The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Brian Worley

 

[In this post, I will present a 100% secular (non-religious) defense of traditional marriage. This, I believe, is the proper non-bigoted, non-Bible thumping argument that you can present in a secular society without embarrassment! The wrong people (clergy/religion/Bible Thumpers) have used an inferior argument to define and defend the institution of marriage. In order to effectively deliver "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" it is imperative that we first remove the clergy and religious entanglements (this is what I do through point 5). Religion needs to excuse itself, cease and desist before they permanently lose the case for society. Marriage is a civil institution and must have a secular defense if the traditional understanding of marriage is to survive! In points 6 -12 I'm finally freed to present the secular case that can stand on it's own in a secular society.]

 

  1. Introduction: The argument through the eyes of science & religion

  2. The Biblical case against homosexuality...not that it matters   

  3. Questions of conscience that Christians need to ask...it does matter 

  4. Intelligent & compassionate ministers recognize the dilemma and do the right thing

  5. Revolutionary & Atheist cohesion: Target Cultural Christianity & divide America

  6. Marriage is a civil institution, not religious

  7. The Civil Institution of marriage is 2,000 years older than the church

  8. Marriage (traditional) was defined/affirmed by the United Nations in 1948

  9. This is America: A Democracy should decide the issue, not demagogues

  10. Political Babylon: The absurdity of confounding language

  11. An Ex-Minister's solution...Civil Unions/Partnerships

  12. What should happen if religion/state persists against reasonable solutions?

 

INTRODUCTION: The argument through the eyes of science & religion

The case against gay marriage that we are familiar with utilizes a religious blueprint destined for failure. I'd submit that a better case can be made with secular argumentation absent of any religious entanglements.

I really like good religion. It is one of the best things society has going for it! When nobody cares, religion often comes to the aid or rescue of those in need. With progressive politician's and secular academia's (without a religious base) abandonment of the defense of marriage, who else but the church is left to fight for the great institution of marriage? 

There are several wrongs that need to be addressed right off the bat. First, the church shouldn't be distracted with something outside of the church's primary mission. As kindly as I can say this, they are the wrong people with the weaker argument to have to defend marriage! They step forward because secularism has failed to protect marriage; the church has been the last line of defense.

How insufficient is the religious rebuttal against gay marriage? Who wants to listen to and what credibility do religious institutions have when they continue to harbor pedophiles and can't keep themselves out of the headlines for sexual deviancy? Churches have blown their moral authority and history is likely to show that religion will go down as the "weak lawyer" that lost the case of gay marriage for the rest of society.  

The second wrong to address will likely offend many that will eventually like what I will later say. It involves pseudo-science, warfare between science and religion, misinformation, and plain ole bigotry. Science has established as fact that homosexuality is innate and asks that religious leaders convey this truth to their congregations (despite literalists that deny this could be possible). Literalists of necessity must deny science or surrender a literal interpretation. They know that they can't have it both ways.

It's an undisputable fact that some humans are born with both male & female sexual anatomy (hermaphrodite). God made them this way. With the visual evidence of hermaphrodite anatomy within humanity, how can anyone reasonably object to the concept that some people's brain might be wired with same sex attraction? 

Homosexual activity has been scientifically documented in many species of animals. You might not like this fact, but it is natural, and it is a fact. You would have to say that God made them this way, unless you want to utter a ridiculous argument that animals have free will and have rebelled against God. 

The Biblical Case Against Homosexuality 

What's this got to do with gay marriage? While you won't find the words gay marriage in the Bible, the Bible clearly prohibits homosexuality. The following verses contain Christianity's written policy towards gay people; I'll let the Bible speak for itself (King James Version): 

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

An intelligent & compassionate minister recognizes the dilemma

Now imagine if your "employee handbook" (Bible) said the above is the company policy. To stay employed, you must not dissent from church policy no matter how vile it may be. The Old Testament says homosexuals shall "surely be put to death" while the New Testament says that they are "worthy of death".  Intelligent, rational and empathetic clergy are automatically in a compromising position. The Bible is their book that reveals what their God wants. In short, the Bible is inhumane, unconscionable, and bigoted towards gay people and goes as far to say that God actually gave them unto vile affection (the cause of homosexuality). Romans 1:26 states that for vindictive reasons the god of the Bible himself is to blame for distributing gayness.

Questions of conscience that Christians need to ask themselves

Now I promise to get back on topic, but as many professing Christians don't read and are unaware of the contents of the scriptures; I'm asking those now to review the Biblical case against homosexuality and thus gay marriage. I've got several questions for you.

       Do you believe that gay people should be put to death?

       Do you believe that God should give people something vile and still be viewed as loving and worthy of worship?

       Since people are born with and later realize innate homosexual desires... should God condemn what he creates?

       Imagine if you were gay. How would you feel if "god and god loving people following his book" treated you with such contempt?

I am personally acquainted with an educated Lutheran pastor that just couldn't subscribe to such vileness and was fired. He is a good man that paid a price for his stance. People with a conscious, intellect and a good heart know what they must do! 

The flip side of this is for the Christian church to realize that the vile seeds sown from the Bible have produced a movement with the means and motive to destroy Christianity! I'd estimate that half of atheism that wants to rid the world of Christianity are primarily motivated over the Biblical stance of homosexuality. I'd say that at least one third of all atheists are gay. Compare this with the general population and you will have started to gain perspective.  

Revolutionary & Atheist cohesion: Target Cultural Christianity & divide America

Christianity is probably unaware of the scope of the last paragraph; it should be an eye opener and front-page news for them. People appreciate what I like to call "common good Christianity". If homosexuality were not a Biblical topic, I seriously doubt that skeptics would be so vehemently opposed to religion today! Don't let anyone fool you; homosexuality is THE main atheist issue, yet Christian leaders cannot comprehend why people are so enraged against the church. Now you know!

I see the church having a problem that they don't know how to fix. The Pentateuch and the writings of Paul are indispensable to Christianity, to repudiate them is to repudiate the faith altogether. If Christianity doesn't fix the problem atheism likely will! Do you see how important this issue is?

There are so many unrecognized inner connected strands that I wish people could see. It appears to me that revolutionaries found an exploitable issue (homosexuality) and backed a willing player (atheism) to wage warfare upon their target, cultural Christianity. This, I believe is the untold story behind the rise of "new atheism."

This ex-minister likes good religion and common good Christianity and thinks the world is a better place because of them. However, sexual matters such as their stance on homosexuality are repulsive! It's bad religion. The clock is ticking and the LGBT community will not be silenced, nor should they be patient with church hierarchy inactivity.

It's a complex issue to those of us that don't want to destroy religion; it's cut and dried easy for those that do! I don't think the Christian church's heart aligns with the bigotry of their book, yet they are intrinsically bound. It's the note upon which revolutionaries strike up the band. What I've expressed is as much for the Christian church as it is for those seeking to destroy it.

Marriage is a civil institution, not religious, though often initiated in a church    

As earlier stated, homosexuality and marriage are differing issues. It should be apparent why the church shouldn't be involved in the gay marriage issue due to their bigoted homosexual vantage point. Marriage is a secular matter, not a religious issue! It is the state that sanctions marriage. The official performing the marriage ceremony says... "by the power invested in me by the state of "Maryland", I now pronounce you man and wife".

Despite the popularity of churches as the chosen venue, or the prevalence of clergymen officiating and their subsequent prayers or blessings upon the marriage it should never be forgotten that it was the state that granted the authority.

I am amazed that so many "freethinkers" that keep reminding the rest of us of their intellectual acumen have been so easily bamboozled and disengaged by buying into the notion that marriage is a religious institution. Some of the most boisterous barker's for church - state separation are atheists that can't discern the difference between the location of a marriage ceremony taking place in a church and the civil/secular institution sanctioned by the state.

Gay marriage advocates want to ascribe marriage as a religious ordeal and then turn around and chide the state over separation of church/state matters as their strategy in hope to usher in gay marriage acceptance.  

The Civil Institution of Marriage is 2,000 years older than the church

The secular case against gay marriage is easy to understand once you rightfully isolate it from the religious landscape. Gay marriage is an impossibility, a misnomer, because marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Language has a function and a purpose to delineate terms so that meaning can be attained, no need to confound this. 

A sane person can't argue that marriage is an institution of the church! Marriage has likely been around for over 4,000 years... this would make it much older than the church. This fact alone proves that the intuition of marriage was initiated and has stood upon its own 2,000 years before the church came along.   While I can't ascertain precisely when it started the traditional understanding of marriage was diplomatically affirmed by the United Nations 65 years ago. 

Marriage (traditional) was defined/affirmed by the United Nations in 1948

There is no ambiguity about the definition of marriage. The UN settled that sixty five years ago! Marriage is between a man and a woman. Here is what they stated:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued by the General Assembly of the United Nations has definitively defined the definition of marriage in 1948. Article 16 reads:

1)    Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2)    Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3)    The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Authority? You can't get any better than the United Nations as the entity to fortify the definition of marriage. Once again, it is not the church that defines or grants authority for marriage; it is the state! Spouses in point 2 eliminate any "loophole"; marriage can only be between men and women! I might add that the UN has a golden opportunity to win over some of its skeptics and relieve anxiety by honoring point #3.

This is America: A Democracy should decide, not demagogues

Since marriage is a civil/secular institution, any alteration to it should have had to come through the scrutiny of the democratic process. Should anyone want to change the tradition, which has served society well, it must go through the rigors of the democratic process. That's the way democracies work, we have more important matters in society that should take precedence over this contrived issue.

California got it right. Rather than legislatively foist gay marriage upon the people, an initiative Proposition 8 was placed upon the ballot where voters were given the choice... that's democracy folks! Its Un-American that select bureaucrats have a tangle with democracy and have chosen to block the will of its citizens. Since no US state through voter referendums has ever approved of gay marriage, courts and legislatures have decided to take matters into their own hands to legalize gay marriage in Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, D.C., Iowa, Oregon's Coquille and Washington state's Suquamish Indian Tribes. 

 Political Babylon: The absurdity of confounding language

It astounds me how stupid politicians can be at times. Lets say that Warren Buffett walks into a room with his Latvian wife by his side and they are ushered to the podium for an anniversary toast. A few moments after the toast a stranger enters that room where he knows no one. Someone informs the stranger that he just missed the anniversary toast of the couple on the podium. All he sees is a woman in between the two men.

Language is so helpful, pragmatic and lucid that he wouldn't need to ask a question if someone were to point to Mr. Buffett and ask the stranger who his spouse or wife on stage was. The traditional definition of marriage is crystal clear.

If bureaucrats are allowed to get away with confounding our language (political Babylon) by redefining marriage, the above scenario might require two questions and embarrass everyone on that podium. Those questions would be:

1) Is Warren Buffet married to the man on stage? 2) Or to the woman?

This would be a terribly awkward situation and would be easily preventable with precise definitions of such important words (as is marriage) in the English language. In essence, the fulcrum of the controversy asks whether a man and woman that are married should allow obliteration of their term that sufficiently encapsulates their union. It's an absurd and belligerent assumption foisted upon the family... yes they do mind! That is why it doesn't win on the ballot.

An Ex-Minister's Solution...Civil Unions/Partnerships

The bulk of this essay had to do with religious aspects muddied just as much by secular misunderstanding as it has been by religious bigotry. With these things being sorted out the right thing to do with homosexual couples that want to join together in union is to unequivocally permit same sex union, civil partnership or union (whatever you want to call it... just don't call it marriage).  

What happens if church/state opposition persists? 

It is primarily the churches that pressure the state (and rightfully so) against gay marriage. Civil unions and gay marriage are two completely different propositions. Civil Unions don't challenge the church's, civil society, or UN's definition of marriage (between a man and a woman).  It is premature and divisive, at this point, to unilaterally impose gay marriage upon society.  The church must learn to accept civil unions/partnerships for the non-issue it is. Civil unions aren't a threat to Christianity (despite the conspiracy theorists that view it as a "slippery slope").  

Should state government and religious institutions persist in their defiance to what should occur (civil partnerships or unions) then the top down federal legislative approach for gay marriage might prove to be justified (but we're not there yet...in my opinion). This ex-minister has faith in the church, that they will eventually see the issue for what it is and temper their own pulpit iconoclasts standing in the way that are cruel and blind to the human needs of those with same sex inclinations. 

Brian Worley   Ex-Minister.org      October 26, 2011...revised 8/7/2012   All rights reserved

 


To Return to the Main Page