Responding to “same-sex marriage” and pro-gay theology arguments

I numbered some quick responses below for easy reference.  Feel free to copy and paste without attribution.  Here is a short link to this post — http://wp.me/p1wGU-48E .

—–

This topic will be in the news for a while, so it is a great time to prepare yourself for the endless sound bites you’ll be hearing.  There are so many bad arguments used to advance the LGBTQX agenda.  Get educated and politely expose people to the truth.  This is a great opportunity to educate people on the facts and logic, and hopefully a biblical worldview.

Remember that you don’t have to convert people to your point of view on marriage before sharing the Gospel or pointing them to the Bible!  Just having a few replies — literally just a minute or so — is often all it takes.  You can just say, “Yes, the Bible does say it is a sin but even if it didn’t we are still separated from God by our many other sins . . .” and then point them to God’s word.

A secular case against “same-sex marriage” — Obama is trying to force his (false) religious views on us, but we can argue against SSM with or without the Bible.  But since he brought the religious aspect up, feel free to talk about what the Bible really says.

Here are a few Bible-free facts: The LGBTQX groups want to change the definition of a very long-standing word.  The institution of marriage predates governments.  The word was made to describe a specific kind of union, the only one that produces children and the only one that can provide a mother and a father to a child. It makes men more civilized and protects women.

Gays can get “married” in all sorts of fakes churches anywhere in the country and live together.  No one is depriving them of that or banning anything.  Things like hospital visitation rights or estate issues can be settled without redefining marriage.  Civil rights for sexual preferences will inevitably reduce free speech and religious freedoms (that isn’t an argument from religion, just a notation that it will impact religious freedom).  The government has no need to regulate “loving” relationships.  Civil rights for sexual preferences also means that kids as young as kindergarten will be told how “normal” LGBTQX behavior is.  That’s abusive.  They deserve to keep their innocence longer than that.

Problems with pro-gay theology — An analysis of the three types of false teachings and where they go wrong.  Interestingly, two of the three agree that the Bible says homosexual behavior is a sin, but one of the “Christian” groups says the Bible is wrong and another says God changed his mind.

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology — The best resource I’ve seen for addressing they main arguments.

What Jesus didn’t say — I lost count of how many times I’ve heard the “But Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality” fallacy in the last week.

Romans 1 and natural functions — Romans 1 is not “obscure,” despite what the President says.  It is a clear statement on the subject in one of the most “big picture” books of the Bible.

Born that way?  Not exactly.

Heterophobia — Just for fun.

Flaws of the shellfish argument — You’ll hear the “but you still eat shrimp, you hypocrite!” argument a lot, both from religious people and atheists.  This exposes how false that is.

Government recognition of “Same-sex marriage” will also reduce religious freedom — That isn’t an accident, it is their end game.

Here is what “same-sex marriage” has done in Massachusetts.

Quick responses to common sound bites:

  1. “You are just hating them.  Haters!  Hate speech!”  The truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.
  2. “They are 10% of the population.” That is a lie that has circulated for decades, but the real figure is more like 2%.  And regardless of the percentage, marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
  3. “There is a X% change that your grandchild will be gay.”  And there is an X% chance that my grandchild will be a lot of things.  That has no bearing on the argument.
  4. “But it is natural and seen in the animal kingdom.”  Animals do all sorts of things we wouldn’t view as moral for humans.  And if they make that argument, they need to abandon gay adoptions, because those obviously oppose nature.  How can having a same-sex partner be paramount but the sex of the parents be irrelevant?
  5. “But I know gay couples and they are really nice, etc.”  That has no bearing on whether the government should be involved in these relationships or whether they should be taught as benign to kindergarten children.
  6. “This is like banning interracial marriage.” Skin color is morally neutral. Sexual behavior is not.  Interracial marriages involve one man and one woman.
  7. “This is a ban on SSM.” Nothing has been banned.  This is about what the government has an interest in recognizing.  Gays can get “married” today in all sorts of apostate “churches.”
  8. “You are preventing them from loving each other!”  They can love anyone they like and even get “married” in false churches.  The government does not regulate love in marriages.
  9. “You are forcing your religious views on others.”  We can argue this on secular grounds.  By nature and design, one man / one woman unions produce the next generation and are the only unit that can provide a mother and a father to a child.  And the President based his views on his religious beliefs, false as they are, so that is fair game to discuss.  And go ask China and other atheistic countries why they have always recognized marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
  10. “Heteros have already damaged marriage with their high divorce rates” So?  That doesn’t change the fact that marriage is union of a man and a woman.  Easy divorce has been very destructive for society.  But changing the word “marriage” to mean whatever we like won’t help the problem.  Using that logic we’d go ahead and trash the environment because “Greens” like Al Gore had lots of kids and live in big houses.
  11. “But Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.” Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus is God and part of the Trinity that inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated God’s ideal for marriage, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.), He didn’t specifically mention child abuse and other obvious sins though that wouldn’t justify them, and abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews. Oh, and Jesus never said anything about the “sin” of criticizing homosexual behavior, so it must be OK.
  12. “You are taking away rights / you are just fixated on abortion and gays.”  We didn’t bring up either topic.  Liberals challenged long-standing, non-religious traditions of not killing unwanted human beings (see the Hippocratic Oath) and one man / one woman marriages.
  13. “They have a right to marriage / it is an issue of equality.”  No one has a right to a square circle.  Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.  “Same-sex marriage” would be an oxymoron: “The same-sex union of a man and a woman.”  Gay unions are not even equal to lesbian unions, let alone to heterosexual unions.
  14. “Mind your own business / stay out of their bedrooms!”  OK.  Then we agree that there is no reason for the government to formally approve their sex lives. And I assume that you strongly oppose the Left’s efforts to force taxpayers to fund birth control and abortions.
  15. “How does ‘same-sex marriage’ hurt you?” It is a long list.  Here’s an example:  Military chaplains to be forced to officiate these “weddings” even if it violate their consciences.  Lots more here.
  16. “I know gays and lesbians with happy kids.”  Arguing by anecdote is not wise, and you can’t be sure of how happy they are.  Endorsing “same-sex marriage” means you don’t mind ensuring that kids will not have a mother and a father.  That’s just wrong.

This is the kind of “logic” that passes for intelligence at Moveon.org and countless Facebook pages:

Respond with videos like this.

Remember, if homosexual behavior is a sin – and the Bible clearly identifies it as such – then affirming and encouraging that behavior is also a sin and providing the orthodox Biblical view is the loving thing to do.  God is perfectly holy, but He is also perfectly gracious and merciful and will forgive those who truly repent and believe in Jesus.  Hear the Good News:

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The Bible couldn’t be more clear.  Even non-Christians and two out of the three types of pro-gay theologians can see these truths:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

16 thoughts on “Responding to “same-sex marriage” and pro-gay theology arguments

  1. Neil, I like your list of arguments above (and their responses). However, I believe you missed one. Here’s a little gem from someone on a FB thread today. I initially had written in response to this picture:

    https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei#!/photo.php?fbid=449093948453397&set=a.223098324386295.105971.205344452828349&type=1&theater

    (It’s a picture of Rush Limbaugh, quoting him saying that the Left has declared war on marriage, and that his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th wives could not be reached for comment.)

    I commented, saying that the failure of heterosexuals to keep the institution sacred, is not an argument for opening it up to homosexuals. Once again, in the words of John Hawkins: You don’t give a sick person rat poison to make him healthier.” If abuse of marriage by straights is the problem, then let’s make it harder to get divorced, not open it up to more “options.”

    Someone then wrote the following:


    “Opening the institution up to gays”??? Equality is a RIGHT. Not something that we should vote on or “open up” to certain people.”

    My response:

    There is no “right” to marriage, not unless you count the one that California’s Chief Supreme Court justice claimed to have found in his ruling against prop 8 out here. He wrote of a “fundamental right to marry,” though he didn’t bother to specify where such a right can be found or where it comes from. The only right to equality that exists, is equal protection under the laws.

    And I hate to bring this up again (because I know the gay activists and their allies are tired of hearing it), but once more, the homosexual lobby already has all the same and equal rights that straights do. Either can marry an opposite-sex partner; neither can marry a same sex partner.

    The fact that only gays would wish to do so, is irrelevant to me. I never understood government to be in the business of promising everyone his or her own version of personal happiness. Sorry.

    (Disclaimer: I did not actually post this on FB, as I’ve already spent two or three days arguing with people there in the wake of the NC election and I’m getting tired of the subject for now. Also, I told myself that I was going to stop getting into these protracted political debates on Facebook, where I have to post under my real name. I find I’d prefer to slug it out on someone’s blog where I can do so a bit more anonymously. This issue, like abortion and a couple others, is heavily laced with emotion on both sides.)

    • “‘Heteros have already damaged marriage with their high divorce rates’ So? That doesn’t change the fact that marriage is union of a man and a woman.”

      “Once again, in the words of John Hawkins: You don’t give a sick person rat poison to make him healthier. If abuse of marriage by straights is the problem, then let’s make it harder to get divorced, not open it up to more ‘options.'”

      Yes!

      I can’t imagine that liberals would accept the kind of argument they’re making in any other context. E.g.: All you environmentalists have been living energy-consuming middle-class lives and driving cars just like the rest of us, which (to hear them tell it) has already done a lot of damage to the environment; so there’s no reason for us not to give up on the earth and destroy it the rest of the way, right?

  2. When Obama says that Romans 1 is an obscure passage from the Bible, he reveals himself to be “Christian in Politics only.” Anyone who is truly a believer would have read Romans many times, or at least they should have.

  3. Pingback: Obama: Christian in Politics Only | Timothy J. Hammons

  4. “This is like banning interracial marriage.” Skin color is morally neutral. Sexual behavior is not. Interracial marriages involve one man and one woman.

    Legal history lesson time: interracial marriages were banned. The Loving couple, of Loving v. Virginia fame, were arrested, charged with a felony, and told that their choices were to leave the state for twenty-five years or spend a year in jail.

    Please explain to me how that in any way resembles the laws or reality regarding gay relationships.

    • Segregation? A ban on interracial relationships?

      I’ll do you one better, Roxeanne…TWO of my FB friends have now compared states’ refusal to recognize gay relationships to slavery.

  5. Thank you. Good arguments here, but the problem is, gay marriage proponents are not being logical, and even church going gay marriage proponents are not listening to the Bible. I discovered this in a discussion with an active church member who happens to be gay. Quote: Don’t tell me about the Bible. That was written by men with an agenda. The only thing in there from God is the Ten Commandments. End quote. While there are all kinds of problems with his argument, it is clear he is not interested in my argument if it is claiming Biblical authority. He just wants what he wants. No matter how it affects other people, society, or the church. I have found myself praying about how to discuss this, but it has also cleared quite a few things up for me.

    • Hi Sara — thanks for visiting and commenting! Yes, that quote is very revealing but not surprising. I’m actually encouraged when non-believers say such things, because it helps to highlight to them that they are making a god in their own image.

    • The non-gay, but pro-gay people in church don’t listen to the Bible, either. There are a few activists who work overtime twisting the word of God, but most just ignore it.

      If those claiming the name of Christ want to disagree with the clear teachings of the Bible, their own denomination and 2,000 years of church history, then the burden of proof is on them to explain why the rest of us are wrong. Yet in my experience the “pro-gay Christians” just go by their emotions or offer up one logical fallacy after another (e.g., “Jesus never said anything about it, so it must be OK.”) I have more respect for non-believers. At least they are consistent.

  6. Pingback: I Am Anti-Gay, and Pro Chick-fil-A! | Timothy J. Hammons

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s