In Defense of Christian Marriage

Kris Weberg | February 18, 2004
Marriage is one of the fundamental sacraments of any Christian's relationship with God, and is key to his or her Christian fellowship in worship and lifestyle. Leaving aside questions of a "gay agenda" or social encouragement of homosexual marriage, the fundamental problem with gay marriage is that it amounts to tolerance of something that willfully opposes God's Word and Law, and amounts to social approval of this sinful disobedience and lifestyle. Advocates of homosexual "marriage" may claim that they are being tolerant, that seperation of church and state is a vital and constituent part of our republic, or that they extend only civil liberties, not religious status, to the relationships between consenting adult homosexuals. I will respond to these claims in order:

Do not let anyone tell you that our society has always been a Judeo-Christian one, despite what many contemporary historians and interpreters of the Constitution will tell you; many of the Foundign Fathers were religious men, the Declaration of Independence contains an appeal to God, and so too do our country's currency, Pledge of Allegiance, and the like contain overt references to God. Our Congress opens with prayers to the Judeo-Christian God. In our history, we have had not one non-Christian President. Moreso, history has generally shown that ourlaws and lifestyle are based on Scriptural doctrines. Thous shalt not kill, thous shalt not steal -- precepts such as these are the source of much modern American criminal and civil law. There has always been a place for religious principles in our nation's government, and I fail to see why issues relating to one of God's most often-stated laws and sacraments should be treated so casually in this context.

It is because of this powerful historical interweaving of religion and national law in the United States that this country's laws should accord broadly with God's own. Because of this strong, if at times subconscious association, the changes we make in law and the positions of our lawmakers influence even religious people. By promoting a culture that fails to recognize the sinful nature of homosexuality, and that in fact compromises marriage as God intended it, we risk confusing people about God's law; what is more, we risk our children's religious faith and the morality they will learn.

We risk, in short, our very existences: for we all know of the painful loss that we can feel in this life without God's presence, and the consequences in the next should we turn from Him. Christians act to save by spreading the word of God; however well-intentioned, those who support homosexual marriage are unwittingly producing problems for others. Many homosexuals have seen God's light and given up their sinful lifestyles; but by socially and legally legitemating homosexual relationships, we will griveously damage the good work we might do for others.

Indeed, it seems impossible to believe that we as a society can allow homosexual marriage to gain legal respectability. Relationships that fall outside God's intentions and the traditional American values based upon them should not be legally sanctioned. Yet homosexual marriage is only one of the arenas in the Christian mission to teach God's wisdom regarding sex and relationships. We must champion abstinence, lest we promote adultery and premarital sexuality -- leading to the spread of disease, thebirths of countless unwanted children, and the horror of abortion. And we must not stint in, as true Christians, opposing non-Christian marriages. If, as the Apostle Paul tells us, marriage exists when a man and a woman are joined int he sight of God as one flesh, much as Christ and the church are joined; then it is clear that no marriage performed outside the bounds of God's law is legitemate.

Yet in our society, we recognize and extend civil protections to the marriages of atheists, of Muslims, of Hindus, even followers of cults such as Mormonism. While these marriages are between a man and a woman, they are still not in accord with God's law because of the nature of their establishment; and as such, they constitute much the same threat as do homosexual marriages. By validating such couples through legal sancton and benefits, we also validate their ethical stances. And we can all think of how destructive atheism and paganism have been already. Most of the advocates of gay marriage and gay rights are themselves atheists or non-Christians, and will raise their chidlren with similar beliefs. Their pervasive influence is an equal danger as such. The theoloical ramifications are still more terrifying: if, as the Bible teaches us, sexuality outside marriage is sinful, then any sexual relationships between people not married under God, either in the hearts of those married or in the non-Christian religious establishment that supports them, are in fact adulterous -- they are not marriages by God, two people becoming one flesh as only God may ordain.

Like the proposed homosexual marriage laws, current-day legal recognition of non-Christian marriages also legitimate lifestyles, practices, and beliefs that oppose God's teachings. Non-Christians also do not accept God, often practice rituals that contradict Scriptural teaching, and many non-Christians also seek to promote their beliefs (or lack thereof). Our laws, lifestyles, and marriages must be in harmony with Scripture -- the marriages of homosexuals and non-Christians are not. It is clear that we, as a society, have far to go in defending the institution of Christian marriage.

Scott Hardie | February 18, 2004
Well put. You make me wonder what Jonathan Swift, himself homosexual, would write today on the matter.

Anna Gregoline | February 18, 2004
I feel like I'm back in college with you two!

Lori Lancaster | February 18, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | February 19, 2004
[hidden by request]

Steve Dunn | February 19, 2004
Yo - I just got done with a trial today and have imbibed a large martini on an empty stomach, so I have no idea who's kidding and who's serious.

My own, off the cuff, slightly inebriated thoughts?

Homosexuals are the blacks of the 21st century. The struggle for equality under the law continues.

The best argument against homosexual marriage is that the goverment should get out of the marriage business altogether. Rather, we should adopt some kind of contract model, where anyone who wants to enter into marriage-like relationships (including joint ownership of property, automatic transfer of property upon death, tax advantages, hospital visitation rights, etc) should be able to do so.

Gay marriage is a problematic non-solution to a real problem - namely, legal discrimination against homosexuals at every level of society. In this way, it is similar to race-based affirmative action. It's not going to solve the problem, and it will undoubtedly lead to unfortunate unintended consequences. But an argument remains, and it is difficult to refute, that it's a heck of a lot better than nothing.

People who stand up for homosexual rights are not right about everything, but they are on the right side of history.

With that, I leave you, and head off to my local tavern to get drunker while watching the Duke/Wake Forest basketball game. More sober thoughts to follow, perhaps.

(Side note - am I the only person who didn't go to school with all of you? Am I intruding on a semi-private collection of friends here? Forgive me - I have no idea of the Celebrity Goo Game Dot Com backstory. Forgive me for dropping in out of the clear blue sky, but I came for the Goo Game, and as to the Goo Game, well, I aim to win).

Hugs,

Steve

Lori Lancaster | February 19, 2004
[hidden by request]

Steve West | February 19, 2004
Speaking from the geezer faction, no I didn't go to school with these whippersnappers. Same as you, got hooked on the Goo Game and feel like I'm eavesdropping on private conversations sometimes -- and loving it.

Scott Hardie | February 19, 2004
If I may, it's easier to draw the six degrees from me at the center since it's my site. I would make this brief but who knows, maybe this will help some of you keep track of each other. Do not attempt to analyze this list while intoxicated.

Ed was a friend of mine from sixth grade (1989) through high school (class of 96), and we still talk occasionally. Lori was a classmate since sixth grade. I got to know her when she started dating my best friend in high school. We fell in with other friends, including Ed, Andy H, Kelly L, and Lori's future husband Ray. As Lori already mentioned, she and Dave S go way back; I knew him as a classmate but we didn't really talk until he signed up for TC last year at Lori's request.

Kelly L and I were a couple off-and-on for seven years, and we got engaged in Jan 2002. She left me in Aug 2002 after we moved down here to Tampa. Before then, she introduced me to Jackie and Lenore, who lived in her dorm. Kelly L's brother Andy L introduced me to Eddie, who introduced me to Derek, who got me talking to Dan D online. (I still talk to Derek and Dan D every week or two.)

Matt was a high-school classmate (we joked around privately in French class) who happened to be a good friend of my old friends, Jason F and Ryan. Matt and I were both leaving for Bradley University after graduation, so we arranged to live together, and we've been close friends more or less ever since. (Matt inspited the goo game.) Kevin lived down the hall in the dorm and later lived with Matt in Las Vegas. Chris is a coworker of Matt (unmet by me), and Scott P is Matt's cousin.

Dave M lived across the hall from Matt and me in another dorm. I met his friend Steve E after all three of us were living in Florida by coincidence. Todd and Ho are friends of Dave, unmet by me.

I wound up living with Jason F and Erik for a year at WIU, post-Bradley. Erik introduced me to Aaron, whose friend Mike narrowly beat me in Aaron's trivia game before Aaron talked him into joining the goo game. Mike brought his coworker Kelly S and his sister Wendy into the goo game. I also met Effie at WIU, and she never explained her antagonistic relationship with Erik.

Anna was in one of my English classes and I treated her to lunch one day; the goo game got us talking separately. She introduced me to D R, who introduced me to Angela, his fiancee and now wife. Angie is a friend of Dan R (unmet by me). I had a few English classes with Kris, but he and Anna were friends separately, and she brought him into Web Page Survivor 3. Jesse is Anna's boyfriend.

Denise and I met through Yahoo Personals but never dated, becoming friends instead. She has been dating Jeff off-and-on for about four years now.

When Kelly and I moved here to Tampa, we formed a gaming group here with John V and his wife Edee, later joined by John G, John E, and Tom, and soon to be joined by Lenore, who happens to live here now. (Matt gamed with us a few times on visits here.)

Erik B was an avid GOO and TC user who IMed me one day; we've talked steadily since. Similarly, Steve W, Steve D, Amir, Christine, Brad, Nadine and her brother Allan, Brandie, Scott B, Jason B, Anthony, and Mario all found my site in their own web travels and stayed with it till present.

...There. I think that's every current user. I am glad that my site has brought together disparate people. For instance, Matt, Anna, John E, Scott B, Amir, and Kris all came to this site for different reasons, but signed up for Fin du Siècle and now have that connection between them.

Actually, when Kelly and I were engaged, we had planned to create little pins saying GOO, TC, WPS, et cetera, to hand out at the wedding reception, because nearly everyone in attendance had been involved in one part of the site or another. :-)

Lori Lancaster | February 19, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | February 19, 2004
Would it be easier if I had taken twice as long and drawn it as a tree? ;-)

Scott Hardie | February 19, 2004
PS. Look who's talking :P

Scott Hardie | February 19, 2004
We are so far off topic.

Lori Lancaster | February 19, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | February 19, 2004
What, you mean my recent complaining that I never seem to have time to get things done? It's because I distract myself by doing dumb things like this all day. :)

Lori Lancaster | February 19, 2004
[hidden by request]