in a stable, intact home where both a mother and father are present. Although children can be cared for by single parents, the ideal is a two-parent home where children see role models of a mother and father. Children gain much of their understanding of what it means to be a wife, mother, husband and father from observing their parents.

Research conducted on the children of divorced parents suggests that such children often have more difficulty making gender distinctions than children in an intact home. They tend to be more depressed, have a higher incidence of substance abuse or chemical dependence, have increased incidence of illness, depression and developmental problems. While infidelity is not uncommon among heterosexual married partners, the connection between homosexuality and multiple partners is significant.

Monogamy is not the norm in the homosexual population. Despite the fact that AIDS has prompted the homosexual community to encourage monogamy for nearly twenty years, HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases continue to climb among homosexuals. Even the homosexual literature acknowledges that homosexual monogamy is fictional.

Dr  Akpongena, a Christian devotional writer, lives in Port Harcourt.

To be continued.

Dr  Lewis  Akpongena,