In The Definition of Marriage
On the outset, I think it is important that we’re on the same page as to what is meant by equality. Obviously the name indicates the understanding of “equal”. As it pertains to people, the idea is that people who exist in equality have equal rights, opportunities, statuses, etc. The term also is used of mathematical equations whereby a statement on one side of an equation, though different, is equal to a statement on the other side by virtue working out the equation by the rules of mathematics to demonstrate exactly that one side equals the other side identically.
I don’t think it’s unfair to understand equality as a a one to one comparison between two entities. In our case, a one to one comparison between two peoples or two people groups (for lack of a better expression). This comparison is between the hot button issue of homosexuality vs. heterosexuality. And even more specific, between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage and whether or not “equality” exists or can exist between these two people groups. Specifically, if homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal in their right and opportunity to be married.
Of course, it would be fair to establish a definition of marriage as a means of examining the two people groups in question but to do so with fairness or equity to either group at the same time would be impossible. Thus, the first problem in marriage equality is that it is impossible to define marriage in a way that it would coexist in equality to both groups.
Allow me to explain. If we started with gay marriage and gave the definition as such, “the monogamous, formal union between two people of the same sex for life whereby they incur all marital bliss and privileges contained therein including but not limited to legal status and privilege especially that of legal recognition occupied by each person in harmony to and not at the expense of the other partner in said union”. I’m confident this definition would suffice at least at cursory glance for someone of the homosexual agenda.
Now, if we took a definition like the one mentioned and applied it as equally to straight marriage you will begin to notice the impossibility of equality. Heterosexual marriage, “the monogamous, formal union between two people of different sex for life whereby they incur all marital bliss and privileges contained therein including but not limited to legal status and privilege especially that of legal recognition occupied by each person in harmony to and not at the expense of the other partner in said union.” The difference that prevents equality is, has been, and will always be the fact that heterosexual marriage is with someone of the opposite sex whereas homosexual marriage is with someone of the same sex. Regardless of the fidelity of both institutions or even exemplary fidelity in either camp , both are completely different unions as they occur with someone completely different. Furthermore one union has the ability to procreate while the other union does not.
Even if you examined the organic deficiencies within heterosexual couples who cannot procreate, the issue here lies within the scope of deficiencies with the biology designed for procreation and not a deficiency to procreate based upon biology clearly not designed for procreation. Deficiencies in the one can even be restored to their intended functional status, however, deficiencies in the later are actually not deficiencies since the respective organs are functioning as intended of which is not procreation. On the issue of procreation this is specifically an area whereby there cannot be equality in marriage. Coupled with the partners of both the aforementioned groups, marriage is completely different in the said categories based upon the partners who occupy both unions. There cannot be equality since the equation in these respects will always be unbalanced.
Thus, in order to achieve marriage equality the issue cannot be solved legally on the outset. Marriage equality will only exist in a universe whereby universally, partners within marriage are of the same sex or partners within marriage are of a different sex. It must either be gay marriage or straight marriage but it cannot be both for equality to exist. Therefore marriage equality stands as a myth while both coincide. We are forced by this reality to either define marriage equality as the right of every person to marry someone of the opposite sex (the status quo of marriage for millennia and the ability to procure the ongoing existence of humanity and that which is biblically recognized as marriage) or the marrying of someone to another person of the same sex (seeing around 3.8% of the population of the US including territories are professing homosexuals this clearly isn’t the viable choice).
Certainly individuals within the “tolerant” LGBT movement wouldn’t push an agenda in which gay would be universal and seeing as how heterosexuals would not be for abdicating their marriages in favor of someone of the same sex the mountain is set before us preventing there from ever being “marriage equality”. In either camp the definition of marriage drastically changes and is impossible from remaining the same across the board.
In the Civil Rights Debate
Gay is not the new “black”. Anyone who is black should be absolutely offended by this. However, for the sake of argument let’s examine this as if it were true. I recognize that marriages of slaves in the nineteenth century were considered illegal. However, they did marry and after emancipation their marriages were then legally considered valid… with someone of the opposite sex. This falls right into the issue of equality of marriage listed above. Blacks had equality of marriage given the fact that they married in like manner to Whites i.e. someone of the opposite sex and were allowed to do so even when it was illegal and while they were wrongfully enslaved.
I understand that my rendition of the equation of Gay marriage and liberation of Blacks is seen in this most logical connection, that of marriage, and that’s not what the arguments are. But if we take into consideration the fact that Christians and Churches are being sued by the Gay agenda for not recognizing them here’s the issue that the LGBT movement needs to recognize: It would’ve been wrong to emancipate slaves from White owners only to turn around and enslave the Whites. Therefore if this is the new “Civil Rights” movement, don’t advance your “rights” at the expense of others. That would be inequality, correct? Notice the powerful speech from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The note he referred to was the Declaration of Independence. If the homosexual agenda desires to see marriage as their unalienable right (which it is, between a man and a woman) then there cannot be this pursuit at the expense of others rights.
Furthermore, slaves in the nineteenth century and even prior to that weren’t considered slaves based upon the fact that they desired to marry people. Besides, in reality it isn’t my position nor should it be the position of consistent, genuine Christians to withhold the homosexual’s right the same form of marriage that we enjoy: namely the union of a man and a woman. No one is oppressing that (to my knowledge, and if they are then we genuinely have an equality of rights issue). The very same restraint that I would see of not being able to marry someone of the same sex is a restraint that I put on myself first. I hold no burden placed upon the LGBT community that I have not already placed upon myself, therefore, this is far from discrimination (in the popular political buzz word sense). Thus, the equality of marriage rights debate—if it were a civil rights debate—would need to be viewed as a freedmen telling freedmen to be free. I see my position as exactly the same position—if this were a civil rights debate—as me encouraging slaves to be free and enjoy the same rights of freedom that I currently possess. This reality is inescapably true.
In the Issue of Genetics
First, I would like to comment philosophically. Is the statement that gays are born that way societal, scientific evidence that you can be gay or societal, scientific evidence that you must be gay. What presupposition presupposes that this is liberating news and not enslaving news? Wouldn’t you as a bone fide person and individual possessing inalienable rights not want to be shackled by the bonds of scientific fatalism? Even if you spiritualized this that you were born gay and questioned why God would declare it to be a sin to be gay. Religiously, that would make you no more fatalistically predisposed to homosexuality than being born with original sin would somehow prevent you from being saved. Nor would that be any less of a sin to be born gay and consist as such than being born with original sin and to consist as such. Nor is it an issue, even in the slightest, that God created you, you were born gay and God declare homosexuality to be sin than for God to have created you, you were born with original sin and God declare that to be sinful.
Having said that, which gene contains the homosexual coding? Is it Xq28? As pointed out in an article here referencing case study, “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28” which indicates, “These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality.”
The evidence just simply isn’t there in support of genetic factors.
In a Biblical Context
I’m amazed at the idea that many individuals make the claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality or even in some instances supports it. The fact of the matter is that careful examination of the contents of Scripture in the contexts in which it addresses reveals the errors of such thought.
Some have claimed that homosexuality is only condemned in the Old Testament and as such is now outdated and no longer valid. The argument goes in the direction that Christians don’t observe other laws such as festivals or dietary restrictions. Therefore, the observance of the sin of homosexuality is clearly bigoted and an intolerant attack against a particular people group. Since why else would you only observe that law and not the others?
The first observation that I have to point out is the fact that romantic relationships were established before the dietary laws were given. Thus the Bible’s teaching on marriage is privy to the natural order of creation and to Mosaic law. Marriage between a man and woman is a natural fact of creation not a stipulation as per law per se. To go against straight marriage is to go against the natural created order of things. Furthermore, there is no such thing in the Bible as an expression of romantic love not tied to marriage in some way shape or form. The Biblical purpose of romance is marriage and the only pure and full expression of this romance is contained to marriage; straight marriage. This is first and foremost a naturally created order.
The second observation is the fact that there must be a purpose to the law that was given. And that purpose is Christ. Christ says in Matthew 5:17 (a context that largely shows the idea the law was intended to convey spiritual purposes i.e. do not commit murder was fulfilled in not hating as well as not physically murdering) that he came to “fulfill” the law. The Greek word for “fulfill” has a very interesting meaning, one in which can mean either, “pay” or “satisfy”. Romans 3:20 also tells us that the law brings knowledge of sin and Galatians 3:24 says that the law was a guardian to lead us to Christ. Galatians 4:10, 11 shows that observing days and months and years is vanity now that you have Christ. Colossians 2:16 indicates that we are not to be judged by not participating festivals, sabbaths, or dietary laws and these things specifically were mere shadows of Christ. Now that you have Christ it is pointless to observe these shadows. And Hebrews 10:1-14 shows the Old Testament sacrifices and Levitical high priests as being done away with as these things have been specifically replaced by Christ and participating in these things is apostasy (Hebrews 10:26-31).
The clear testimony in the New Testament is not that the Old Testament is pointless and these laws are outdated, etc. but that these laws are now fulfilled or purposed in a person believing in Jesus Christ. That’s why there is no need for dietary laws, festivals, sabbaths, etc. Christ is now our feast and food spiritually as well as our sabbath (rest from the dead works of this world).
This leads us to an important crossroads. What about moral laws? If Christ is the purpose of the law, is believing in Him enough warrant to be lawless? Oddly enough, no. Galatians 6:2 indicates that there is a law of Christ and that this law is fulfilled in bearing one another’s burdens which is also contextually fitting to restoring people caught in transgressions. Clearly, since the New Testament never abolished moral laws and that the Old Testament is summarized in “Loving God” and “Loving your neighbor” then the law that we currently have is a law of love. No one can demonstrate that they truly love someone whilst transgressing that person’s desires with no regard for them. In other words if it is currently God’s will for marriage to be between a man and a woman to truly love God is to abide by that.
So when Jesus teaches on marriage and indicates that it is the union of a man and a woman who came from a heterosexual union, and this teaching is post and prior Mosaic law, doesn’t real love demonstrate itself in listening to this? Matthew 19 indicates a lifelong, monogamous commitment between a man and woman. The Biblical definition of marriage indicated was such a strict policy that it caused the disciples to question whether or not people should get married with the implication that the answer should be no. Christ teaching on marriage, when understood in it’s context, doesn’t cause everyone (including gays) to run to it but to seriously contemplate the rigid reality and high qualifications of this institute.
Apart from that, the idea that the Bible never forbids homosexuality, a very real and ongoing argument, is easily refuted (not just in the Biblical definitions of marriage replete on the pages of Scripture) by explicit declarations. 1 Corinthians 6:9 forbids both partners in a homosexual relationship from consisting as such. I’ve also heard the argument that the Bible never mentions lesbianism. This is also false as Romans 1:26, 27 indicates. In fact, this passage indicates that there is a natural function and an unnatural function of men and women. This natural function is abandoned in favor of unnatural functions which are contextually defined as burning in lust for someone of the same sex. Notice as well the Biblical representation of homosexuality as lust and not love.
This last statement brings me to the conclusion of this article. I will, at this point, admit to there needing to be a liberation of the individuals in the gay movement. That is, homosexuality is lustful and not full of love. There should absolutely be an emancipation of the homosexual community, emancipating them into the love that Christian heterosexual marriages have the ability to live in, namely the love of Jesus Christ for his bride the Church. This transcendent love is the most fulfilling and most satisfying love that can ever be experienced in romantic relationships and I believe homosexuals should be able to experience this kind of relationship; the relationship that heterosexuals have and thereby create the conformity to equality of marriage. That is the real marriage equality that can and should exist but can only exist by faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ upon the Cross that redeems us from all our sins. I would never ever discriminate the distribution of the highest level of marital love and enjoyment being given to the gay community, love with someone of the opposite sex with salvation in Jesus Christ.
This post was written by Jeremy Menicucci