[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.]
Introduction: The argument through the eyes of science & religion
Biblical case against homosexuality...not that it matters
Questions of conscience that Christians need to ask...it does matter
Intelligent & compassionate ministers recognize the dilemma and do the right thing
Revolutionary & Atheist cohesion: Target Cultural Christianity & divide America
Marriage is a civil institution, not religious
The Civil Institution of marriage is 2,000 years older than the church
Marriage (traditional) was defined/affirmed by the United Nations in 1948
This is America: A Democracy should decide the issue, not demagogues
Political Babylon: The absurdity of confounding language
An Ex-Minister's solution...Civil Unions/Partnerships
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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):
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
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.
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
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.
of conscience that Christians need to ask themselves
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
you believe that gay people should be put to death?
you believe that God should give people something vile and still
be viewed as loving and worthy of worship?
people are born with and later realize innate
homosexual desires…should God condemn what he creates?
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!
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
Revolutionary & Atheist cohesion: Target Cultural Christianity & divide America
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!
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
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.”
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.
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
Marriage is a
civil institution, not religious, though often
initiated in a church
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”.
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.
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
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:
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:
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.
shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the
family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by society and the State.
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.
Babylon: The absurdity of confounding language
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.
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?
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.
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