‘Gay’ Marriage Debate Hits the NFL
Is nothing sacred anymore? Must professional sports be infected by the push and pull of politics? Can’t football players just play the game and keep their opinions to themselves?
There’s a battle being fought over homosexual marriage. Yes, professional football players have a right to voice their opinions, but can’t they keep it to themselves until after they retire?
Give us a break. Guys just want to sit down in the recliner with a bowl of chips, some hot wings, and a really cold beer and watch big guys move a pig skin up and down the field. It’s war where no one gets killed — a game that takes three hours to play with only 11 minutes of real action.
Homosexuality is irrational. The sexual equipment doesn’t fit. No matter how often two people of the same sex engage in a sexual relationship, there will never be any children. In football parlance, it would be like a running back running to the wrong goal every time he had the ball and then wonder why he never scores a touchdown.
Homosexual ‘marriage’ is like trying to screw two incandescent bulbs together and expecting light to come forth. It’s like trying to stick a square peg into a round hole over and over again and expecting a different result sometime in the future.
Then there’s the moral argument. In a Salon article, Mary Elizabeth Williams weighs in on the NFL controversy by attempting to neutralize the moral reasoning of Baltimore Ravens center Matt Birk who in a YouTube video for the Minnesota Catholic Conference and an Op-Ed for the Star Tribune takes a strong stance for his home state’s Marriage Protection Amendment:
Birk is undoubtedly working from as generous a moral template as his belief system affords. In his statements, you can see him reaching for some kind of neutral ground that’s tolerant, if not accommodating. He’s a smart guy, and probably a nice one. The problem is that he’s making the mistake religious conservatism so often does — taking belief as truth. There is no “natural” definition of marriage, no “basic reality” of it. It’s a human-made institution, and as such, we humans get to decide what it is.
Did you catch that? Marriage is a “human-made” institution. Given her human-only approach to morality, so is slavery. So why can’t we enslave people if a majority of people say it’s OK?
Furthermore, why can’t we say no to homosexual marriage and yes to father-daughter, mother-son, and multiple marriages?
She tells us that “we humans get to decide what [marriage] is.” Following her premise, if the anti-homosexual lobby gets enough people to decide that homosexual marriage will not be made normative, then the debate is over. But it’s never over until liberals get their way, by hook or by crook. A majority of people in California decided that they did not want to sanction homosexual marriage, and one judge gave the majority the legal middle finger.
Williams continues with this line of argument:
The Bible is riddled with examples of marriage between owners and slaves, rapists and victims, family members, and multiple partners. So can we please stop pretending that perfect man-on-woman matrimony is the only thing that’s ever existed since the dawn of time?
The Bible describes people and their relationships “warts and all.” There are stories about murderers, adulterers, polygamists, rapists, scoundrels, and thieves. There is a difference between descriptive ethics (stories of people who murder) and prescriptive ethics (you shall not murder). King David was an adulterer and an accomplice to murder, both of which are repeatedly condemned in the Bible. Williams is correct when she states that there are no “perfect man-on-woman” marriages. There’s no perfect anything. Should we “define deviancy down,” to use Patrick Moynihan’s apt phrase, to justify any irrational and immoral lifestyle?
Jesus made it clear that marriage is neither “human-defined” nor elastic to fit the times:
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”(Matt. 19:5).
Williams continues with this line: “If our culture has reached a point where we’re evolved enough to understand that two men or two women have as good a shot at making a loving lifetime bond as two members of the opposite sex, isn’t that progress?” Love is not illegal. It’s the claim that same-sex relationships and marriage are rational and moral. Taking Williams’ evolutionary assumptions as secular holy writ, “everything is up for grabs” — not just marriage.