I have such limited time these days. So much is happening in the world, but deciding on topics for the blog is difficult when only so much time is available. It's far easier to visit other blogs and comment as the mood strikes me. Lately I've been visiting Dan Trabue's blog to engage in a discussion regarding the harm caused by the legalization of same-sex marriage (SSM). At least that's what I thought the topic was. Hard to tell, because when one provided another example of the harm, Dan had taken to deleting it if it did not meet his undefined criteria for what constitutes harm. So not only was that hard to understand, but by his actions, we are also more confused on the issue of grace in discourse, a tone Dan so often demands.
A little background: Dan Trabue supports SSM. He has a very twisted understanding of Scripture upon which he bases his opinion. In his contorted world, God is pleased by two committed, loving and monogamous homosexuals, just as He is pleased with a man and woman committed to each other in marriage. Despite several years of trying, I have yet to get Dan to fill the many gaping holes that perforate his position. In the above mentioned blog thread, I had again offered a link that provided a list of about half a dozen pro-homosexual Biblical scholars that also contradict Dan's position. But Dan holds fast to his heresy. He loves his heresy. Thus, it's no surprise that he supports changes to our laws that would result in SSM being treated as equal to normal, REAL marriage.
So, he posts his thoughts on the current situation regarding this debate. His point revolves around his belief that we who defend marriage as an institution based on the union of one man and one woman are in fact losing the debate, and that we are flummoxed as to why.
He says that we "are now on the losing side of history". Who came up with that idiocy? "Wrong side of history". "Losing side of history". It's inane. I know what is meant by it's use, but it's really meaningless. How can anyone determine the right side of history, or the winning side? Especially as history is still unfolding.
But I digress.
Dan's first mistake (for the purpose of this post) is to define winning or losing as "when one side makes the case in a way that appeals to those listening as the most rational and/or moral argument." The mistake is in asserting that his side has even established a rational and/or moral argument. They just take it for granted.
He then goes on to explain our problem:
" For many out there, the reasons they lost are clear (in their mind) and include...
1. The devil always wins out in the short term
2. Pro-marriage-equity types have "controlled the language"
3. Pro-marriage-equity types have taken over the media
4. Pro-marriage-equity types have subverted our public schools
5. Our side is willing to do anything to win, including lie, cheat and twist facts
and, the ever popular...
6. The public is too dam dumb!"
This constitutes the most honest bit I've ever heard from a pro-homosexual proponent. Each of those points is rather accurate, even if the order is not. (#1 is not a driving reason that anyone puts forth, demonic influence being a bit too tricky to support)
Points 2-5 are absolutely accurate. Take #2. The very term "pro-marriage-equity" was composed to tap the emotions of those to which Dan refers in #6. There is no "inequity" now and never was since interracial marriage was no longer prohibited. That's because homosexuals don't qualify for recognition by the state (nor by God) because they are two of the same sex. Marriage requires one of each gender. Always has. It's never been different. It is what marriage is. Now, the activists and their enablers regard marriage in a manner that has not been historically accurate. To them, it is only a union of two people who love each other. But legally, the feelings of the two being married were not of consequence in order to gain legal recognition and/or license.
And as the media and public school system are heavily influenced by (if not totally controlled by) leftists, often of the hard-core variety, they have indeed influenced an entire generation into regarding homosexual behavior as morally benign or no worse than equal to heterosexual behavior within a marriage.
Then, I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize the absolute FACT that is point #5. A close look reveals that even those few arguments from the activist/enabler that sound like truth is itself based on lies, distortions & falsehoods. Take a look at the polling to which they rely to support their claim of shifting cultural sentiments. Our youth has been inundated by pro-homo propaganda for the last 40 years or more. To say that our young polls high in support for SSM is really just a self-fulfilled prophesy. Train the kids to believe what you say and then ask them what they believe. "See? Even the kids know!"
The real issue here is not that we've lost the debate. That's not possible. All the truth and facts are on our side of the issue. We hold the moral high ground because we understand the clear truth regarding what constitutes moral behavior in the area of human sexuality.
Even more importantly, their side has never debated the issue at all. Despite what Dan falsely claims is true about how we debate, his side has jumped to demonize all who disagree with the Agenda That Doesn't Exist. They don't deal with the issues presented to answer the question of harm at all. Indeed, our side has been very adamant in listing the many ways tolerating homosexual behavior is harmful to the culture, as well as to those involved in the lifestyle.
And we've hit the issue from every imaginable angle. No one can hope to go toe to toe with Robert Gagnon from the Biblical perspective. They just dismiss him. No one can tangle with people like Jennifer Rorbach Morse on the cultural side. And considering how many of our laws, policies and customs are based upon the traditional understanding of marriage, it will be a legal nightmare.
But the Dans of the world will continue to ignore the fact and logic based arguments defending real marriage. No argument will be good enough as a result. It's not that the anti-SSM arguments fail. It's that Dan fails to give them the respect they deserve. Doing so would make his position untenable (as if it isn't already).
As one progresses through the over 130 comments that followed the post (not counting those of mine and Craig's that Dan ungraciously deleted---he claims they didn't answer the question, when he should have left them for others to decide if they did or not), one will see that Dan doesn't really explain what he was seeking. His question morphs throughout. He speaks of the debate in the post and then finishes with the question he thinks we haven't answered "what's the harm?" What does that mean to you in light of the context? I was pretty damned sure he was referring to the debate about legalizing this immoral idea of SSM. So when I responded with a few examples of the harm legalization would present, he altered the question to simply, "What if two rational, healthy adults love each other and want to
marry - committing to faithfully love, support and respect each other -
and they're causing no one any harm, what possible reason would there be
for stopping that marriage?"
Well, obviously I wouldn't be looking to stop two rational, healthy adults if they were comprised of one man and one woman. And I certainly wouldn't waste my time trying to stop two of the same gender who wished to commit to each other. But the question assumes that two of the same gender who wish to marry each other are both rational and healthy. The fact that two of the same gender wish to marry each other does not imply "rational" at all. It suggests something quite unhealthy psychologically.
Nonetheless, there's a big difference in the question if it isn't connected to the debate he claims we're losing. Aside from the harm they do to themselves, both physically and, most importantly, spiritually, I don't care if homosexuals or lesbians wish to play house. I'm concerned with the problems legalizing it will inflict upon our culture, our children and our economy.
So here's a question: Where's the harm in NOT legalizing SSM? There is none. There would only be an incredibly tiny percentage of the general population that would be put out. (Only a small percentage of homosexuals have gotten married in states and countries that legalized this selfish demand.)