Posted by: inforodeo | November 12, 2012

More Thoughts on Same-Sex Union

A friend of mine posted a quote on a social networking site today that said, “Denying another group of people equal rights because of your religious beliefs is still bigotry.” 

It looks like that argument is not going away any time soon.

The thing that offends most of us about being called bigots for our beliefs is that the designation is solely reserved for Christians. We never hear of a Wiccan being called a bigot for snide remarks against Christianity. We don’t hear of Islam, a religion who inspires extremists to kill and maim others because of their beliefs, being called bigots. We don’t hear of Jeremiah Wright, Chris Rock or the Black Panthers being called bigots when they talk of killing white people.

Bigotry, as defined by most dictionaries, is a “stubborn disagreement with, or intolerance of, beliefs other than one’s own.” By that definition we are all bigots in some corner of our lives, whether that corner be political, religious, philosophical, or related to athletics, music, literature, or food.

There are several issues regarding these accusations of bigotry.


If it is bigotry to sternly disagree with someone else on a topic, the person who believes a predatory pedophile needs to be locked away in a dark prison somewhere and forgotten is a bigot. If that person were to escape the vice of bigotry, they must accept the criminal’s “right” to his or her criminal acts and improper obsessions.

If I were a doctor and had concluded through diligent research that smoking causes cancer and other health problems, I might choose to spread my message among smokers to save a few lives from the habit. I would be a bigot. To correct myself, I should keep my views and expertise to myself, and even encourage others to smoke. They do, after all, have a right to kill themselves and poison those around them in the process.

When we eliminate our opinion, we lose our strength as human beings. being politically correct takes away our right to free speech, it allows others to control our religion, and it reduces our personal freedoms. The framers of our constitution never intended to create a sterile world. In the same way the LGBT community has a right to express themselves through print, film, and public parades, those who oppose that lifestyle have a right to voice and otherwise convey their beliefs. Our courts have decided that. Further, the doctrine known as the “separation of church and state” was designed to protect religion from government interference. These opinions are constitutionally protected.


There seems to be some confusion as to what rights are enumerated in our constitution. Marriage is not one of them.

On the other hand, God grants us the opportunity to marry, so aside from government, my personal belief is that marriage between a man and woman is a basic human right.

Marriage is a religious institution. Some would argue and say some sort of joining ritual is in place through all cultures, and I would direct right back to that word “ritual.” marriage is a symbolic ritual that occurs within religious communities. There is no biological reason for the ritual. The social elements that those desperate to use to pick away at the argument use are secondary to the symbolic joining of the man and woman.

Reducing this argument to only include Judeo-Christian concepts of marriage, there are important spiritual elements of joining husband and wife under God. We look on in horror when the Taliban destroys age-old statues of Buddha. We supported the aborigines when a famous irreverent pop starlet chose to mock their religious beliefs by playing a male-only instrument on stage. We respect the beliefs of so many others, yet when it comes to Christianity and Judaism, society finds it perfectly acceptable to rape the religion and drag its sacred ritual through the mud.

Homosexuality is condemned in the Torah/Old Testament. There is no disputing that, except with those who have not read the scripture. Some references to this practice (always condemning it) are found in  Genesis 19:5, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17, Isaiah 3:9, and in the New Testament in Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, and Jude 1:7.

Because Homosexuality is condemned numerous times in scripture, those seeking a loophole always claim that “Jesus never condemned it.” This may be true (it is hard to know because much of what Christ said was never passed down), but it is likewise true that he did not speak out about many other commandments from the Torah, simply because these things were common knowledge and there was no need to repeat them. It is also significant to point out that much of what Christ taught was “positive,” in that there were less “thou shalt nots” and more “thou shalls.” Christ taught us to love God, love our neighbor, and to follow the commandments (the action that shows we love God). The commandments of the Bible are not limited to those ten made famous by Moses. In its words are numerous others, including the multiple condemnations of homosexuality.

What aim do those who support same-sex marriage have in trying to wrest a ritual from religions who specifically condemn their lifestyle? The aim of their argument is not about equality; it is about desecration, revenge, disrespect, and mockery.

There are a number of different avenues the LGBT community could take. There are already “Gay Insurance” companies who provide benefits on par with those benefits granted to real married couples. Many married couples have found that there are often less tax benefits for those who file as married, so there doesn’t need to be a definition of “married” entered into the tax code. If the LGBT community insists changes on those levels, then lobby to change the tax code, not the definition of a sacred practice.

It is hard for many of us to understand why people who pride themselves on being so independent, unique, innovative, progressive, unnatural, and individual want to desecrate the ritual of marriage rather than inventing something uniquely theirs. By refusing to create their own cultural joining ritual, the LGBT community is adding even more weight to this idea that the fight is not about equality as much as it is about destroying those whose God condemns the gay lifestyle.


It is strange to see so much hatred aimed at the religious who are trying to defend their sacred rite. Those who are truly trying to follow their religion are not attacking those persons who identify themselves as “gay.” Instead, they are reaching out to them, while not accepting their unnatural lifestyle.

At the same time, violent protests have been held in reaction to traditionalism and religious preservation. Churches and other sacred sites have been defaced and trespassed. Their outer perimeters have been occupied by militants in the unnatural movement. Social media is flooded with propaganda supporting same-sex unions, and in all corners of the media the messages have attempted to twist righteous judgment into unrighteous judgment, doctrinal immovability into superstition and bigotry, and support of the bondage of sin as the same as support of equality and freedom.

It has also been interesting to me to see the actual stances of many churches who oppose this weakening of values and defacing of sacred ideals. While there are some who regurgitate the shallow arguments of “Adam and Steve” or stoop to the same lowness of name-calling that proponents of same-sex union are using, there are many churches who remind all that they disagree with all forms of sexual impurity; they have never selectively singled out gays.


I use the term “unnatural” because our bodies were not developed by God or nature to propagate our species through the behavior that is the core of the LGBT lifestyle. Because such behavior serves no natural purpose and our biology does not support any useful function through such behavior, it is, by definition, unnatural.



  1. Hi, first off I would just like to say that I am not gay, but I totally disagree with you.

    I guess my only counter (the only one I need) to your post is that this is simply not true: MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT, IT IS A RITUAL

    Marriage rituals have been practiced prior to Christianity in various forms, cultures (atheist, polytheist and monotheist) and nations.

    If marriage was related to religion, why would any SECULAR government even attempt to regulate it? Marriage is merely a social and economic union. Any relationship with various religions is only incidental.

    If your religion prohibits gay unions and you’re gay, then you are free to suffer for your faith. The government will not force your church to officiate gay unions either. You will go about your life just like before.

    Other people who do not subscribe to the same beliefs should not have to suffer with you. Everybody should have the freedom because this is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT that we should all have EQUALLY.

    • Which cultures that predate Christianity had ritual for same-sex unions? It isn’t only Christianity which has issues with gay marriage, but being the prevalent organized religion(s) in this country, we slip into that term during the course of this argument. Those who have belief in a “Western religion” like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam would point out that Adam and Eve were the first married couple, were heterosexual, and they and their descendants had dibs on being the first of the marriage thing.

      My argument was all over the place, but the underlying points are these:

      1. No person or group has a right to label another a “bigot” without themselves taking the label “hypocrite.”

      2. The push for gay marriage is a push to offend others who hold, and have held for millennia, different beliefs. That kind of offense against the culture or belief of others goes against the creed of those who claim to “embrace diversity,” and seriously undermines their position as champions of equality.

      3. If a religion claims to follow an unchanging and perfect God, it is bound to follow God’s word. God’s word (to those who follow the Torah and/or New Testament) is that homosexuality is an abomination. There is absolutely no logic in demanding to take the beliefs of a religion by those in opposition to its tenets, other than as a symbolic taunting against it, acts formerly called “desecration” and “blasphemy.”

      4. Because this unnatural practice seeks to be the “new normal,” it ought to seek another way to symbolize its commitments and partake of the benefits traditionalists have held. There is no need to adopt the ritual, symbolism, and terminology of those they choose not to be like.

      I appreciate your comment. I am not gay either, but a large portion of my friends are. I do not believe in treating them differently in day to day things … I’ve hired them to work for me, shared my meals with them, stayed at their homes, etc … But I feel the approach of the LGBT community is callous and abrasive, and many leaders in those communities support that angle because they want to offend “the Christians” and the straights. That behavior sharply contrasts that of the traditionalists who are merely trying to keep their beliefs from being mocked (under the standards of their religions), and that contrast is from the bright fire of hypocrisy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: