Same-Sex "Marriage": Why Not?
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.
- 2011 Apr 08
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard one of the following comments, I’d be—well, let’s say I’d have a pocketful of nickels.
“If gays want to marry, what concern is it of mine?”
“For the life of me, I can’t see how gay ‘marriage’ could negatively affect anyone!”
“Heterosexual marriage is protected by denying gays the right to marry? C’mon people!”
And those sentiments are not exclusive to the secular left. Within the religious right, I’ve encountered attitudes ranging from complacence to acceptance concerning same-sex “marriage,” from people who doubted its adverse affect on them, their families, or society at large. Recently those attitudes have been reflected in public surveys.
Although the legalization of same-sex “marriage” has been defeated in every state it has been put to a popular vote, public opposition appears to be waning. According to a recent Pew survey, from 2008 and 2011 the margin between those who “oppose” and those who “favor” legalization narrowed from 12 percentage points to one. It is a testimony to the effectiveness of the homosexual machinery in obfuscating what the gay “marriage” movement is really about.
What it’s not about
Contrary to shopworn talking points, same-sex “marriage” is not about equal protections and benefits. In California, where Proposition 8 was vigorously opposed by the gay community, domestic partnerships already qualified for all the major benefits afforded marriage, including hospital visitation, right to make health care decisions for each other, insurance coverage, survivor pension benefits, and rights pertaining to property, inheritance, and parental privileges.
Same-sex “marriage” is also not about formal recognition and public celebration. If a homosexual couple wants their union solemnized in a public ceremony, there are any number of organizations across the country willing to oblige them. As S. T. Karnick points out,
“The Episcopal Church USA, the Alliance of Baptists, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Unity School of Christianity, the Unitarian Universalists, the Swedenborgian Church of North America, the Quakers, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, and the United Church of Christ… either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex ‘marriages’ or look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies.”
Neither is same-sex “marriage” about lifelong monogamous commitment.Whereas monogamy means emotional and sexual fidelity for heterosexual couples, for homosexual couples, it often means emotional fidelity only. More often than not, as long as partners remain emotionally detached from other partners, and are open and honest about their outside sexual relationships, they are not “cheating.”
Given that 75 percent of homosexual couples are in an open relationship, and the preponderance of same-sex couples who enter a “committed” relationship do so with no expectation of long-term fidelity, the homosexual understanding of marriage reflects a radical departure from the traditional institution.
In actuality, same-sex “marriage” is not even about marriage. So what is it about? Continue reading here.