Gay Marriage
L:
Matt Barber an
attorney with Concerned Women
for America has some strong opinions against gay marriage. He
claims that homosexuals have a lobby and are supported by the
“leftist press.” And, that this lobby has invented the terms
“marriage equality” and “gay rights” and the terms are
dishonest attempts to sway opinion by comparing gays to the civil
rights fights of the 1960’s.i
J:
Well, marriage equality means receiving the social, tax, and other
advantages equally, so what would it be called? Gay rights, let’s
see: the right to be free from physical and verbal attacks, the right
to visit your loved one in the hospital and not be turned away
because you are not family. These are rights and are just drops in
the bucket as far as the equality and rights words. I think trying to
argue the just use of the terms equality and rights is simply a straw
man fallacy thrown into the debate. As an attorney, Barber should
know this very well.
I
just wrote a story on a young man who the authorities kicked out of
the United States Coast Guard for being gay. He told an Executive
Officer, as part of a mission-security report, about an attempt to
blackmail him because he was gay. He “told” in order to protect
the ship he was on and the anti-smuggling activities the Coast Guard
was pursuing. He was a good serviceman and didn't do anything in
port that a good many heterosexual sailors do all the time. Why was
he singled out for discharge? It was only because he had hooked up
with a man and not a woman like the other sailors. This doesn’t
seem to be equal treatment. Intriguingly, the lesbians on the ship
were never bothered. Could it be because two women together is
sort of a men's fantasy for some reason?
L:
I can’t say why the lesbians were not kicked out, they should have
been. It would be equal treatment.
J:
You allow equal punishment, but not equal rights. Interesting.
L:
Barber also claims gays want a secular humanist society where
everyone has to not just accept, but, “celebrate high-risk,
unnatural and fruitless homosexual behaviors,” that gays want a
society without differences in the sexes, a sexual androgyny, and
morals that are relative instead of God’s expressed absolute. Do
you agree with that?
J:
Why on earth would any intelligent gays give a bat's wing whether
some straight guys and gals celebrated them having sex. As to
the, “high-risk, unnatural and fruitless,” adjectives, well,
fruitless, how many married couples use birth control, whether pills
or prayers? I am not sure what he means by high risk. Many gay
practices are also present in heterosexual couples as well. I would
agree that gays have more sexual encounters than many straights,
though I see some complex causes there. Natural, well, what is
natural—is masturbation, is the missionary position the only
natural position?
What
is very natural for heterosexuals doesn't necessarily seem at all
natural to homosexuals. Now I am not
talking about sex with animals or relatives or chairs. Again, those
are not actions for me to argue; I do not find myself attracted to
them and would be speaking outside my understanding. God will have
someone else who can speak for those children of his.
As
far as blatantly differentiating the sexes vs. androgyny, one does
not change inherent distinctions; they are inherent. As for
androgyny, many gays would turn their noses up at an androgynous male
or female. I hear gay men say all the time, “If I wanted a woman, I
would get a woman.” They do not seek androgynous (though there are
some who do). There are also cross dressers, and drag queens, but
many of them are straight and not gay. That is, again, a different
area and not mine to argue.
L:
He also claims that homosexuals don’t really want marriage at all.
They are just using it as a tool to destroy the institution of
marriage itself and to make homosexual behavior a norm.
J:
They seek marriage because they don't want marriage? Bull! Does one
join the communist party to destroy it? Does one become a
Christian to destroy Christianity?
L:
Again, he says that marriage equality is a false description.
Everyone in the United States can marry. But, marriage is to remain
as a man and a woman marrying.
J:
And, again, his reasoning makes one's head spin. The very definition
of marriage as being one man and one woman is exactly what gays seek
to change. I am also angered at this ridiculous argument that if we
let gays marry then why not allow people to molest children and marry
their mother and have weddings where we kill the bride and the whole
marriage party has sex with her dead body.
Gays
are gays; they do not want to marry anyone in their close family
anymore than straight people want to. Please,
do not ever use that argument or the protest against bestiality with
me. I find it personally offensive and totally off the subject. I am
dealing with a real situation here. It is not
a mental illness; it is a biological fact.
The
point is how to rectify the mistaken images of this biological
fact—especially when otherwise decent people assume that writers
hundreds or even thousands of years ago knew all about human
sexuality when they appeared to condemn this biological fact.
Likewise, carefully consider the biblical admonitions as to
whether they were referring to real homosexuals or to sex vendors and
slaves. Both types of homosexual activity are part of the Bible.
And,
as far as his concept that gay marriage is a cover for the take-over
of secular humanism…I hardly know what to say of that paranoia.
Most gays, even the intelligent ones, could not even tell you what
secular humanism is. Nor would they care. You say this guy is an
attorney; I wonder if he may have skipped logic classes. There, you
have my comments. Are there any intelligent arguments against gays we
can deal with?
Bigotry
L:
As far as bigotry goes, I think it is not unfair to say the writers
of the pro-homosexual persuasion are in fact bigoted, biased and
prejudiced, the bigots in the news media and at the universities are
being faced with the fact they are bigots too! How do you respond to
this? I think it is easy for the pot to call the kettle black…looking
at things from another set opinion. Back to Christ…how would he
then live, think, and respond to humanity?
J:
As far as you seeing the press or the educational institutions, or
even the liberals, as bigoted, biased, and prejudiced, or the kettle
being black as well—I have to disagree. Is fighting against hate
crimes prejudice? Is putting statistics out on the percentage that
have no fears about allowing gay marriage or domestic partners
bigoted?
There
is a definite bias in much of the press and in the universities—at
least those that allow alternative views to be debated and not just
denied. I have no problem with their being biased; everyone who has
an opinion is biased. So is the news. We only need to know the bias
and we can read the biased article with that knowledge and still get
something from it. I even get things from the Fox news team, but I am
totally cognizant of their bias.
As
to how would Christ respond? Well, how did he respond? He accepted
everyone from tax collectors to centurions and whores, though he did
condemn the churchmen. He also bad mouthed the Samaritans and the non
Jews. As far as the gays, he undoubtedly was aware of it in the Roman
society at least. He never seemed to say anything about it himself.
He did not condemn those born blind or crippled or with epilepsy. I
doubt very much he would condemn those born gay either. And again,
there is a difference between the homosexual relations going on in
the Greek and Roman society and the people who are truly homosexual
and not just seeking physical pleasure and variety.
He
would encourage them to love one another, and he would encourage a
sincere and probably monogamous relationship. (Unlike our
conservatives today who disallow the marriage or union of two people,
and the rules that could follow.) The saying that these people can't
marry because they are not understood leads inexorably to
promiscuity. If we aren't supposed to be together in a loving
relationship, why bother following the rules of the people who
supposedly do belong in a monogamous relationship?
You
told me you were a bigot. Actually, you bragged that you were a
bigot. A bigot is one who discounts any contrary evidence to a
preconceived belief, isn't it? I'm sorry, but I do not think that is
a praiseworthy position. What if Joseph had been bigoted about his
fiancé’s pregnancy? Or, consider what happened to Pharaoh when God
presented him with all sorts of “facts” that he could see with
his own eyes, but chose to ignore.
i
See http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56521
for the commentary “‘Gays’
don't want 'marriage' after all.” By J. Matt Barber.
