Mike Jones, an associate editor of the Tulsa World, wrote the newspaper’s April 14th Opinion section lead editorial titled, “Childish things – It’s time to end the divide over gay marriage.” In Part I we discussed Jones’s argument with regard to charges of prejudice and misunderstanding against those opposed to gay marriage and the argument with regard to civil rights. In Part II we will address his arguments about presumed biblical/religious support of gay marriage.

Argument #3 – Jones raises three biblical/religious arguments in support of gay marriage.

• Jones cites the Apostle Paul who “believed that there is no need to get married because Jesus would return soon and the world would end… and that those on earth would better serve themselves if they remained celibate and directed their efforts to pleasing Jesus.” However, Jones’s statement contains both factual and contextual errors. These errors become evident without further comment when one looks at Paul’s actual words and the context in which they were written.

…It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband…I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and widows, it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. [1 Corinthians 7: 1-2, 6-9 RSV]

Now lest one takes Paul’s statement as a license for homosexuals to marry, let’s look at his words with regard to homosexuality.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” [Romans 1:24-27 RSV.]

• Jones’s describes his second religious argument as simplistic but one which he cannot shake. Jones believes his simplistic arguments undermine biblical reasons for opposition to homosexuality. However, his arguments contain huge assumptions which are false.

First, Jones asks if God made man in His own image where does that leave homosexuals. In other words, did He make a few mistakes when He made homosexuals? The assumptive language is that God made homosexuals the way they are. Therefore, God made a mistake or He created homosexuals that way as a reflection of His image. Neither is true.

Let’s quickly dispose of the first question. God does not make mistakes. If He did, he wouldn’t be all-knowing and all-powerful. In essence, He wouldn’t be God. Second, to say that God made a mistake means that we recognized something He missed, and that is absurd. Third, we can’t know the mind of God apart from His revelations to us about Himself. That revelation tells us that He does not make mistakes, “He is the rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” [Deuteronomy 32:4 KJV]

If God didn’t make a mistake, then that leaves us with Jones’s assumption that God made homosexuals the way they are, i.e., they were born that way. Therefore, we must accept them and their inborn inclinations as equals in society.

Proponents of homosexuality often cite various scientific studies that indicate sexual orientation is a matter of genetics, i.e., sexual orientation is involuntary, immutable, and rooted in nature. Thus, moral distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual behavior would be invalid.
The first response is to state that science has not proven that homosexuality is inborn. Many of the studies that purport to do so have proven to be flawed and brought into question by other studies showing the opposite is true. Time and space does not permit an extensive examination of this area, but what we can say at this point in time is that science has not proven that sexual orientation is a matter of genetics.

But for sake of argument let’s assume that homosexuality in some cases was found to have a genetic basis (either causal or predisposition), then proponents of the homosexual agenda would argue that moral distinctions are invalid as it relates to differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality. But that is not a valid argument for neither causation nor predisposition justifies cultural acceptance. For example, some people are genetically prone to alcoholism. Another study established a genetic link to criminal behavior. But such genetic links do not justify immoral behavior whether it is alcoholism, criminal activity, or homosexual practices. People are not slaves to their passions, desires, and predispositions as humanists would have us believe. Some people will struggle with those forces more than others, but people have the ability to choose their behavior.

Jones also asks if homosexuality makes a person less human. Absolutely not—homosexuality does not make them less human. God created every human being, and He loved each one so much that He gave His Son to be crucified on the cross for every person’s sin (including the homosexual) to make it possible for them to be in right relationship with Him. But man has a free will, and many freely choose to reject that invitation and live a life of disobedience to his commands whether that disobedience is adultery, murder, theft, or being actively engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

• Jones’s third religious argument is based on 1 Corinthians 13:13: “And now abideth faith, hope and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” Jones says, “That could go a long way in solving this difference of opinion.” In other words, charity (love) trumps all. If we but love, all will be well.

It is one thing to disagree with the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality or to reject biblical authority altogether in defending homosexual practices. However, it is blatantly disingenuous to revise or twist biblical teachings in order to excuse homosexual practices when the biblical record is unequivocally clear in its universal condemnation of homosexuality. Effectively, Jones is arguing that the basic thrust of Christ’s teachings is that in the end we must place love above all other considerations. Implicit in this humanistic belief is that basic doctrines are inherently divisive and must be pushed aside in favor of the non-judgmental love and acceptance of people as they are. In other words such narrow and rigid doctrines as to how one must live are divisive and contrary to the inclusiveness which is demonstrated by the lives and teachings of Jesus and His disciples. However, this argument is clearly false and strikes at the foundation of the Christian worldview regarding mankind’s Fall and man’s need for redemption as chronicled from Genesis through Revelation.

Before we leave this argument, let’s examine the sincerity of Jones’s call for love that “…could go a long way in solving this difference of opinion.” Apparently, Jones does believe that the same tolerance and love is needed when it comes to accepting the motives of Christians with regard to loving the sinner and hating the sin. “I don’t believe the sincerity of that for a second. It’s more often hate the sin, punish the sinner.”

In summary, heterosexual marriage is a universal, and the strength and unity provided by it is the foundation of a strong and enduring society. Where traditional marriage is in broad disarray, as it is in most Western societies, it does not disprove the truth of the marriage universal but rather speaks of the ravages caused by the ascending humanist worldview. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Mike Jones, “Childish things – It’s time to end the divide over gay marriage,” Tulsa World, (April 14, 2001), G1.

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), Chapter 23, pp. 353-366.

Mike Jones, an associate editor of the Tulsa World, wrote the newspaper’s April 14th Opinion section lead editorial titled, “Childish things – It’s time to end the divide over gay marriage.” He is referring to 1 Corinthians 13:11 which says, “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

Jones poses three general arguments in support of gay marriage. First, Jones attempts to label opposition to marriage between a same-sex couple a childish thing which results from prejudice and misunderstanding. Second, Jones believes that permitting gay marriage would be another step toward civil rights for all in the country. Third, Jones makes several biblical and religious arguments in support of gay marriage.

This article will demonstrate that Jones’s statements and claims are untrue, misinterpretations, misleading, and are couched in assumptive language in which seemingly simple statements contain huge assumptions that are not true. In Part I we will discuss Jones’s argument with regard to charges of prejudice and misunderstanding and the argument with regard to civil rights. In Part II we will address his arguments about presumed biblical/religious support of gay marriage.

Argument #1 – Jones claims that opposition to gay marriage (and by inference, opposition to homosexuality in general) is a result of prejudice and misunderstanding.

There are two general conceptions of marriage in society. The first is that marriage can only be between a man and a woman which forms the basis for the ordered family structure. The strength and depth of spousal commitment and unity that derives from a marriage consummated by the reproductive act, whether intended for purposes of procreation or not, cannot be matched by any other relationship. The nature of the reproductive act in marriage is distinctly and intrinsically unitive. This ordered family structure is part of the human constitution, a universal truth, one of the permanent things, and is central in every known society. The family attains status within society—legitimacy, social identity, legal recognition, cultural tradition, and an estate. Humans have fashioned numerous methods by which to organize their societies, but the common link to all is the family unit—a father, a mother, and children living together in bonds of committed caring. It is the fundamental unit upon which societies are built.

By contrast, homosexuality is a disorganizing concept with regard to human relationships and ultimately disorganizing in building stable, enduring societies. However, proponents wish to lift the status of homosexuality in society through its attainment of legitimacy, legal identity, and respect as a cultural tradition, a place at the table so to speak. These efforts involve court challenges to long-standing and culturally established norms, enactment of laws which favor the homosexual agenda and that diminish marriage, and promotion of homosexuality in the popular culture. The basis for this opposing view is that marriage is essentially a private relationship, and because marriage is the central organizing concept in society, it is critical for proponents of homosexuality to redefine what it means to be a family. Success in the legislative and legal efforts to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples of either gender, whether under law or in culture, will cause a culture to decline and disintegrate as the ideal of a mother and father for every child is weakened. (See article: Thank you, Grace. You are worthy of your name.)

Therefore, the Christian’s opposition to homosexuality is not about prejudice and misunderstanding as Mr. Jones would have us believe, but opposition is based on eternal truths and the commandments from the Bible. Mr. Jones and I will not agree as to who has the better argument because we have fundamentally different worldviews. The question is: which worldview is true? Undoubtedly, the weight of history supports the biblical worldview which is a reflection of truth received not only through biblical revelation to the ancient Hebrews and 1st century Christians but is also a reflection of those unchanging cultural universals built into God’s creation and observed down through the ages.

Argument #2 – Jones believes that permitting gay marriage would be another step toward civil rights for all in the country where “all men are created equal.”

Jones argues that laws allowing civil union are not good enough, i.e., you are less than a citizen if you can’t have a marriage ceremony and which means same-sex couples are “not worthy of rights held by the rest of us.” It appears that Jones does not understand that people opposed to gay marriage are generally opposed to civil unions for the same reasons. Those reasons are based on a biblical worldview upon which the nation was founded (but that is another argument for another day which I am very willing to address).

Jones appeal is on the basis of equality, i.e., homosexuals have a civil right to marry as do heterosexuals. The usual defense of the pursuit of the humanist ideal of equality is that social harmony will be achieved because the nation is moving closer to the ideals upon which it was founded. However, such pursuit has the opposite effect. In America the pursuit of equality has resulted in the identification of an ever expanding array of social problems demanding governmental attention. Such attention is demanded because of the creation of “illusory rights” supposedly on par with the original Bill of Rights (in this case the right of homosexuals to marry).

But a culture that elevates these demands to the status of rights is doomed. In his book Visions of Order, Richard Weaver states that when a culture “… by ignorant popular attitudes or by social derangements” imposes a political concept that creates a different principle of ordering society contrary to universal truths, dissatisfactions arise because society has tampered with the “nature of things.”

The victim of this tampering is justice. The concept of justice is a universal truth, a thing of permanence that transcends the whole of man’s time on this planet and pertains to all cultures. Ignoring corruptible man, the levelers of society admonish Justice to peek beneath her blindfold and act arbitrarily and capriciously to impose the latest standards dictated by the passions of the moment. Prescriptions of fairness, impartiality, and right action derived from an authority above the state and built up over the centuries are now considered quaint, failing to keep up with modern times, or just plain wrong-headed. In other words, the definition of justice has been changed by the humanists to fit their worldview. But no amount of humanist tinkering will change the heart of man with regard to a right understanding of right action in a civil society.

We will examine Mr. Jones’s supposed biblical and religious support for gay marriage in Part II.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Mike Jones, “Childish things – It’s time to end the divide over gay marriage,” Tulsa World, (April 14, 2001), G1.

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 229, 334-235, 354, 356.

Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1964), pp. 22-23.