Answering Christian Arguments for Gay 'Marriage'
Regis NicollRegis Nicoll is a Centurion of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He spent 30 years as a nuclear specialist, and is now a freelance writer who writes on current issues from a Christian perspective. His work regularly appears on BreakPoint online and SALVO magazine among other places. Regis also teaches and speaks on a variety of worldview topics, covering everything from Sharing the Gospel in a Postmodern Generation to String Theory. He currently serves as lay pastor of Hamilton Anglican Fellowship (www.hamiltonaf.org) in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
- 2010 Jan 29
Currently, same-sex couples can be legally married in five states: New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Iowa.
The opposing votes were cast because, according to the two dissenting members, the majority of their constituents were against the measure. Those votes may have been small in number, but they represent a problem that is deep and wide for the gay lobby: popular opinion.
Against the handful of victories for gay "marriage" in recent years, are referenda defeats in 31 states. In fact, in every instance where the novelty of same-sex "marriage" has been put "to the people" in a public ballot, it has been voted down. So what accounts for this negative public attitude toward gay "marriage?"
Dennis and Christine Wiley are the African-American pastors of a congregation they describe as a "traditional black church" in the DC area. Theirs is also the "first and only" black church in the nation's capital to perform same-sex unions—extraordinary, given that African-Americans are one the most resistant groups to same-sex "marriage."
As the Wiley's see it, the sentiment toward gays in the black community is the result of "homophobia" which, according to the Anti-Defamation League, is "the hatred or fear of homosexuals."
That's a serious charge. And notice how it frames the debate by placing opposing voices, from the outset, on the bottom of the social-moral spectrum. If you disagree with the gay agenda, you are irrational, ignorant or hateful. It is a shop-worn script that I am well familiar with.
In discussions with members of the gay community over the years, I have been told, on more than one occasion, that my views are nothing but hatred, bigotry, or ignorance. Recently, one suggested that my views were a challenge to the very existence of gays; as if the defense of traditional marriage is tantamount to promoting the genocide of the gay community. Ridiculous.
Playing fast and loose with the homophobia card may generate a quick, emotional pop, but it is a sure sign of desperation. When you can't advance your position through rational discourse, you play the victim of misanthropes targeting you for the endangered list.
What accounts for the putative homophobia in the African-American community? According to Wiley and Wiley, it is the over-emphasis on "what the Bible says." In their "innocent" (read: naïve) approach to Scripture, religious blacks in particular and Christian America in general have succumbed to "'bibliolatry'—the practice of worshiping the Bible rather than worshiping God."
No—unlike Muslims who do treat their Book as an object of worship, Christians worship the Author of theirs by taking seriously the words He has written and applying them in their lives.
Then, arguing for their privileged viewpoint, the pastors claim objectivity for their take on Scripture, while charging that the understandings of traditionalists have been unwittingly shaped by cultural influences. Well, that has things quite turned around—as it is the traditionalist who searches for the plain meaning of the text within its cultural setting, and the gay advocate who imposes culture, modern culture, upon Scripture with "personal experience" as a moral touchstone.
I've been lectured a number of times by professed Christians for not properly considering the "personal experiences" of gays. I've responded that those experiences may be genuine, intense, and heart-felt, but they are not a reliable guide to the truth, for them or the general population.
If we depended on our experiences for truth, we would still think the earth flat in a geocentric cosmos where time and space are absolute. It is only because we have discovered laws transcending personal experience that we know that reality is something radically different than what our experiences suggest.
That goes for moral truth as well. The experiences of one person convince him that homosexuality is intrinsic to his personhood, while the experiences of another convince him that it is not. A woman named Kim is of the latter... Continue reading here.