This is the continuation of our look at three interesting articles on same-sex marriage. In part 1, we looked at a recommended secret weapon that Christians use against same-sex marriage.

The second article is “How gay marriage harms people” (2017). Let’s critique the many popular arguments it makes against same-sex marriage.

1. “The Bible says that marriage is rooted in God’s creation of mankind (Matthew 19:4–8).”

The Bible also says that marriage is to be avoided. Paul said, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry” (1 Corinthians 7:8–9). This is one more example where the Bible is a sock puppet that can be made to say just about anything.

Marriage as one of God’s sacred gifts to mankind is a new idea. Marriage wasn’t a Christian sacrament until 1215, and that was only to give the church the power to annul marriages that made political alliances it didn’t like (more here).

2. “Throughout Scripture, it is clear that marriage is a lifelong, exclusive covenantal union of two people—a husband and a wife.”

Nope. God gives polygamy two thumbs up. God said to David, “I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.” (2 Samuel 12:8). More here.

One response is that God was simply working with the imperfect customs of the time, and that’s why he didn’t prohibit slavery or polygamy. In response, it’s ridiculous to imagine the perfect plan of an omnipotent god hobbled by the primitive morality of an Iron Age people. He didn’t have any problem putting the Ten Commandments into action immediately, with the death penalty for violating most of them.

Second, if “God was bound by the customs of the time” doesn’t constrain you from rejecting slavery and polygamy today, then you’re not constrained to keep other nutty Old Testament prohibitions like those against homosexuality. You can’t have it both ways—God’s clear preferences in the Old Testament either bind you or they don’t.

3. “The production of children requires both a man and a woman. So there cannot be any such thing as gay marriage, because marriage requires husband and wife.”

Well, that was a leap. Children require a man and a woman (no, they don’t have to be married), but so what? Reread the marriage vows—there’s a lot in that commitment, but none of it is about making babies.

And if marriage = babies, why focus on the tangential issue of same-sex marriage? Far more straight couples have a fertility problem than there are potential homosexual couples, and many more straight couples simply don’t want children. Why not complain that they are the ones who don’t understand what marriage is about? Or if you’re fine with childless straight couples, why not be consistent and accept childless gay couples? (The answer for those keeping score at home: they reject only gay childless couples because “marriage is all about the babies” is just a smokescreen.) More here.

Here again, the Bible is no friend to the Christian bigot. Paul says, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (1 Cor. 7:1). So much for the celebrated role of procreation.

The Bible also uses marriage as a metaphor for the relationship of Jesus to the church—is making babies the point of this marriage as well, or can marriage be about something more? More here.

See also: 20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted

4. “Homosexual activity is harmful and destructive to oneself and others.”

Why? How? This statement is supported by no argument, so it doesn’t need an argument to be dismissed.

5. “If we abandon the Bible’s teaching on marriage and just make up new definitions as we go, then why couldn’t marriage be redefined in other ways?”

Uh, it has, and in your lifetime. Mixed-race marriage is now legal. Divorce has become no-fault. Marital rape is illegal.

Different states even have different rules defining marriage—whether you can marry your cousin, whether a blood test is required, waiting period, residency requirements, rules for divorced persons, and so on. No, the definition of “marriage” isn’t fixed, so don’t get your knickers in a bunch because marriage has changed again.

6. “The more we move away from the biblical teaching on marriage, the more we’ll have broken homes, because other arrangements simply do not work as well as God’s design.”

In the United States, the Constitution is completely secular. The First Amendment prohibits “because the Bible (or God) says so” from being the basis of any law. This is fortunate since statistics reveal that more religion in Western countries correlates with worse social conditions (more here).

Another problem with your desire to guide America with biblical principles is that the Bible’s punishment for homosexuality is death. You can’t have a crime without a punishment, so your hypocrisy is showing if you tell us that homosexuality is bad because God says so without also demanding God’s punishment.

Finally, and despite your best efforts, this doesn’t affect you at all. If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t get gay married. If you are honestly concerned about attacks on marriage (rather than being a moral busybody, which is what it looks like), same-sex marriage is the good guy in this story. It is trying to expand and support marriage, not attack it. You want a problem? Divorce is a problem. Focus on why marriages fail if you want to help them.

Continue with the final part, “You Think You Understand What Leviticus Says Against Homosexuality?”

Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things.
One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in Hell.
The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on Earth
and you should save it for someone you love.  
— Butch Hancock

Image credit: Bev Sykes, flickr, CC

Say you’ve got Christians on two sides of an issue. Maybe some say that abortion is okay and others say that it is not. Some say that capital punishment is okay and others that it’s not. Some say that same-sex marriage is okay and others that it’s not.
What do we make of this? Both sides use the same Bible. Is the Bible then ambiguous?
Before you conclude that it is, consider this exchange during an interview with Greg Koukl (Unbelievable podcast for 7/13/13). A caller asked about ambiguity in the Bible and gave as an example the then-current debate about gay Anglican clergy in civil partnerships becoming bishops. (In the beginning of 2013, the church decided to allow it as long as they remained celibate, though celibacy isn’t demanded of straight priests.) There were honest, well-intentioned Christians in the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches arguing both sides of the debate using the same Bible.
Koukl’s answer
Koukl used arithmetic as a counterexample. Suppose one person argued that 2 + 2 = 4, while another said that 2 + 2 = 9. The honesty and decency of the participants is irrelevant—there are objective truths here, and these two antagonists can’t both be right.
I agree. But are there also objective truths in the gay bishop case? I see none, and I see no evidence that the Bible’s position on this matter is clear.
Koukl says that, like checking which sum is correct, we must look to the Bible to see what it says.

In this regard, there is very little ambiguity as to what the bible teaches … between the Genesis passage, the Leviticus passage, and the Romans passage, there is a very, very clear statement about homosexuality.

That so? Let’s follow up on those Bible references to see what this “clear statement” is.
Old Testament passages against homosexuality?
The Genesis passage is 19:4–9, the Sodom and Gomorrah story. But remove the presupposition that the lesson is “homosexuality is bad” and see what crime actually is. It’s rape. For the details, see my posts here and here. This informs us about the topic at hand—which, let’s remember, is a committed gay couple—not at all.
Strike one.
There are two Leviticus passages.

You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).
If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves (Lev. 20:13).

“Abomination”? Ouch—that sounds pretty harsh. But look at the other things that are labeled in Leviticus as abominations—eating forbidden food, sacrificing blemished animals, performing divination, women wearing men’s clothes, and so on. Clearly, these are ritual abominations, out of date tribal customs. These are bad by definition, not because they actually hurt anyone.
Christians don’t care about these ancient customs today. The logic is that the sacrifice of Jesus got rid of them (see, for example, Hebrews 7:11–12). All right, but let’s be consistent. Get rid of them. Don’t sift through them to keep a few that you’re nostalgic for.
I’ve also written in detail about this here.
Notice also something else that we dismiss today: the punishment for homosexuality, which is death. How can you dismiss the punishment but cling to the crime? If one is abhorrent, what does that say about the other? Without a punishment there is no crime.
Strike two.
New Testament passages against homosexuality?
Finally, here is the Romans passage.

Because of [mankind’s sinful desires], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Rom. 1:26–7)

Notice the verbs here: God “gave them over,” women “exchanged,” men “abandoned.” Paul imagines going from the natural (men with women) to the unnatural. That is, he imagines straight people engaging in homosexual sex. Yes, that is weird. And, strike three, that has no bearing on what we’re talking about: homosexuals doing what comes naturally.
As a postscript on our analysis of the Romans passage, is Paul declaring his position or the position that he rejects? Don M Burrows argues that this passage was a common negative view held by Jews of Gentiles, and, as an apostle to the Gentiles, Paul is refuting this argument.
Koukl’s conclusion
After referring to these passages, which do not address the question at hand, Koukl wraps up:

The evidence is there to come to a clear conclusion about what the spiritual sums are with regard to homosexuality. That people who are dedicated, who pray, who are honest, who have a relationship with God don’t agree on that, does not mean that the text is unclear, and what one needs to do in those kinds of things is go back to the text. This is not a case where God has been hidden in the information.

I’m a little surprised to say this, but I agree with Koukl here. There is no ambiguity. It’s clear both what is said in the Bible and what is not said. These passages say nothing about the case of gay Anglican clergy that is the topic.

This is a case where a lot of people have changed their mind under public pressure.

Social improvement comes from society. We used to chop off hands for stealing, we used to burn witches, and we used to enslave people. It’s not thanks to the Bible (which doesn’t change) but to society (which does) that we’ve put that behind us. “Public pressure” isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and we must weigh the consensus of our community to test our own moral opinions.
The problem is as Koukl identifies it: people reading into the Bible what they want it to say. And Koukl is a great example. He takes the passages from Genesis (that argues that rape is bad), Leviticus (made irrelevant thanks to his savior’s sacrifice), and Romans (which talks about some irrelevant orgy in which straight people dabble with homosexual sex) and concludes that the Bible makes plain that loving gay relationships can’t be embraced by the church.
For people like Koukl, the Bible is a sock puppet that they can make say whatever they want.

To call homosexuality admissible as long it doesn’t include sex
is like the sound of one hand clapping.
— Y.A. Warren

(I recommend a resource that has been helpful with this post: “Homosexuality and the Bible” by Rev. Walter Wink.)
(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 7/22/13.)
Photo credit: Chick tracts
 

While on a business trip to Japan in the ’90s, I came across an interesting brand of bath salts. In bold letters across the top of the bag was the word “Sodom.” Salt, Sodom—yes, I see the connection, but that’s not the happiest image to attach to your brand.

So what ought we think of when we think of Sodom?

On a Stand to Reason podcast (“The Bible and Homosexuality,” 9/2/12), Greg Koukl unsurprisingly thinks that the point of the Sodom and Gomorrah story recounted in Genesis 19 is that homosexuality is bad—bad enough, in fact, to get your city destroyed.

He kicks around an alternative possibility, that poor hospitality was really the sin of Sodom. Remember that Lot offered hospitality to the two visiting angels, but the men of Sodom threatened their safety. Koukl rejects this option. And if the sin isn’t lack of hospitality, what could it be but homosexuality? Apparently, he can only imagine two possibilities.

He concludes that “the scripture speaks clearly on this … don’t twist what it says.” I agree, both that the issue wasn’t hospitality and that we mustn’t twist the scripture to make it say what it doesn’t.

Koukl looks to other parts of the Bible for their interpretation. One cross-reference is in the book of Ezekiel. In chapter 16, the faithlessness of the Jews is portrayed with Jerusalem being analogous to an adulterous wife. Other cities are likened to wicked sisters, and one of these is Sodom.

What are wicked Sodom’s crimes?

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen (Ezekiel 16:49–50).

If homosexuality were Sodom’s crime, wouldn’t this be the only thing on the list? Instead, we have arrogance, lack of concern for the needy, and unspecified “detestable things.” This gives no tangible support for the Homosexuality Hypothesis.

In fact, it’s pretty clear from the Genesis story itself that homosexuality wasn’t the issue.

1. Lot makes this clear. Lot was a resident, and he understood the townspeople. If the men were all gay, he’d know it, and he wouldn’t bother offering them his daughters as a substitute, which he does in Gen. 19:8.

As an aside: it doesn’t say much for the morality of the city’s most godly man that he offers his daughters as if they were just sex toys. And if this is unthinkable today, why would it be an option thousands of years ago? So much for the idea that morality is objective and unchanging.

Lot also had sex with his daughters (which, despite long lists of forbidden familial couplings in the Bible, is incredibly not forbidden). But somehow, Lot is still the hero of the story.

2. An all-gay city wouldn’t be sustainable. “All the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house” (Gen. 19:4). So “all the men” were gay? How could there be children if all the men were gay? Such a city would simply die out. And why wouldn’t that be an option for God? Just give Sodom a few decades and let the population fade away.

And does it even say “all the men”? That word is often translated as “men,” but it can also mean “people.” This casts more doubt on the idea of a horny gay mob at Lot’s door.

3. Seriously? A city with all men gay? Homosexuality wasn’t studied when it was taboo, but we now know that only a few percent of society is homosexual. Anyway, why would godly Lot stick around if the city was so detestable? Perhaps for literary purposes?

4. Can we assume that there were no women? There is no evidence that this is an all-male city. “All the men” makes clear that this is not everyone, and so some must’ve been left behind. The straightforward interpretation is that all the men came to Lot’s house, that the women stayed at home, and that the women were mothers, wives, and daughters as in any ordinary city.

5. We have a better explanation. Gang rape is less about pleasure than about humiliating or establishing dominance. That the local men wanted to bully or dominate the visitors seems a better explanation than that they were just eager for sexual pleasure.

As we study the story, however, let’s not dismiss the violence. No one can question that there was significant evil in Sodom (even if it’s just legend) when visitors are threatened with gang rape. But what was the sin of Sodom? This is a story of attempted rape. Yes, it was homosexual rape, but the homosexuality isn’t highlighted as the crime.

Koukl is right that we shouldn’t twist the story, but he seems to be the one with the agenda. Only with a desire to find anti-gay messages in the Bible can we imagine one in the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

What’s also clear is that this has nothing to do with the loving, monogamous, homosexual relationship that is the subject of today’s discussion of same-sex marriage.

Every time you see a rainbow,
God is having gay sex
(seen on a bumper sticker)

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 11/5/12.)

A number of conservative Christians are cranky about the expected Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage later this month. Don’t think that they’ll just accept the court’s decision placidly, they assure us.

Their “Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage” outlines an inept argument against such a ruling and threatens unspecified consequences if the Supreme Court makes them mad. Let’s explore that jeremiad pledge and an advertisement that went along with it.

God has spoken!

First, they want to make clear who’s the boss.

We will not honor any decision by the Supreme Court which will force us to violate a clear biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman [from the ad].

Is there a “clear biblical understanding of marriage”? Not really. Not only do you disagree on same-sex marriage within your own religion, the Bible says much about all sorts of embarrassing marriage customs and prohibitions sanctioned by God: no interracial marriage, concubine sex, rape for fun and profit, genocide while keeping the virgin girls, slave marriage, levirate marriage, and of course polygamy. You still want to go with “clear biblical understanding” as your final answer?

You can believe whatever you want, just don’t imagine that your beliefs will be taken into account when making laws. You need a secular argument.

What Would Martin Do?

From the ad:

We affirm that any judicial opinion which purports to redefine marriage will constitute an unjust law, as Martin Luther King Jr. described such laws in his [1963] letter from the Birmingham Jail.

Not quite. Let’s look at what Dr. King actually wrote about just and unjust laws in that letter. He said, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” King’s work was exclusively aimed at expanding rights and privileges for those who had been discriminated against. You want to follow his advice? Then in the debate over same-sex marriage, look to what ruling would “[uplift] human personality” and what would degrade it.

There’s not love enough in your heart to expand the institution of marriage so that other loving couples can share it? You complain about easy divorce and raising families outside of marriage, and yet you snub a group that wants to embrace marriage? Rethink your position.

Dr. King added, “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.” Here again, the “defense of marriage” faction that hopes to repurpose Dr. King finds that he isn’t cooperating. Law that restricts marriage to two straight people suits these Christian conservatives just fine. They can marry whomever they love, though it doesn’t work that way for homosexuals. The majority seeks a law that it “does not make binding on itself.”

Who knew? Marriage is all about the sex.

The Pledge says:

Conferring a moral and legal equivalency to any relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman, by legislative or judicial fiat, sends the message that children do not need a mother and a father. As a policy matter, such unions convey the message that moms and dads are completely irrelevant to the well-being of children.

This argument is a melancholy deflated balloon. Flailing around for an argument, these conservative Christians want to imagine that marriage is about nothing but children. But of course there’s nothing in the traditional marriage vows about making babies. You remember the marriage vow, right? “To have and to hold, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.” Nor is there anything in the state’s marriage license about making babies. Nor are married couples ever penalized for not having the correct number of babies.

That they’re forced to shoehorn marriage into this “marriage = making babies” mold proves that playing politics is their goal, not guarding the sanctity of marriage.

Suppose the Supreme Court makes same-sex marriage legal across the country. What fraction of the population is homosexual? What fraction of that will get married? And what fraction of that will bring new children into the marriage? This is a very small percentage of all children. If caring for children were actually a goal, they’d focus on helping the millions of children in imperfect homes—those with just one parent or poor medical care or a dangerous neighborhood or not enough income. A mixed-gender couple isn’t mandatory for children; rather, a healthy family environment is what’s important.

This is not their focus, and caring for children is obviously not their goal.

The Court had better know its place

No civil institution, including the United States Supreme Court or any court, has authority to redefine marriage.

That ship has already sailed. There’s Davis v. Beason (1890), which stomped on the Mormons’ biblically based right to polygamy. There’s Loving v. Virginia (1973) that threw the Bible in the garbage by declaring that mixed-race marriage was legal in every state. Divorce has been made easier. Marital rape is now a crime.

You do know that the Bible doesn’t call the shots, right?

The sky is falling! Marriage will be destroyed!

No kidding—that’s what they really claim will happen.

We will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds in this nation we love.

My, aren’t we dramatic!

Guess which state has had legal same-sex marriage the longest. If destruction of a fundamental social institution is really what we’re talking about, that should be easy—it would be the state where it’s raining fire and brimstone and where people have been turned to salt. Or maybe where zombies roam the streets or where police cars are overturned and burning. Any guesses?

It’s been legal for over a decade in Massachusetts, and things seem to be running fairly smoothly. In fact, it’s legal where more than 70% of Americans live. It’s legal in 17 countries. Show me the social metrics that say that anything measurable (homicides, burglaries, STDs, etc.) is worse as a result.

Punch line: don’t infringe my right to discriminate

This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights.

Yep, just like before. And the state will prevail over religious prejudice, just like before. The Mormons lost their fight for polygamy. Racists against mixed-race marriage lost their fight for racial purity. I’m all for people’s right to their religious beliefs, regardless of what I think of those beliefs, but that right ends when society declares that it infringes on something more important.

Christian schools that discriminate risk losing their tax-exempt status. Bakers and photographers must provide equal access just like restaurants, hotels, apartments, and other places of public accommodation. Discrimination because you don’t approve of a couple because they’re mixed-race or same-sex or foreign is illegal, even if your motivation is driven by religious reasons. If you value your ability to discriminate more than your business, then get out of the business.

As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law. We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line.

The Constitution runs this country, not the Bible. If that’s a problem for you, I can help you find the door.

We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.

Seriously? This is the hill you want to die on—the right to discriminate? To restrict rights?

Remember that Martin Luther King was universally trying to expand rights. Don’t you get tired of always being in the same bin as the KKK? Can’t you pick an important issue to focus on?

Go ahead—hold your breath to try to get your way. Your view is already looking like the fringe view today. It will look even more so tomorrow.

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie—
deliberate, contrived and dishonest—
but the myth—persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears.
We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations.
We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
— John F. Kennedy

Image credit: James Dobson’s Family Talk

I’ve written a lot in support of same-sex marriage and the weakness of biblical arguments against homosexuality. Nevertheless, I want to point out some important areas where pastor David Berzins, in a recent rant in support of stoning of homosexuals, actually has it right.

After a fellow pastor pulled back from a fire ’n brimstone response to homosexuality, Berzins responded first by acknowledging that pastor’s good points.

He believes in the King James Bible, it’s [an] independent fundamentalist Baptist church, he believes homosexuality is wickedness, and he preaches against it.

Wow—what’s not to like? Simply this: “They don’t believe that [homosexuals] should be stoned [to death].”

Do you follow the Bible or not?

Berzins moved on to demand consistency from his fellow Christians.

And this is what drives me nuts: … the same Christians that are complaining about the Old Testament law being thrown out of the courtrooms now will not stand up in defense of a man of God [who] is believing that God’s word is pure and that God’s judgment is righteous on the sodomites.

He’s got a point. Fretting about the Ten Commandments not having a place of prominence in American government is a popular pastime among some Christians today. If the Commandments said only, “Be excellent to each other” (as philosophers Bill and Ted put it), that would be one thing. But in fact, they include demands that we have no other gods but Jehovah, make no graven images, not blaspheme, and keep the Sabbath day.

Is this desire that the government endorse the Ten Commandments just window dressing? Just an empty gesture that Christians can nevertheless feel good about? Of course it is, but let’s take these Christians at their word. Berzins puts them on the spot: why should society follow the Ten Commandments but not all of the Old Testament?

Moral vs. ritual law in the Old Testament

Christians typically get around this by distinguishing moral or divine law, which is still in force, from ritual law, applicable only during Old Testament times. These ritual laws would include kosher food rules and no work on the Sabbath.

It doesn’t work that way in practice. Many Christians, Berzins included, will pick and choose from the buffet as their fancy dictates. They’ll laugh at Old Testament prohibition against mixing fibers in fabrics or crops in a field and they’ll reject rules about slavery, but those rules against homosexuality look tempting. Only extremists like Berzins (and ISIS) go so far as keeping the punishment that goes with the crime.

Berzins is inconsistent about what he keeps and rejects, but that doesn’t make him wrong when he points out Christian inconsistency. Don’t like the gays? Conservative Christians often want to keep prohibitions against homosexuality. Think that stoning to death is just a little much for a civilized country in the 21st century? They’ll drop the Old Testament’s draconian punishments, which in most cases is death.

Stoning for the gays—who’s with me??

By this time in his sermon, Berzins has a good head of steam.

If you think they shouldn’t be put to death, fine. If you don’t think that should be the government’s role, but you believe the Bible and you’re against homosexuality? This is not a cause to break fellowship over. The Bible talks about people who need to be kicked out of the church like drunkards and extortioners and people like that. Yeah—break fellowship with those people. Don’t break fellowship with someone who simply believes that Leviticus 20:13 should be in application in our government today, as it used to be, by the way.

Sure, we’re all singing out of the same hymnal. So I want the government to stone gays to death and you don’t? No biggie, right? We’re still pretty much saying the same thing as long as we shun the drunkards and extortioners.

But once again, I must note where Berzins is right. In a long list of nutty crimes in Leviticus 13 (death for adulterers and rude children, exile for mediums and those who have sex during a woman’s period), God demands death for homosexual men. And at the birth of the United States, male homosexuality was a capital crime in each of the 13 colonies.

Fred “God hates fags!” Phelps was an extremist, but he knew his Bible. He wasn’t just making it up. And David “Stone them!” Berzins has a point when he demands Christian consistency.

For those of you who thought that the biggest problem in this country was not allowing bakers to refuse to bake gay wedding cakes, it’s nice that pastor Berzins is here to set us straight.

Saying someone shouldn’t be gay because it’s against your religion
is like saying someone shouldn’t eat a cupcake
because you are on a diet.
— Unknown

Image credit: Shutterstock

I summarized the abrupt about-face we’ve seen on the same-sex marriage issue in Part 1. Let’s continue with a thought experiment I posed to the Christian opponents of same-sex marriage as they reorganize behind the demand that they be allowed to deny service to same-sex couples.

Discriminate against a gay couple? How about against a mixed-race couple? Would that be justified as well?

Few modern Christians would support discrimination based on the ethnicity of customers, and they contort themselves trying to show that discriminating against a gay couple is perfectly reasonable while discriminating against a mixed-race couple is unthinkable. Let’s explore some of their rationalizations.

Response 1: Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race. Homosexuality requires action, which you can choose or not choose to do.

No, sexual orientation and ethnicity are both part of what you are.

Sure, a homosexual could choose to remain celibate. So could you, Mr. Christian. If that would be an outrageous imposition on you, why impose it on someone else? Consensual safe sex causes no more harm if it’s homosexual rather than heterosexual.

By contrast, religion is something you choose. Christianity—or at least its outdated attitudes—is something you are able to discard. (Might be something to consider.)

Response 2: “You keep playing the race card. But the way blacks were treated is much different that the way the gays are treated. Blacks were slaves, weren’t allowed to vote, were forced to use separate facilities, etc. That’s not what’s happening to gays. They aren’t being enslaved or having their freedoms taken away. Quite frankly, it’s an outlandish and offensive example.” Source

(And bonus points for the outrage! Wow—who’s taking the moral high road now?!)

No one claims that the oppression of African Americans was the same as injustices done to homosexuals; the point is that they’re both injustices.

“No one talks about same-race marriages. Why? Because it’s irrelevant. Race has no bearing on marriage.”

Agreed, but you’re able to say that only because American Christians have moved on. That wouldn’t have been true just a few decades ago. Consider the original conviction that became the landmark 1967 Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court case that overturned state and local laws against mixed-race marriage in the U.S. The trial judge in the original case gave a clear biblical foundation for the moral error of mixed-race marriage:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Remember the xkcd graph discussed in Part 1. When mixed-race marriage was legalized nationwide in 1967, most Americans disapproved. Yes, race has no bearing on marriage, and yes, no one talks about it anymore, but that wasn’t the case just a few decades ago.

Response 3: Where will these impositions on business owners end? Suppose a restaurant owner didn’t want to sell alcohol or a kiosk owner didn’t want to sell pornography. Could they be forced to?

That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about public accommodation. Restaurants, apartment buildings, stores, and public universities must provide equal access. A restaurant isn’t forced to sell alcohol and a kiosk isn’t forced to sell porn, but if they do, they must provide equal access to customers regardless of race, sexual orientation, and so on.

Response 4: Oh, come on—this is a red herring. No one opposes interracial marriage. That’s not the official view of any major religion. Same-sex marriage, however, is widely rejected by religious authorities.

This is just a bandwagon argument—lots of people and authorities think my way, so you should adopt it. If popularity were the issue, the rapid about-face we’ve seen in polls should shut down this issue. But it’s not. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to avoid the tyranny of the majority over a minority.

The fact remains that “My honest religious beliefs prohibit me from serving an X couple” applies whether X is “same-sex” or “mixed-race.” The logic of your argument allows both options. I’m simply rubbing your nose in it—if you don’t like the consequences of your argument, drop it.

Response 5: “Race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. There is nothing wrong with interracial marriages because men and women are designed for one another and can procreate regardless of their racial background.” — Frank Turek

Ah, the “marriage = procreation” argument—an oldie but a goodie! I wonder if that’s all Turek gets out of the marriage vows. “I promise to be your faithful partner in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, in joy as well as in sorrow,” doesn’t sound like “Make babies!” to me.

It’s easy to smoke out these Christians’ true opinions on the subject. Ask these opponents of same-sex marriage why a straight couple should get married instead of living together, and the procreation argument goes out the window, replaced with profound thoughts about love and commitment—precisely the reason same-sex couples want to get married.

I’ve skewered this argument more here.

“Ironically, it’s not conservatives but homosexual activists who are acting like racists. Instead of asking the state to recognize the preexisting institution of marriage, homosexuals are asking the state to define marriage. That’s exactly what racists were trying to do to prevent interracial marriage.”

Gays want marriage expanded. Racist anti-miscegenists wanted it restricted. See the difference?

Before you make the “but marriage has been one man plus one woman since Day 1!” argument, consider the many odd and unpleasant kinds of hookups recognized by the Old Testament.

Response 6: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. … In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.” — Sen. Rick Santorum (2003)

And now we have the slippery slope argument. Do bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, incest, or pedophilia cause harm? If so, then you see the difference between Santorum’s fevered, straight-laced imagination and the issue at hand. Consensual, safe gay sex causes no more problem than consensual, safe straight sex.

And don’t imagine that marriage has had one definition since forever. Society has changed it many times (more).

[Gay sex] destroys the basic unit of our society.… Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, whether it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Sounds like we’ve devolved into the “gay sex is icky” argument. Hey, Senator, if you don’t like gay sex, don’t have any. Problem solved.

Final thoughts

Conservative Christians, you’re seriously telling me that there’s such an abundance of love in the world that you can get in the way of homosexuals who only want the marriage that you’ve got? Aren’t there enough actual problems in the world that we can work on instead?

Drop the petulant, backwards-looking attitude. Your mistake was letting politicians lead you around by the nose, and they led you into an indefensible dead end. The next time politicians buzz around like flies and tell you that the sky is falling, tell them to take a hike. Tell them that you’re able to figure out social issues on your own.

I stayed because my pastor told me that God hates divorce.
It didn’t cross my mind that God might hate abuse, too.
— Beverly Gooden

Photo credit: Jeremy Richardson