The Wittenberg Door

Same-Sex Marriage and State Interest

From The Wittenberg Door archives . . .

Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority. "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

According to the California Supreme Court, marriage rights should be conferred upon same-sex couples because they can establish loving, long-term, committed relationships. Not to do so would be the same as denying fundamental rights to citizens based solely upon their skin color.

Loving, Long-Term, Committed Relationships

I love Frank Capra’s 1944 adaptation of Arsenic and Old Lace. It’s one of my favorite movies. So it's with great trepidation that I add this modern twist: What if the Brewsters lived somewhere in California instead of Brooklyn, New York; and one day, the sisters, Abby and Martha, hear on the radio that same-sex, loving, long-term couples can now receive the same benefits that married couples receive. Seeing as how they are of the same sex, they love each other, and they have pledged to spend their lives together, they must be eligible, right? Not so fast.

There’s a problem—they’re not having sex. The government is not interested in their loving, lifelong, same-sex relationship unless the wild mambo is involved. So out came plan B: Elaine.

Elaine, the minister’s daughter, moves in with the Brewster sisters; and since Elaine is looking to offset some gambling losses (she was sure Michigan could take North Carolina), she’s willing to have sex for money (i.e., tax benefits).

“But wait,” says the government! “We have some arbitrary rules to apply: sisters don’t count, and it can’t be three people, and Elaine is already married to Mortimer, so she’s out ...”

“But we love each other! Isn't it all about love?"

As this little exercise in reductio ad absurdam reveals, the court’s ruling is logically vacuous.

Is Homosexuality the Same as Ethnicity?

As the Los Angeles Times points out, “The ruling cited a 60-year-old precedent that struck down a ban on interracial marriage in California.” In the court’s mind, ethnicity and homosexuality are on the same moral plain. But is this the case?

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ethnicity is white. He was born that way and can do nothing to change it. His ethnicity is intrinsic to him. Consequently he had—and has—no choice in the matter. Those with homosexual desires, on the other hand, have a choice as to whether or not to act upon those desires. The latter is morally relevant, while the former is not. Thus ethnicity and homosexuality are not on the same moral plain (one involves choice and the other does not—one is intrinsic and the other a behavior). And since the state should only treat equals equally, it is in fact immoral to judicially conflate the two.

State Interest

The State’s only interest in marriage is that it is the best way for it, the State, to perpetuate itself. Mommies and daddies are from where the next generation of citizens will come. And the best environment for the raising of responsible citizens is a married, monogamist, heterosexual household. Married and monogamist because that brings stability to the home; heterosexual because both the mother and the father bring something in particular to the childrearing enterprise.

This unit is the best way to secure society’s future. Therefore, the State has an interest in favoring and protecting marriage between a man and a woman. It has no such interest in same-sex unions

--The Catechizer

Labels: Homosexuality

Discussing Homosexuality

Here’s some advice for when discussing homosexuality in the market place: steer clear of using the term terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality.” These terms, which have only been around for about 60 years, have taken on a meaning that is foreign to preceding generations and civilizations—that being, homosexuals are regarded as a special class of human being.

This designation gives homosexuals carte blanch when it comes to their behavior. After all, it’s genetic. For them not to act in a way consistent with their nature would be, well, unnatural, or so the argument goes.

Terms

Instead of using "homosexual" and homosexuality," use “homosexual desires” and “Homosexual activity.” Using these terms makes irrelevant the claim that “they are born that way.” Here’s how:

I was born with certain heterosexual desires. These desires are good when exercised properly (i.e., for my wife, and for her alone). However, if I misdirect these desires (i.e., lust towards another woman), they are bad (immoral). When confronted with these misdirected desires, what should I do? Should I say, “Hey, it’s natural; I was born with these desires,” and then act upon them? No. I’m expected to realize that these desires are misdirected (sinful) and to restrain myself.

Likewise, those with homosexual desires should show the same restraint. The moral aspect aside for a moment, isn’t it obvious that their desires are misdirected? If “nature” intended for a man to have relations with another man, wouldn’t “nature” have provided the compatible equipment? It seems obvious that the proper direction for the desires should be towards those of the opposite sex.

Conclusion

Speaking of desires moves the conversation beyond the question of genetics—it doesn’t matter why I have these desires; what matters is how I respond to them. Engaging in homosexual activity is both unnatural (which a quick survey of the equipment reveals), and immoral (this is where a discussion of worldviews comes in). Speaking of desires also avoids the modern notion that “homosexuals” are a special class of humans. Instead, it reveals that they are like anyone else, just with different immoral desires.

--The Catechizer

Labels: Ethics, Homosexuality, Tactics

Dolly Parton and Tolerance – Part 2 (Conclusion)

In Part 1, we considered the definition of tolerance and how post-modernity has redefined it. We also took a look at the common retort of those holding the new view: "Who are you to judge?"

In this post we’ll consider the foundation of tolerance, both old and new. We’ll also get a chance to see modern tolerance in action.

Tolerance with an “If”

Classical tolerance was birthed by a Christian worldview. It’s founded upon the notion that man is created in God’s image. As His image bearer, man is expected to act in accordance with God’s moral standards. Man is also expected to treat his fellows with respect, since they too bear God’s image.

Modern tolerance has no such foundation. Consequently, it’s very fickle, changing from person to person. Because of this, you can never tell how it’s going to cash out—it’s like playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey with a living, highly agitated animal. Some burrows, however, are easier to stick than others. Consider the following sentiment from Ms. Parton:

. . . If you can accept me, I can accept you.
Dolly Parton

Ahhhh, the art of the caveat. This is actually very typical. She’ll show you tolerance as long as you show her the same. It’s the contingency here that counts. In the classical view, one shows tolerance even if the object of the tolerance is himself intolerant. This caveat makes tolerance anemic. Reason is, I don’t have to tolerate someone who agrees with me. It’s only those with whom I don’t agree that I can show tolerance—this, of course, includes the intolerant.

Hate Mail?

Having a big gay following, I get hate mail and threats . . .
Dolly Parton

I don’t know what to make of this. Ms. Parton doesn’t give us any examples. It does seem odd, though. I’m trying to figure out what someone would say. Maybe something like this:

“Dolly, I hear that there are some homosexuals out there who listen to your music. Therefore, I hate you. Have a nice day.”

There’s no question that people full of irrational hate do irrational things. But her characterization is a bit hard to accept. I wonder if those same people send similar emails to Levi Strauss:

“I hear that there are some homosexuals out there who wear trousers. Therefore, I hate pants. Boy is it drafty.”

Of course, I’m only able to offer conjecture since Ms. Parton has not granted us a peek into her email. I suspect, though, that she does what many do today: If someone is critical of your position (particularly hot-button issues like homosexuality), you characterize them in the worst possible light. Again, I don’t know whether or not that’s the case with Ms. Parton. But, because she holds to modern tolerance, and because her claim just doesn’t ring true (that she gets hate mail because some homosexuals like her music), I think we have grounds to be suspicious.

Mr. Mohidin of New Queer World, however, has already passed judgment: these people are “hate mongers.” It makes you wonder how he can come to this conclusion without seeing any evidence. But it does provide a transition to our next topic.

The Intolerance of Tolerance

Some people are blind or ignorant, and you can't be that prejudiced and hateful and go through this world and still be happy.
Dolly Parton

If I were to create a bumper sticker for the new-tolerance crowd it would read, “We don’t tolerate intolerance around here!” Reason being, those holding to modern tolerance have a tendency to vilify their detractors. For example, if you question the morality of homosexual behavior you run risk being labeled a “homophobe” or being accused of hating homosexuals. (I can’t tell you how many times this has happened to me.)

True tolerance doesn’t name call, and it doesn’t cast aspersions upon the character of those on the other side. Even if the person is prejudiced in a bad way, or has an irrational hatred towards a person or group, the truly tolerant would respond with a well-reasoned argument, presented in a gracious, respectful manor. Of course, this is the difference between the classic definition and the new: the former, being founded upon a Christian ethic, has substance, while the later, having no foundation at all, is vacuous—just like the smiley face.

--The Catechizer

Labels: Apologetics, Ethics, Homosexuality, Tactics

Tolerance and Dialog – Tactical Considerations

I penned the following post while writing for another Web site. Please note that since that site is no longer alive, the original comment mentioned below is no longer available.

It’s always of interest to me how people reach this Web site. Yesterday, someone found us by doing a search on Dolly Parton. When I was looking at the other Web sites and blogs that came up in the search, I noticed one called New Queer World that had commented on the same Dolly Parton interview on which I had posted. Since I’m always looking for opportunities to dialog with non-Christians, I left the following comment:

Greetings, Don. I can sympathize with Ms. Parton’s desire for toleration. I too want people to be tolerant of others with whom they disagree. That means we ought to treat them with dignity, fairly represent their views, and respectfully engage their ideas. Today, many of us fall short of this classic definition of tolerance. It’s much easier to name call and to vilify than to truly treat each other with tolerance. May we all strive for true tolerance.

In response to my comment, the author, Don Mohidin, left a comment on my Dolly Parton and Tolerance – Tactical Considerations post. I encourage you to read it. Mr. Mohidin, I believe, showed true tolerance. His comments are both gracious and thoughtful. He also took time to challenge my position. What follows is my response to his challenge.

Is Morality Ice cream?

Points of view that some will view as good and others will see as bad have no intrinsic 'goodness' or 'badness.' They are simply one (or more) person's opinion about something.

Mr. Mohidin, it would seem, is a moral relativist (moral absolutes do not exist). His claim is that ideas have no intrinsic moral properties, that they are simply one’s opinion. For example, Mr. Mohidin might like chocolate ice cream, while I like vanilla. Michael might like feeding starving children, while Bob likes torturing them—none of these views are “good” or “bad,” we all just have different opinions. (As you can see, moral relativism offers a hard pill to swallow.)

I think that what happened to Mathew Shepard was a heinous act, that it was an objective (exists outside of the mind) moral wrong. But, on Mr. Mohidin’s view, there are no objective moral wrongs. Morality is subjective (only exists in the mind). Therefore, the perpetrators didn’t actually do anything wrong, because there’s no “wrong” to do. All that exists are just different opinions.

The point will always be distilled down to a set of values the speaker holds based upon beliefs and a moral code developed during life. Who is to say whose moral code is universally correct?

On Mr. Mohidin’s view, man is a moral tabula rasa (blank slate). We collect our moral views through-out life like a ship’s hull collects barnacles. Adolph Hitler developed the view that homosexuals should be put to death. Does that make the Nazi persecution of homosexuals right? If Mr. Mohidin is consistent he would have to answer, “Who’s to say?”

It takes supreme arrogance to adopt the position that one knows the right moral code . . .

It’s Mr. Mohidin’s moral code that it is supremely arrogant to think that you have the right moral code. Assuming that Mr. Mohidin thinks he's right about that, he has shown us that he is supremely arrogant. (Example of a self-refuting claim.)

. . . because it assumes that the decider knows everything, and knowing everything, can pick out the right moral code to which all people should adhere.

I couldn’t agree with Mr. Mohidin more. No human being can know everything, and no human being can establish a moral code for all to follow. Here’s the Christian claim: Morality is based upon God’s holy, just, and perfect character. He is the standard for morality. We know this in two ways. First, we are beings created in His image; because of this, we are moral beings who are imprinted with His moral code. That’s why everyone engages in moral reasoning. Second, He has revealed His moral law to us in the Bible. Consequently, morality is objective.

Please note that I am not arguing for the truthfulness of Christianity. I’m simply stating the claim. For a thumbnail sketch as to why Christianity is true, please see my post titled, The Lazy Atheist?— The Christian Worldview (Conclusion).

Conclusion

I don’t know Mr. Mohidin. He might be a prince of a man; perhaps he gives liberally to charity, is adored by many, and performs daily acts of mercy. His character is not in question. It’s his worldview that deserves scrutiny.

Moral relativism is untenable. Not only is it self-refuting (e.g., “there are not absolutes” is itself an absolute statement), but it doesn’t work in real life—no one lives that way.

I bet if someone broke into Mr. Mohidin’s house he’d call the police (that he wouldn’t just dismiss the crime by saying that the burglar simply had a different opinion as to who owned the property). I bet he thought Hitler was evil. And I bet he was repulsed and outraged by what happened to Mathew Shepard. These are all appropriate moral responses—they're appropriate, that is, in a world with objective morality. But if morality is simply ice cream . . .

--The Catechizer

Labels: Apologetics, Ethics, Homosexuality, Tactics

Dolly Parton and Tolerance – Tactical Considerations – Part 1

A few years ago, while writing for another Web site, I penned the following post. I came across it recently while going through some old files and thought that the readers of this site might find it of interest.

In a USA Today interview, Parton’s Plea for Tolerance, Dolly Parton explains that her ability to identify with the outcast enabled her to pen the song Travelin’ Thru. This Oscar-nominated song was written for the movie Transamerica, which tells the tale of a pre-operative “transsexual” traveling the country with his son.

Some things are strange to me, and some things are odd . . . But I don't condemn. If you can accept me, I can accept you.
Dolly Parton

Definition of Tolerance

“Tolerance,” classically defined, refers to how you treat someone with whom you disagree. You show tolerance when you treat your opponent with dignity, fairly represent his views, and graciously engage his ideas—or, to put it simply, you don’t kill him for having divergent views.

The classical definition of tolerance has fallen on hard times. Post-modernity has refashioned the term into something warm and fuzzy—a verbal counterpart to the ubiquitous smiley face.

No longer is tolerance characterized by charitable disagreement. The modern notion is that to be tolerant is not to disagree at all, but rather that all views ought to be embraced equally—sort of.

Not only has the term been redefined, but it has also been narrowed: only those views deemed socially acceptable are accorded toleration. All other views are marginalized.

“Poor Dolly” Disclaimer

Before I comment, I want to make it clear that it is not my intention to beat up on Dolly. She seems to me to be a very sweet, decent lady. The reason I’m using her comments is because I think they reflect how most people view tolerance.

Judging

In Dolly’s comment above, she mentions that she doesn’t “condemn” things that seem strange or odd to her. In context, she’s talking about people’s behavior or “life choices.” Basically, she’s saying that she doesn’t judge.

The not-judging aspect of modern tolerance usually takes two forms:

“You shouldn’t judge”

“Who are you to judge?”

You shouldn’t judge.
When I’m confronted with this objection, I typically respond with a clarification question: “Is it your view that it’s wrong to judge?” After he affirms I follow-up with, “Then why are you judging me?”

You see, what he’s saying is that, in his judgment, it’s wrong to judge. This is obviously self-refuting. By pointing out the contradiction, it helps to pave the way for a discussion of true tolerance.

Who are you to judge?
When confronted with this question, respond with, “Who are you to ask ‘Who am I to judge?’”

Behind his question is a presupposition that you don’t have the authority to make the judgment. In essence, you are asking the same question: by what authority do you ask me about my authority? Responding this way shows that his presupposition dies by its own sword. Also, by using this tactic, you pave the way to talk about Who actually has the ultimate authority to judge.

Part 2

In part 2 we’ll consider the caveat to modern tolerance, as introduced to us by Ms. Parton: “If you can accept me, I can accept you." We’ll also see that those holding this view don’t tolerate what they consider “intolerance.”

--The Catechizer

Labels: Apologetics, Homosexuality, Tactics

Defense of Marriage Act and Same-Sex Marriage

From The Wittenberg Door archives . . .

The Obama administration recently announced that it will no longer legally support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The act, signed into law by then President Bill Clinton, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It also stipulates that a same-sex union considered a marriage in one state does not have to be recognized as such in another.

In order to advance the ball put into play by the Obama administration, House and Senate Democrats will be drafting legislation both to repeal DOMA and to replace it with something more palatable to their sensibilities.

In this post we’ll consider the reasons put forth as justification for overturning DOMA.

(Quotes below are from the Huffinton Post.)

State Interest

"The president's move is another step in the increasing realization that there is no conceivable justification for DOMA, that it is motivated, was motivated, purely by irrational considerations and fear and that there is no rational basis that will stand up to a constitutional challenge," said Nadler [Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee]. "Hopefully, that will make it somewhat easier to pass legislation in Congress."

DOMA defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Rep. Nadler, instead of advancing an argument to substantiate his claim, simply resorts to motive questioning: those who don’t agree with him are motivated by irrationality and fear. Furthermore, he claims “that there is no rational basis that will stand up to a constitutional challenge.”Again, no reason is given. He just makes a claim.

Unlike Rep. Nadler, I will make a case for my side, and I’ll do so without questioning his motives. I’ll let the reader be the judge as to whether or not what follows is irrational.

The State’s only interest in marriage is that it is the best way for it, the State, to perpetuate itself. Mommies and daddies are from where the next generation of citizens will come. And the best environment for the raising of responsible citizens is a married, monogamist, heterosexual household. Married and monogamist because that brings stability to the home; heterosexual because both the mother and the father bring something in particular to the childrearing enterprise.

This unit is the best way to secure society’s future. Therefore, the State has an interest in favoring and protecting marriage between a man and a woman. It has no such interest in same-sex unions

All You Need is Love

"As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, it is my intention to introduce legislation that will once and for all repeal the Defense of Marriage Act," [Sen. D-CA] Feinstein said in a prepared statement. "My own belief is that when two people love each other and enter the contract of marriage, the Federal government should honor that. I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It was the wrong law then; it is the wrong law now; and it should be repealed."

Sen. Feinstein’s comments bring to mind the Beatles’ song, All You Need is Love. Great song; bad social policy. Is it true that we can marry anyone we love and with whom we enter into a “contract”? Can I marry my two neighbors' wives as long as we love each other? Can I marry my sister if we stipulate that we wouldn’t breed? Can I marry myself (if I likewise promise not to breed)? We could go on-and-on with scenarios, but I think the point has been made: love is an insufficient reason to redefine marriage.

Another point is that the state isn’t interested in whether or not the happy couple love each other. On a marriage form there is no “Check Here to Swear That You Love This Person.” Why? Because the State doesn’t care. They care about the union for the reasons above, not about our emotional commitment to one another.

Conclusion

For all of recorded history marriage has been between men and women—never between the same sex. There have been variations on the theme of marriage, but the theme remains. Consider, though, the amazing chutzpah of the Senator and Congressman: They and their compatriots on the Left are morally superior to all religious leaders of all times, and to all generations that preceded this one. (I suppose Sen. Feinstein can teach Jesus a-thing-or-two about morality.)

If the Congressman and the Senator take truth, intellectual honesty, and the fabric of society seriously, then they’ll offer something more substantial than “all you need is love, and if you disagree it’s because you’re irrational and fearful.”

--The Catechizer

Labels: Homosexuality

Do Same-Sex Couples Deserve a Chance to Get Married? - Part 3 (Conclusion)

Continued from part 2 . . .

I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.

Senator Portman asserts that love and compassion are the overarching themes of Scripture. I would take umbrage with the good Senator’s negligence of some of the other major themes within Scripture: judgment, sin, God’s sovereignty, wrath, holiness, and sanctification, just to name a few. These cannot be excluded when considering the topic at hand. I often hear people overemphasize the qualities of God which they deem beneficial (or more palatable) in negligence of those which they would rather not talk about.

God’s Love

While God’s love is an overarching theme in the Bible, it is only properly understood when coupled with His hatred for sin. God’s love is most poignantly demonstrated in the outpouring of His eternal wrath - or anger, hatred, and punishment - against sin. God’s love is manifested most clearly as He forsook His eternally beloved Son for the purpose of expunging the guilt and debt incurred by man. That guilt and debt required, indeed demanded, punishment!

What you do not see in Scripture is Jesus coming into the world proclaiming, “All is well. My Father loves you and is willing to let bygones be bygones.” Jesus did not come into the world to give the world a hall pass, a get out of jail free card, a mulligan. Jesus came into the world “Because the justice of God requires that the same human nature which has sinned should make satisfaction for sin” (Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 16). No other human could “bear in His manhood the burden of God’s eternal wrath” against sin; but Jesus was able to do so “by the power of His Godhead” (Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 17, emphasis added).

God’s Justice

God’s justice is another overarching theme of Scripture. His justice demands that good be rewarded and evil be punished (Ezekiel 18:4-9). For either to go unrequited is an aberration of His justice. Often we would like to think that God will let our sin slide because, after all, as the popular saying goes, “nobody’s perfect.” Scripture puts it this way, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). But that’s not the end of the matter. Elsewhere the Bible reads, “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

God has set His standard before us - His moral law, summarized on two tablets, and expounded upon in the whole of Scripture. This standard is an expression of His moral character. We are to follow this law because as our Creator, He has the right to demand of us what He wills. He has laid before us, clearly, the consequences of breaking His law. He has provided a means of reconciliation for law-breakers, via the incarnation, righteous life, and atoning death of His Son. He has given His Spirit to indwell within the hearts of those whom He has predestined, called, justified, and glorified (Romans 8:30a). We are not at liberty to set this law aside for our own enrichment, vengeance upon our enemies, or even the happiness of our children. Our public representatives would do well to consider the standard from which they reason, especially when they claim the standard of Holy Writ. Senator Portman should take heed.

--The Deacon

Labels: Homosexuality

Do Same-Sex Couples Deserve a Chance to Get Married? – Part 2

Continued from part one . . .

Sadly, the type of logic used by Senator Portman is not the result of “progressive” thought. In fact, it is millennia old; it dates back to the Garden. After Eve conversed with the serpent, she reasoned thusly with regard to the forbidden fruit, “the tree was good for food... pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise” (Genesis 3:6b). This line of reasoning is often duplicated when people contemplate moral dilemmas.

Man’s Supposed Epistemic Autonomy

First, a determination is made that a thing (ideology, action, dialogue, etc.) is good and adequate to satisfy some sensual desire, “good for food.” In this case, the desire for companionship and to love and/or to be loved. Second, a determination is made with regard to whether or not a thing is pleasing to us (visually, emotionally, sensually, etc.), “pleasant to the eyes” Third, the thing is evaluated in terms of its reasonability.

Does it make sense?
Is it beneficial?
Does it benefit or harm those around me?

In other words, is it a wise thing to think, say, or do? Is it “desirable to make one wise”?

The problem which leads one to answer all of these questions incorrectly is because he’s reasoning from a false sense of autonomy. We do not have existence in and of ourselves, “It is (God) who made us, and not we ourselves” (Psalm 100:3b). Because this is true, we are not at liberty to determine for ourselves good and evil. God told Adam and Eve what they were to do and what they were not to do. Their rebellion in the face of these requirements and prohibitions is what resulted in the deplorable condition into which we are all plunged (Romans 3:23).

Like Eve, we contemplate moral questions in the supposed absence of (or better yet, in direct opposition to) prior and clear direction from God, “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17, emphasis added). This not only leads to sin (thinking in this manner is itself sinful), but sin results in the perpetuation of this foolish type of thinking.

Like both Adam and Eve, we find ourselves ashamed on account of our sin (Romans 6:21). In addition to this, we run from God rather than to Him because of fear (Genesis 3:8-10). Even worse, we attempt to cover our sin by methods of our own determination (Genesis 3:7). These methods inevitably require far less of us than what God says is required, namely, death!

God’s Legitimate Epistemic Authority

With regard to the matter at hand, Senator Portman has done nothing to disprove the foregoing model. The opening paragraph of his op-ed piece reads as follows:

I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married.

Later he says:

I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.

His first statement asserts that as long as two people agree to love one another they ought not be forbidden to marry. This bypasses the authority of God to impose His moral law upon us in deference to “doing what is right in (our) own eyes” (Judges 17:6, Proverbs 21:2). We have no biblical compulsion to reconcile the Christian faith with our children’s temporal happiness. What makes my children happy often flies in the face of biblical imperatives. As a father, I am required to teach my children to deny themselves fleshly pleasures and short term fulfillment in light of the Holy God who has set his standard before them as the benchmark. This benchmark is for the restraint of sin, breaking through the obstination of the self-righteous heart of fallen mankind, and serving as a beacon of sanctification for the Christian to aim at.

To be continued. . .

--The Deacon

Labels: Homosexuality

Do Same-Sex Couples Deserve a Chance to Get Married? - Part 1

From the Wittenberg Door archives:

Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman recently reversed his position regarding the redefinition of marriage. The catalyst for the change was the revelation that his son is a homosexual. In an Op-Ed for The Columbus Dispatch, Senator Portman provides his rationale for the change. His reasons fall into two major categories: social and religious. In this post we’ll take a look at his reasons pertaining to the social sphere. In the next installment The Deacon will consider the religious.

The Arguments

After learning of his son’s sexual desires, Senator Portman spent the next two years thinking through his “position in a much deeper way.” After giving “a great deal” of thought to the issue, he changed his position for the following reasons:

It'll make his son happy

Marriage should be available to any two people

It’s politically conservative

It's good for families

It doesn’t undercut traditional marriage

Young people overwhelmingly support the change

A lot could be said about each of these points, but most fall under the two categories below.

Redefining Marriage will Benefit More People in Love

I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married.

“Love” is the typical reason given for redefining marriage; folks who love each other ought to be allowed to marry. Senator Portman makes this the first reason in his case for the redefinition of marriage, although he offers an interesting caveat: “two people.” On what grounds does he limit the number to two? If love is the determining factor, why can’t three people who love each other marry? Or six? Or rub-a-dub-dub 12 men in a tub? And if I love my neighbor’s wife, can we book the bridal shower? How about if I set my affections upon a potted plant? “But we love each other!”

Indeed, if love is the deciding factor then all “loving” relationships are due government preference; and if all are “preferred” then none are, nor can any be denied such preference.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch . . . The government doesn’t give a hoot about love; it’s not a living, loving, taxing Hallmark card. When I married the fetching Mrs. Catechizer I didn’t have to sign a notarized affidavit swearing to my undying love for her; there was no “On a Scale from 1 to 10” love-meter on the marriage application. Nope. I paid my $10, singed my name on the dotted line, took my vows before the magistrate, and then headed off to the Vegas strip with my shiny new bride.

It should be pointed out too that the state is not stopping those with homosexual desires from marrying. They can marry any willing, unmarried, of-age opposite-sex person they wish; same as those with heterosexual desires. The state doesn’t care about our desires, nor does it care about “love.”

Redefining Marriage is Good for Families and Therefore Good for Society

We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.

This argument assumes there’s no difference between men and women, something the Left has been peddling since the 60s. Most of us are members of one of the two sexes and have experience dealing with the opposite sex (that was a joke, by the way). So for those of us who haven’t been to graduate school there is no reason to entertain the “no difference” topic further.

So the question is, Is it good for families? No doubt that there are same-sex coupled homes raising wonderful children. And we all know opposite-sex couples who manage horrible homes. But neither of these are the issue. The question is should the State promote same-sex families. I believe the answer to be no. Reason being, children deserve opposite-sex parents, because both the mother and the father contribute uniquely to the child’s life. So when there’s a choice involved, society should always do what’s best for the child

Redefining Marriage is Not in the State’s Interest

Despite Senator Portman’s claims, redefining marriage is not in society’s interest. The State’s (government and citizenry) only interest in marriage is that it is the best way for society to perpetuate itself. Mommies and daddies are from where the next generation of citizens will come. And the best environment for the raising of responsible citizens is a married, monogamist, heterosexual household. Married and monogamist because that brings stability to the home; heterosexual because both the mother and the father bring something in particular to the childrearing enterprise.

This unit is the best way to secure society’s future. Therefore, the State has an interest in favoring and protecting marriage between a man and a woman. It has no such interest in same-sex unions.

Stay tuned for part 2!

--The Catechizer

Labels: Homosexuality

Ethnicity vs. Homosexuality

From The Wittenberg Door archives . . .

HOUSTON — A judge in Texas paved the way for a court battle over the state’s ban on same-sex marriage when she ruled this week that two men married in another state can get divorced in Dallas.
New York Times

Even more interesting than the claim that the greatest state in the Union is denying folks their “Constitutional right” to marry (and, it seems, to divorce) is the following:

“The bottom line is, just as in the ’50s, when the Supreme Court of the United States had enough guts to say no more on segregation, this present Supreme Court ought to do the same thing on this issue,” said Jonathan D. F. Nelson, a Fort Worth lawyer.

The idea expressed by the Stockyard pettifogger is apparently shared by the court: ethnicity and homosexuality are on the same moral plain. But are the gentlepersons of the law correct?

Ethnicity Equal to Homosexuality?

Captain Kangaroo’s ethnicity was white (caucasion). He was born that way and could do nothing to change it. His ethnicity was intrinsic to him. Consequently he had no choice in the matter. Those with homosexual desires, on the other hand, have a choice as to whether or not to act upon those desires. The latter is morally relevant, while the former is not. Thus ethnicity and homosexuality are not on the same moral plain (one involves choice and the other does not—one is intrinsic and the other a behavior). And since the state should only treat equals equally, it is in fact immoral to judicially conflate the two.

State Interest

The State’s only interest in marriage is that it is the best way for it, the State, to perpetuate itself. Mommies and daddies are from where the next generation of citizens will come. And the best environment for the raising of responsible citizens is a married, monogamist, heterosexual household. Married and monogamist because that brings stability to the home; heterosexual because both the mother and the father bring something in particular to the childrearing enterprise.

This unit is the best way to secure society’s future. Therefore, the State has an interest in favoring and protecting marriage between a man and a woman. It has no such interest in same-sex unions—I bet even Mr. Green Jeans understood this.

--The Catechizer

Labels: Homosexuality

Brad Pitt, Proposition 8, and Same-Sex Marriage

From The Wittenberg Door archives . . .

Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8.
Statement by Brad Pitt published in the Los Angeles Times

Above, actor-turned-activist Brad Pitt provides his rational for opposing California’s Proposition 8 (voter-approved amendment resolving that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”). But is Mr. Pitt’s position warranted? To deduce that we’ll have to take a closer look at his argument, presented below in syllogistic form (the unstated minor premises are included parenthetically):

No one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it.
(Prop 8 deprives people of their life.)
Everyone has the right to live the life they want, as long as it doesn’t harm another.
(Prop 8 deprives people of the right to live the life they want and doesn’t harm anyone.)
Discrimination and inequality have no place in America.
(Prop 8 [unjustly] discriminates against same sex couples.)
Therefore, my vote will be for equality and against Prop. 8

Valid vs. Sound Arguments

Mr. Pitt’s argument is valid, meaning the conclusion follows deductively from the premises. The question, however, is whether his argument is sound. For an argument to be sound it not only must be valid but it must also only comprise true premises. So, to find out if Mr. Pitt’s argument is sound, we must look at each of the premises. But, for the purposes of brevity, we’ll only look at the minor premises.

Prop 8 Deprives People of Their Life

On this one I’d have to ask Mr. Pitt for clarification. Since Prop. 8 is neither calling for the execution nor the incarceration of homosexuals, I don’t know what he means. Unless he believes that homosexuals will lose the will to live without government affirmation of their relationships. (Of course this wouldn’t be a deprivation of life, but a forfeiture.)

Prop 8 Deprives People of the Right to Live the Life They Want and Doesn’t Harm Anyone

Prop. 8 doesn’t deprive homosexuals of their same-sex relationships; it only deprives them of government favor. The question, however, is this: Do same-sex relationships deserve such favor? We’ll return to this question later in the post.

The second part of the proposition is whether or not same-sex marriage harms anyone. The answer is, it depends. Here’s why: If same-sex couples are afforded the same status as traditional marriage, then there seems no reason not to allow them to adopt children. This is where the harm comes in. Children deserve opposite-sex parents, because both the mother and the father contribute uniquely to the child’s life. When there’s a choice involved, society should always do what’s best for the child. Hence, the answer to the question of harm would be yes.

Prop 8 [Unjustly] Discriminates Against Same Sex Couples

I inserted the word “unjustly” because not all discrimination is bad. (Wouldn’t you discriminate against a pedophile should he ask to be your babysitter?) So the question is this: Do same-sex couples deserve the same societal favor that traditional marriages enjoy? The answer is no. Here’s why . . .

A civilization has an interest in perpetuating itself, which is from where the interest in opposite-sex marriage comes: it is the best way for it, the civilization, to perpetuate itself.

Mommies and daddies are from where the next generation of citizens come. And the best environment for the raising of responsible citizens is a married, monogamist, heterosexual household. Married and monogamist because that brings stability to the home; heterosexual because, as mentioned earlier, both the mother and the father bring something in particular to the childrearing enterprise.

This unit is the best way to secure society’s future. Therefore, civilization has an interest in favoring and protecting marriage between a man and a woman. It has no such interest in same-sex unions.

Conclusion

As we’ve seen, Mr. Pitt’s argument withers under scrutiny and reveals itself to be unsound. Prop. 8 does not deprive homosexuals of their lives, nor does it keep them from living the life they want. However, it does help adopted children by not elevating the status of same-sex couples. And finally, Prop. 8 does not unfairly discriminate against same-sex couples, because society has no compelling interest in favoring their unions as it does in traditional marriages.

--The Catechizer

Labels: Homosexuality

Tolerant of Intolerance

From The Wittenberg Door archives . . .

Chris Broussard of ESPN recently had the audacity and gall to assert that homosexuality is clearly denounced as sin in the Scriptures. As expected, he was vilified as a homophobic, bigoted, hateful, intolerant Christian. It seems like you can only be labeled tolerant if you agree with whatever popular society purports as acceptable. To have the brazenness to uphold historical, orthodox Christian views with regard to sexuality is to be automatically dismissed as dated and close-minded. Here is a transcript of his original comments made on ESPN:

"I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality. I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. [ESPN's] L.Z. [Granderson] knows that. He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We've gone out, had lunch together, we've had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don't criticize him, he doesn't criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.
"In talking to some people around the league, there's a lot Christians in the NBA and just because they disagree with that lifestyle, they don't want to be called bigoted and intolerant and things like that. That's what LZ was getting at. Just like I may tolerate someone whose lifestyle I disagree with, he can tolerate my beliefs. He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names.
"... Personally, I don't believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you're openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that's a sin. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian."

Mr. Broussard defended his Christian convictions here in this hostile (and crude) interview:

--The Deacon

Labels: Homosexuality

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage?

From the Wittenberg Door archives . . .

Self-described conservative and former Reagan and Bush administration official Ted Olson is one of two attorneys who sued to have California’s proposition 8 overturned. Mr. Olson makes his case to the American people in a Newsweek opinion piece titled, The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage. In this post we’ll consider some of the main ideas presented in the column.

Conservative?

My first comment has to do with the title of the piece: The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage. Since “conservative” means “to conserve,” how is it that his desire to fundamentally change the institution can be labeled “conservative”? Moreover, how does his “conservative” case differ from a liberal or “progressive” case? If it walks like a liberal, and quacks like a liberal . . .

Stopping Homosexuals from Marrying?

Various federal and state laws have accorded certain rights and privileges to gay and lesbian couples, but these protections vary dramatically at the state level, and nearly universally deny true equality to gays and lesbians who wish to marry. The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.

It should be pointed out that the state is not stopping those with homosexual desires from marrying. They can marry any willing, unmarried, of-age opposite-sex person they wish; same as those with heterosexual desires. The state doesn’t care about our desires, nor does it care about “love.”

Of course, the objection is that they can’t marry whomever they wish, which is true. But I can’t marry whomever I wish either, if, say, I wanted to marry my neighbor’s wife, or my sister, or a potted plant. These relationships would be disallowed state-sanction for the same reason state-sanction is denied same-sex relationships: the state has no interest in their relationships.

State Interest

When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.

First, this type of emotional pandering is unbecoming any person who wants his ideas to be taken seriously. That aside, the answer is “yes,” same-sex relationships (whether homo- or heterosexual) are less valued by the state, and rightfully so. Here’s why . . .

The state should only have an interest in two types of contractual relationships: corporations and heterosexual marriages. The first because the state is required to regulate commerce (section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution); and the second because it is the best way for it, the State, to perpetuate itself.

Mommies and daddies are from where the next generation of citizens will come. And the best environment for the raising of responsible citizens is a married, monogamist, heterosexual household. Married and monogamist because that brings stability to the home; heterosexual because both the mother and the father bring something in particular to the childrearing enterprise.

This unit is the best way to secure society’s future. Therefore, the state has an interest in favoring and protecting marriage between a man and a woman. It has no such interest in same-sex unions.

Moral Superiority

I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law . . .

This is breath-taking arrogance. Mr. Olson claims that he and his compatriots on the left are morally superior to all religious leaders of all times, and to all generations that preceded this one. (I suppose Ted Olson can teach Jesus a-thing-or-two about morality.)

. . . And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others . . .

Obviously this doesn’t apply to Mr. Olson since he wants to force his convictions upon the rest of society. But of course he is the moral standard for all of humanity.

Science and Homosexuality

. . . Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed . . .

I was born with certain heterosexual desires. These desires are good when exercised properly (i.e., for my wife, and for her alone). However, if I misdirect these desires (i.e., lust towards another woman), they are bad (immoral). When confronted with these misdirected desires, what should I do? Should I say, “Hey, it’s natural; I was born with these desires,” and then act upon them? No. I’m expected to realize that these desires are misdirected (sinful) and to restrain myself.

Likewise, those with homosexual desires should show the same restraint. The moral aspect aside for a moment, isn’t it obvious that their desires are misdirected? If “nature” intended for a man to have relations with another man, wouldn’t “nature” have provided the compatible equipment? It seems obvious that the proper direction for the desires should be towards those of the opposite sex.

Ethnicity Equal to Homosexuality?

. . . It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education—until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.

Ted Olson’s ethnicity is white (Caucasian). He was born that way and could do nothing to change it. His ethnicity is intrinsic to him. Consequently he had no choice in the matter. Those with homosexual desires, on the other hand, have a choice as to whether or not to act upon those desires. The latter is morally relevant, while the former is not. Thus ethnicity and homosexuality are not on the same moral plain (one involves choice and the other does not—one is intrinsic and the other a behavior). And since the state should only treat equals equally, it is in fact immoral to judicially conflate the two.

Conclusion

I call on Mr. Olson to drop the label “conservative case” unless he can explain how it differs from the liberal case, and to explain how you can “conserve” something by radically changing it . I also call upon him and others who take his position to consider carefully the case for traditional marriage that I made above, and to drop the bad arguments like those employed by Mr. Olson—Intellectual honesty demands it. We’ll see if they’re up to it, but I’ not holding my breath.

Labels: Homosexuality

PC(USA) and Its Continued War Against Biblical Authority

For nearly a century the Presbyterian Church (USA) has been sliding towards the complete abandonment of Scripture as an authority. To ensure that they keep advancing towards that goal, the PC(USA) joins likeminded apostates in the Episcopal Church (US), the United Church of Christ, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in ordaining practicing homosexuals. Removed from their constitution is the ordination requirement of “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.”

Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) General Assembly, explained the meaning of the change: “Clearly what has changed is that persons in a same-gender relationship can be considered for ordination . . . . The gist of our ordination standards is that officers submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and ordaining bodies (presbyteries for ministers and sessions for elders and deacons) have the responsibility to examine each candidate individually to ensure that all candidates do so with no blanket judgments.”

For further information on this change, plus insightful analysis, I recommend Dr. Albert Mohler’s article, Following Jesus While Rejecting the Bible? Yet Another Tragedy in Mainline Protestantism.

Labels: Homosexuality

Discussing Homosexuality

From WorldNetDaily . . .

What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," is what the substitute teacher told eighth-grade students at Ashburn Community Elementary School after showing the R-rated movie [Brokeback Mountain], according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Cook County Circuit Court.

“I wish I knew how to quit you.”

And I wish I knew how to quit seeing this movie pop-up everywhere. It certainly seems that we, and now our pre-teen children, haven’t seen the last of this film. For that reason, and because of other controversies regarding same-sex relationships, I’d thought that I’d put aside my outrage (remember when schools were a place of education, not indoctrination?) and offer some advice for discussing this issue with those in the market place.

Advice

My advice has to do with terminology. The terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality” are modern terms (being about 60 years old) that have taken on a meaning that is foreign to preceding generations and civilizations—that being, homosexuals are regarded as a special class of human being.

This designation gives homosexuals carte blanch when it comes to their behavior. After all, it’s genetic. For them not to act in a way consistent with their nature would be, well, unnatural, or so the argument goes.

Terms

Here’s my advice: steer clear of the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality.” Instead, use “homosexual desires” and “Homosexual activity.” Using these terms makes irrelevant the claim that “they are born that way.” (By the way, they aren’t born that way. Refer to the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality [NARTH] Web site for the evidence.) Here’s how:

I was born with certain heterosexual desires. These desires are good when exercised properly (i.e., for my wife, and for her alone). However, if I misdirect these desires (i.e., lust towards another woman), they are bad (immoral). When confronted with these misdirected desires, what should I do? Should I say, “Hey, it’s natural; I was born with these desires,” and then act upon them? No. I’m expected to realize that these desires are misdirected (sinful) and to restrain myself.

Likewise, those with homosexual desires should show the same restraint. The moral aspect aside for a moment, isn’t it obvious that their desires are misdirected? If “nature” intended for a man to have relations with another man, wouldn’t “nature” have provided the compatible equipment? It seems obvious that the proper direction for the desires should be towards those of the opposite sex.

Conclusion

Speaking of desires moves the conversation beyond the question of genetics—it doesn’t matter why I have these desires; what matters is how I respond to them. Engaging in homosexual activity is both unnatural (which a quick survey of the equipment reveals), and immoral (this is where a discussion of worldviews comes in). Speaking of desires also avoids the modern notion that “homosexuals” are a special class of humans. Instead, it reveals that they are like anyone else, just with different immoral desires.

Labels: Ethics, Homosexuality, Tactics

Brad Pitt, Proposition 8, and Same-Sex Marriage

Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8.
Statement by Brad Pitt published in the Los Angeles Times

Above, actor-turned-activist Brad Pitt provides his rational for opposing California’s Proposition 8. But is Mr. Pitt’s position warranted? To deduce that we’ll have to take a closer look at his argument, presented below in syllogistic form (the unstated minor premises are included parenthetically):

No one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it.
(Prop 8 deprives people of their life.)
Everyone has the right to live the life they want, as long as it doesn’t harm another.
(Prop 8 deprives people of the right to live the life they want and doesn’t harm anyone.)
Discrimination and inequality have no place in America.
(Prop 8 [unjustly] discriminates against same sex couples.)
Therefore, my vote will be for equality and against Prop. 8

Valid vs. Sound Arguments

Mr. Pitt’s argument is valid, meaning the conclusion follows deductively from the premises. The question, however, is whether his argument is sound. For an argument to be sound it not only must be valid but it must also only comprise true premises. So, to find out if Mr. Pitt’s argument is sound, we must look at each of the premises. But, for the purposes of brevity, we’ll only look at the minor premises.

Prop 8 Deprives People of Their Life

On this one I’d have to ask Mr. Pitt for clarification. Since Prop. 8 is neither calling for the execution nor the incarceration of homosexuals, I don’t know what he means. Unless he believes that homosexuals will lose the will to live without government affirmation of their relationships. (Of course this wouldn’t be a deprivation of life, but a forfeiture.)

Prop 8 Deprives People of the Right to Live the Life They Want and Doesn’t Harm Anyone

Prop. 8 doesn’t deprive homosexuals of their same-sex relationships; it only deprives them of government favor. The question, however, is this: Do same-sex relationships deserve such favor? We’ll return to this question later in the post.

The second part of the proposition is whether or not same-sex marriage harms anyone. The answer is, it depends. Here’s why: If same-sex couples are afforded the same status as traditional marriage, then there seems no reason not to allow them to adopt children. This is where the harm comes in. Children deserve opposite-sex parents, because both the mother and the father contribute uniquely to the child’s life. When there’s a choice involved, society should always do what’s best for the child. Hence, the answer to the question of harm would be yes.

Prop 8 [Unjustly] Discriminates Against Same Sex Couples

I inserted the word “unjustly” because not all discrimination is bad. (Wouldn’t you discriminate against a convicted pedophile should he ask to be babysitter?) So the question is this: Do same-sex couples deserve the same societal favor that traditional marriages enjoy? The answer is no. Here’s why . . .

The State should only take interest in two types of contractual relationships: corporations and heterosexual marriages. The first because the State is required to regulate commerce (section 8, clause 3 of the constitution); and the second because it is the best way for it, the State, to perpetuate itself.

Mommies and daddies are from where the next generation of citizens come. And the best environment for the raising of responsible citizens is a married, monogamist, heterosexual household. Married and monogamist because that brings stability to the home; heterosexual because, as mentioned earlier, both the mother and the father bring something in particular to the childrearing enterprise.

This unit is the best way to secure society’s future. Therefore, the State has an interest in favoring and protecting marriage between a man and a woman. It has no such interest in same-sex unions.

Conclusion

As we’ve seen, Mr. Pitt’s argument withers under scrutiny and reveals itself to be unsound. Prop. 8 does not deprive homosexuals of their lives, nor does it keep them from living the life they want. However, it does help adopted childern by not elevating the status of same-sex couples. And finally, Prop. 8 does not unfairly discriminate against same-sex couples, because society has no compelling interest in favoring their unions as it does in traditional marriages.

Labels: Homosexuality

Same-Sex Marriage and State Interest

Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority. "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

According to the California Supreme Court, marriage rights should be conferred upon same-sex couples because they can establish loving, long-term, committed relationships. Not to do so would be the same as denying fundamental rights to citizens based solely upon their skin color.

Loving, Long-Term, Committed Relationships

I love Frank Capra’s 1944 adaptation of Arsenic and Old Lace. It’s one of my favorite movies. So it's with great trepidation that I add this modern twist: What if the Brewsters lived somewhere in California instead of Brooklyn, New York; and one day, the sisters, Abby and Martha, hear on the radio that same-sex, loving, long-term couples can now receive the same benefits that married couples receive. Seeing as how they are of the same sex, they love each other, and they have pledged to spend their lives together, they must be eligible, right? Not so fast.

There’s a problem—they’re not having sex. The government is not interested in their loving, lifelong, same-sex relationship unless the wild mambo is involved. So out came plan B: Elaine.

Elaine, the minister’s daughter, moves in with the Brewster sisters; and since Elaine is looking to offset some gambling losses (she was sure Michigan could take North Carolina), she’s willing to have sex for money (i.e., tax benefits).

“But wait,” says the government! “We have some arbitrary rules to apply: sisters don’t count, and it can’t be three people, and Elaine is already married to Mortimer, so she’s out ...”

“But we love each other! Isn't it all about love?"

As this little exercise in reductio ad absurdam reveals, the court’s ruling is logically vacuous.

Is Homosexuality the Same as Ethnicity?

As the Los Angeles Times points out, “The ruling cited a 60-year-old precedent that struck down a ban on interracial marriage in California.” In the court’s mind, ethnicity and homosexuality are on the same moral plain. But is this the case?

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ethnicity is white. He was born that way and can do nothing to change it. His ethnicity is intrinsic to him. Consequently he had—and has—no choice in the matter. Those with homosexual desires, on the other hand, have a choice as to whether or not to act upon those desires. The latter is morally relevant, while the former is not. Thus ethnicity and homosexuality are not on the same moral plain (one involves choice and the other does not—one is intrinsic and the other a behavior). And since the state should only treat equals equally, it is in fact immoral to judicially conflate the two.

State Interest

The State should only have an interest in two types of contractual relationships: corporations and heterosexual marriages. The first because the State is required to regulate commerce (section 8, clause 3 of the constitution); and the second because it is the best way for it, the State, to perpetuate itself.

Mommies and daddies are from where the next generation of citizens will come. And the best environment for the raising of responsible citizens is a married, monogamist, heterosexual household. Married and monogamist because that brings stability to the home; heterosexual because both the mother and the father bring something in particular to the childrearing enterprise.

This unit is the best way to secure society’s future. Therefore, the State has an interest in favoring and protecting marriage between a man and a woman. It has no such interest in same-sex unions.

Labels: Homosexuality

About Me

Bookstore

Visit The Wittenberg Door bookstore here

Statement of Faith

What does The Catechizer and The Deacon believe? Click here to find out.

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Same-Sex Marriage and State Interest

Friday, January 09, 2015

Discussing Homosexuality

Thursday, January 08, 2015

Dolly Parton and Tolerance – Part 2 (Conclusion)

Monday, January 05, 2015

Tolerance and Dialog – Tactical Considerations

Sunday, January 04, 2015

Dolly Parton and Tolerance – Tactical Considerations – Part 1

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Defense of Marriage Act and Same-Sex Marriage

Monday, April 07, 2014

Do Same-Sex Couples Deserve a Chance to Get Married? - Part 3 (Conclusion)

Monday, March 31, 2014

Do Same-Sex Couples Deserve a Chance to Get Married? – Part 2

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Do Same-Sex Couples Deserve a Chance to Get Married? - Part 1

Monday, March 03, 2014

Ethnicity vs. Homosexuality

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Brad Pitt, Proposition 8, and Same-Sex Marriage

Wednesday, January 08, 2014

Tolerant of Intolerance

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage?

Thursday, August 18, 2011

PC(USA) and Its Continued War Against Biblical Authority

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Discussing Homosexuality

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Brad Pitt, Proposition 8, and Same-Sex Marriage

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Same-Sex Marriage and State Interest

About Me

Bookstore Visit The Wittenberg Door bookstore here Statement of Faith What does The Catechizer and The Deacon believe? Click here to find out.

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Same-Sex Marriage and State Interest

Friday, January 09, 2015

Discussing Homosexuality

Thursday, January 08, 2015

Dolly Parton and Tolerance – Part 2 (Conclusion)

Monday, January 05, 2015

Tolerance and Dialog – Tactical Considerations

Sunday, January 04, 2015

Dolly Parton and Tolerance – Tactical Considerations – Part 1

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Defense of Marriage Act and Same-Sex Marriage

Monday, April 07, 2014

Do Same-Sex Couples Deserve a Chance to Get Married? - Part 3 (Conclusion)

Monday, March 31, 2014

Do Same-Sex Couples Deserve a Chance to Get Married? – Part 2

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Do Same-Sex Couples Deserve a Chance to Get Married? - Part 1

Monday, March 03, 2014

Ethnicity vs. Homosexuality

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Brad Pitt, Proposition 8, and Same-Sex Marriage

Wednesday, January 08, 2014

Tolerant of Intolerance

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage?

Thursday, August 18, 2011

PC(USA) and Its Continued War Against Biblical Authority

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Discussing Homosexuality

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Brad Pitt, Proposition 8, and Same-Sex Marriage

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Same-Sex Marriage and State Interest

Bookstore

Visit The Wittenberg Door bookstore here

Statement of Faith

What does The Catechizer and The Deacon believe? Click here to find out.