If You Believe In Traditional Marriage You are a Segregationist
Traditional Marriage is a union between a man and a woman at the most intimate level. It’s Traditional Marriage not because a group of people decided to make it so. It’s traditional marriage because God made it so and made men and women biologically suitable that makes it so. The two become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7–8; 1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31).
Just because people do something the same way over a long period of time does not make something fundamentally and morally traditional. People steal, rape, and murder, but no one would call these actions morally and fundamentally traditional.
If marriage is not a God-ordained institution, then all this talk about marriage is useless, no matter who does it.
Of course, if we go down this road, then there’s nothing that has any principled foundation in law. The State could determine that products of conception between two biological units are the property of the State. If the State can determine that property is ultimately owned by the State, who’s to say that children can’t be put in the same category?
Trending: The New Testament and Civil Disobedience
The State does not define marriage. That’s already been done.
At a time in our culture when religion is out and anything but religion is in, I’m not sure why homosexuals are pushing for marriage since it’s a relationship rooted in religion. The same religion that describes homosexuality as a perversion also defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Any young person who has an elementary understanding of biology knows that the sex organs are not compatible between men and men and women and women. They don’t fit. I wish some opponent of homosexuality and homosexuality would state the obvious. I would also like someone to point out that during the AIDS crisis that the disease was predominately in the homosexual community.
There were also innocent victims of AIDS. Ryan White (1971–1990) was a hemophiliac who became infected with HIV from a transfusion of contaminated blood. There were others. These are exceptions that prove the rule.
Then there are the general mortality rates of homosexual and bi-sexual men when compared to the general population. “In the U.S., recent research has identified HIV/AIDS as the leading cause of death among men aged 25–44 in the states of New York, New Jersey, California, Florida and Massachusetts, and 64 out of 170 cities having reported at least 25 AIDS-related deaths.”1
It’s no wonder, therefore, that proponents of homosexual marriage are going off the logical rails in order to defend the indefensible. The latest charge is that anti-homosexual marriage advocates are like racial segregationists.
Openly homosexual Don Lemon of CNN compared opponents of same-sex marriage with opponents of interracial marriage:
“[P]eople felt the same way about interracial marriage [as some people today feel about homosexual marriage]. People didn’t agree with interracial marriage. People didn’t think black people should vote. People didn’t think women should vote. Did that make it right? Should you respect that viewpoint?”
There is a difference between race and gender and what people do sexually. Homosexuals cannot produce offspring unless they find someone from the opposite sex to supply the needed sperm or egg. It’s not a matter of race or gender, what a person is by nature, but what people of all races and both genders do sexually.
Sexual distinctions are not made in terms of race when it comes to adultery, pedophilia, polygamy, rape, child molestation, and mother-daughter, mother-son, father-son, father-daughter marriages that are a logical extension of the way homosexual marriage advocates argue for their view.
David Sirota of Salon.com joined Lemon and the other two pro-homosexual marriage advocates in pouncing on radio host Ben Ferguson who opposes homosexual marriage.
“You just said you oppose gay marriage. You opposed extending the same rights to marriage as everybody else. That is intolerant. That is the definition of intolerance.”
Opposing homosexual marriage is only intolerant if homosexual marriage is morally acceptable. That’s what the debate is about, and it’s something Ferguson did not raise against his three-on-one attack.
Opponents of homosexual marriage oppose it for everybody, the same way they oppose adultery, sex with children, and polygamy for everybody.
The reason there has been a shirt in opinion about homosexual marriage is because most Americans have never been taught to think. They can’t follow an argument.
It doesn’t help that opponents of homosexual marriage are fearful of gay bullying that can result in the loss of jobs.
- Robert S. Hogg, et al., “Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 26:3 (1997). [↩]