Driving home from our Christmas vacation with the family we passed through Chicago and I glanced over at the skyline lit up with green and red lights (I hope that is not too religious for some, but hey, I didn’t put the lights there) and I spotted a billboard that read, “Marriage for All.” And I have a few comments.
The billboard had a white background with red and blue lettering. This could have been for contrast purposes, but I highly doubt it. As with any advertising you want to get to where people care. People care about red, white, and blue. Patriotism, how can that be a bad thing? So, the thought may have been, “if we (the uber-leftists) are pushing the gay agenda, lets do so by making it anti-American for others to say anything contrary. After all, this is the land of the free.” I hope that tasted as bad to read as it did to write, but it gets worse.
I decided on the ride home to create a fictitious dialogue, but it is all too real, between a Christian (those hate-filled Bible-thumpers) lets name him Phil (insert duck call), and a leftist intolerant named Harry (because I don’t know anyone named Harry that’s why). We can even give Harry the leg-up by having the first go in this little dialogue.
Harry: “Marriage for all is a civil rights issue. If this were truly a free country the government would not be able to tell anyone who they can and cannot love. We are about justice and equality and fairness. Its you Christians that are so bound up by a book you can’t even prove to be what you say it is. Did you know that God also hates shellfish?!”
Phil: “Thanks for giving me so much to talk about Harry, let me just make a few comments. Don’t forget others in that list: Muslims, Jews, and Mormons off the top of my head all stand steadfastly against the homosexual agenda. But never mind them, it would be culturally insensitive to call them out, I guess. And when you mention equality and fairness and justice I am stuck wondering how you define these terms. It seems like you have no definition, except ‘what feels good’.”
Harry: [Notice the dodge on bringing other faiths into the discussion] “Here is a definition: ‘marriage for all’ means everyone who wants to be married gets the same rights as heterosexual couples always have. How can you deprive someone of their rights just because they are different than you?”
Phil: “Surely, you don’t mean that.”
Harry: “I certainly do!”
Phil: “Marriage for all? How about this scenario: a bi-sexual man wants to marry both a man and a woman, because to feel complete he needs to have both sexual partners. Should he be allowed to marry them? But think further, what if he marries a man in New Mexico, where it is legal and then moves into another state where it is not legal and marries a woman where that is legal. He now has both partners as married spouses, and decides to move back to New Mexico. How does New Mexico handle this debacle? Recognize one marriage union, or both? But what happens when his spouses are also bi-sexual, but they don’t ‘love’ one another. Can they marry another person as well? So we have A marrying B and C, but B doesn’t like C, so B marries D and C marries E. Now we have five ‘marriages’ and I have no idea how they would all sleep in the same bed. Imagine what they would have to tell the kids!”
Phil: “What about the guy who really ‘loves’ his Saint Bernard? I mean the dog greets him everyday with a kiss, wags its tail, never complains, and the dog keeps him warm on cold winter nights. He might think to himself, ‘I love my dog so much, I want to marry her, or him, I guess. Should he be allowed to marry his dog?”
Phil: “What about the thirty year old man who loves his 12 year old daughter, and she loves him, and they decide that they want to get married. You’re after equality, right?”
Harry: “Well of course that would not be allowed. That is morally disgusting.”
Phil: “Says who? Don’t be a hate-monger. Give them marriage.”
Harry: “No one is advocating for such outrageous claims to marriage!”
Harry: [In a frustrated tone] “You’re a silly bigot.”
Phil: “That’s interesting. Here is a definition: a bigot is a person who is unfairly intolerant and antagonistic of another person’s belief’s or opinions. Is that fair to say?”
Harry: “It certainly is.”
Phil: “So, maybe you should look at this, this, and this, and this, and this and reread the definition of ‘bigot.’ Is it bigoted, therefore, to say that God created marriage and defines marriage and therefore anything outside of God’s prescription is sinful?”
Harry: “Yes, because how can you tell someone that their love is sinful? That is hateful.”
Phil: “Not only have you redefined marriage into a pile of morally corrupt goo, but you are also redefining love into individual feelings. The standard I hold to is the Bible and its definitions, it is the rule of my life. So, you are saying that God’s definition of marriage is bigoted, but your definition of marriage (if you have one) is not bigoted even though it goes against God’s intended purpose for His creation? Why is my definition hateful, but yours isn’t? How is it also okay for the leftists to force Christians to celebrate homosexuality? Seems hateful to me.”
Harry: “We are not hurting anyone’s feelings by lobbying for marriage equality. When you put fences up you are limiting the love people have for one another.”
Phil: “But you are putting fences up as I pointed out earlier. If it is marriage for all, then you need to stand behind your agenda no matter the consequences. By holding to the definitions in Scripture, not only do I have a firm foundation to stand upon, other than my shifting emotions, but I can say that this case over here is morally bankrupt, and indeed harmful. I can say along with Saint Paul (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) that Christ died for the sins of those who believe in Him, and in a laundry list of sins, homosexuality is there right next to drunkards and adulterers. Christ died for it, repent and believe. You can’t say that because you can’t define morals, you can’t even define yourself. Also, my feelings are hurt when you dishonor God. Does that make you a bigot? Since your views differ from mine, should I force you to celebrate God?”
This conversation could go on and on, but I hope you see something. Phil is a logician. He knows what he believes and he has reasons for believing what he believes. He has categories that define life and its proper function, even though Phil is not a perfect man, he trusts in the One who is perfect. In other words, Phil’s authority is outside his fallible self. His authority is God, and God as Creator and Redeemer knows what is best for His creation. Harry is a plastic grocery bag in the wind. Read this.