December 11, 2008

A Self-Evident Truth: There Is No Religious Case for Gay Marriage

Here we go again. Newsweek – renowned for delighting in celebrating holidays with issues debunking the historic Jesus – has now devoted a cover story to “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage.”

Yo. I could offer up my own exposition of the Religious Case for Gay Marriage. But my fussy editor demands that my column extend beyond zero words in length.

Still, just in case you missed the article by religion editor Lisa Smith – most of which wouldn’t pass muster as a freshman term paper – I’ll save you the trouble. Her arguments are a combination of old straw men (persons?) – and downright head-scratching non sequiturs.

The Good Book is hardly a marriage manual, because its views of the institution are nothing like today’s perspective. (And by the way, the patriarchs were polygamists, while Jesus and Paul were single, so what do they know?) But take a look at all its examples of unions that defy convention. 

The Bible’s a “living book” – but its outmoded rules can’t be applied to today’s world. Adam and Eve are described as “one flesh” – but the Bible never “explicitly” says marriage is between a man and a woman.  The couple was told to be fruitful and multiply – but God never could have conceived the non-traditional ways procreation happens these days.

Homosexuality is only condemned in “a handful of passages” – but then, modern society doesn’t observe other Old Testament edicts like those on haircuts or blood sacrifices anyway. Paul is tough on homosexuality – but his condemnation doesn’t really relate to same-sex activities at all. It’s about Roman boys behaving badly. And hey, don’t we ignore the Apostle’s much harsher admonitions about divorce?

Jonathan and David (the polygamist) expressed their “enduring love” for each other – which leads Ms. Miller to smirk that “what they did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.” (Hers must be smuttier than mine.)

Plus the same Bible whose teachings can’t be applied today is really about inclusion, acceptance and equality. In the end, the religious case doesn’t really come down to theology anyway, but to human need. And all we need is love. (OK, I threw in that last line, but the sentiment’s bubbling over.)

It could be fun, if not necessarily profitable, to mix it up point-by-point with Ms. Miller. But why bother, since she is doing such a good job getting in her own way? And many much more qualified folks – like real, live theologians – have already dissected (more like drawn and quartered) her mini-treatise.

Besides – hold on just a confounded minute! I smell a big, fat rat trap here, anyhoo. Suck-er! Ms. Miller and gay marriage proponents don’t really give two toots on a ram’s horn whether their “religious argument” (you notice they don’t drag Muslims or Hindus into this) is a winning one. 

Simply to have the argument is a victory. Because it puts the homosexual community and their supporters on the same footing as the other side – or more precisely, knocks us equally off our foundation.

That foundation, as Jefferson put it, is that some truths are self-evident – and one such truth is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Call other relationships whatever you want – but they’re not marriage. You see, there’s no arguing something that’s self-evident. ‘Tis, or ‘taint. Marriage equals husband and wife. Period.

And on the subject of “’tis or ‘taint,” the Bible couldn’t present a clearer beginning-to-end trail regarding God’s perspective on homosexuality if its writers had strewn breadcrumbs from Genesis to Revelation.  Just say “no” – and you’ve pretty much summed it up.

But again, the homosexual agenda isn’t to win the debate. It’s to extend it ad infinitum (not to mention ad absurdum and ad nauseum). While obfuscating facts with feelings (“as long as two people love each other”) alongside extortion and intimidation (protests, vandalism, economic pressure, even “call-in-gay” days) – until opponents lose their grip on certainty and collapse in confusion, exhaustion and disarray. 

The ploy’s working: Newsweek was so overwhelmed with comments on the story, it’s stopped taking them.

Fortunately, instead of falling into Ms. Miller’s seductive snare, I’ve fallen back on my initial reaction to such brazen, snarky sophistry – to drop-kick the publication across the kitchen. (Don’t try this at home unless you want wrinkled pages.) 

Only this time, the boot was into the trash can. From whence one can only hope the magazine will be transported – along with the long-past tiresome campaign for gay “marriage” – to the ash heap of history.