It all started with a column by William Raspberry, the syndicated columnist. His article, entitled “Why are So Many People Afraid of Same-Sex Marriage?”, appeared in the obviously pro-homosexual newspaper, The Dallas Morning News, on January 29th of this year. Some excerpts from that column appear below from page 17A.
. . .[W]hy are so many of us so adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage?
. . .[T]he polls suggest a repugnance that is more visceral than technical or religious–a distaste based on fear.
But a fear of what? That allowing same-sex marriages will increase homosexuality and perhaps even spread such diseases as AIDS? But that makes sense only if you believe there is a value in keeping homosexuality in the closet and that committed couples are as likely as casual sex partners to be promiscuous.
A fear that some people will abuse the privilege by marrying AIDS patients in order to extend to them medical coverage?. . .
A fear that stretching the definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian unions will weaken marriage for heterosexuals? But how? Is the strength of my commitment dependent on the nature of yours?
A fear that homosexual couples will (gasp!) adopt children? And do what to them? Turn them gay? Leave them sexually confused? Make them laughingstocks?. . .
But sometimes (as used to be the case for transracial marriage), they are mere prejudices–no matter what social or religious evidence we offer in their defense. If I put my mind to it, I could come up with a fair load of evidence against same-sex marriage.
What keeps me from doing so is experience. I have known enough committed gay and lesbian couples to lose my fear that they are somehow dangerous. Many of the couples have seemed as loving and devoted to each other as my wife and I.
And if they want to mark that commitment by invoking the religious and civil forms used for that purpose, why isn’t that a good thing? What are we afraid of?
Of course Raspberry’s column is seriously flawed in a number of ways. In response to his experience with loving and committed homosexual couples, for example, it could be appropriately pointed out that Lot’s experience was not nearly so positive. No doubt, Lot was trying to keep an open mind and avoid being called prejudiced. After all, he continued to live amongst people that vexed his righteous soul daily (2 Peter 2:8). His fair-mindedness nearly merited him a night of homosexual rape and abuse by those tolerant, loving, committed homosexuals (Gen. 19:9).
Raspberry ignores all Biblical evidence (including God’s definition of homosexuality as sin in a number of Scriptures) and spends his time fighting “straw” men (perhaps he should change his name to Strawberry). Howard Horton responded to this column. What he wrote appeared in The Dallas Morning News on February 16.
Re: William Raspberry’s Jan. 29 Viewpoints column, “Why are so many people afraid of same-sex marriage?”
First of all, it isn’t necessarily a matter of “being afraid” of homosexuals, same-sex marriages and such like, that’s the issue. The “issue” is that another “voice” needs to be heard, needs to be vocalized or written.
Homosexuals and lesbians (and supporters of such activity) all cry and demand to be heard; that they have rights, too. Well, are we (Christian or non-Christian) supposed to sit still? Be quiet? Roll over and die? All because of what they want?
This is the land of the free. Men and women have died on foreign soils (and in some cases, maybe even homosexual soldiers died as well) so that people could have the freedom to speak and write their mind.
As a preacher (Church of Christ), I will continue to bring lessons which are Bible based to deal with such lifestyles. I will not ignore, delete, change, water down any of the Bible passages which clearly and concisely deal with such activities. And it isn’t a matter of interpretation whether or not homosexuality is condemned by God. It is a matter of easy-to-understand language that such activity is sin (Romans 1:24-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). All of the yelling, marching, “marriages” and protests will not erase these passages.
Second, lest I be castigated as being unloving, the reason why I and other Gospel preachers will continue to preach with these passages is because of the love of lost souls and love of mankind. And an unloving person will let a man (or woman) in sin continue on down a Bible-condemned road without ever warning him or her.
Fear? No, sir. That is not the issue at all. It is the right and freedom to voice a different view and, as well, it is the right and freedom to preach, herald, teach and give a Biblical viewpoint.
Brother Horton makes a valid point about the heart of the problem being one of sin. BUT another reader wrote in to take him to task. Gaston C. Maurin of Irving replied as follows (published on February 26th).
In the Sunday Reader, Feb. 16, letter writer Howard Horton says he believes “that homosexuality is wrong.” He bases his belief on the biblical text. He has, of course, every right to express his view. And, yes, as he suggested, homosexuals did die serving our country to protect his freedom of speech, along with the rest of the U. S. Constitution. This is the same U. S. Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion and mandates separation of church and state.
Now I chose to join the Metropolitan Community Church, one that does not condemn homosexual behavior. Our law rightly recognizes Metropolitan Community Church as a legitimate church by awarding it tax exempt status. I, too, have a right to hold, practice and express my religious views.
Mr. Horton, however, wants his religious views to determine civil law. What has happened to the separation of church and state? To respect for the Constitution of the United States?
When will we wake up to the fact that the Bible is a religious document and is not–according to the Constitution, should not be–the law of the land? Mr. Horton had the right to warn me that I should not “continue down a Bible-condemned road,” but should I not have the right to reject that warning as irrelevant to my religion?
The law of the land should allow all citizens to behave freely as long as they do no harm to their fellow citizens, or the state. Mr. Horton, you may freely continue to warn me, pray for me and love me, but please stop trying to get the government’s help in running my personal life.
Since this letter deserved an answer, I sent one to them via E-mail. To my knowledge, the newspaper has not printed it. Below is my unpublished response sent in on February 27th.
On the Feb. 26 editorial page Gaston C. Maurin takes Howard Horton to task over his comments about the freedom of speech we have regarding homosexuality. The following observations are in order.
1. The Bible is not a collection of opinions and views; it is Divine law.
2. The Bible condemns homosexuality in all eras of Divine government (Gen. 19:4-5; Lev. 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-11).
3. Any church (such as the one to which Mr. Maurin belongs) that promotes homosexuality (rather than condemning it) has clearly rejected Biblical teachings.
4. The vast majority of our founding fathers believed the Bible (read John Eidsmoe’s Christianity and the Constitution, a well-researched and well-documented analysis of their beliefs).
5. The Constitution that they produced upheld the moral laws taught in the Bible; they did not see a conflict between Christianity and the state.
6. Mr. Maurin does not want those who abide by the Bible “to determine civil law.” But he is more than happy for people who share his views to determine civil law (how’s that for hypocrisy?).
7. Homosexuality does harm society, as do pornography, child molestation, and drunkenness. People do not violate God’s laws in a vacuum–for long. Consider Sodom and Gomorrah as examples.
As a final thought, does Mr. Maurin consider that the government is trying to run his personal life when it legislates against child molestation in his own family or against the use of drugs? Such practices are injurious to the individual and can easily involve harming others. Besides, admitting that one is a homosexual and demanding public acceptance of it takes the controversy out of the realm of personal privacy.
Interesting, isn’t it, how that homosexuality is just a matter of personal preference, and the government shouldn’t interfere in the personal lives of homosexuals? The fact is that all homosexuals’ private lives are exactly that–private. They are the ones who have made homosexuality a public issue with their “gay pride” parades and innumerable media bombardment of their “personal” lives. Homosexuals are the ones who have sought all the publicity; the rest of us have just responded to these attacks on morality and public decency.