Answer: The traditional view of marriage is exactly as the name implies. It is a vision of marriage that is based on a long and universally recognized understanding that marriage involves a life-long commitment between a man and a woman. This is not to deny that both homosexuality and polygamy have been considered acceptable alternatives in certain societies down through history as well. But those arrangements were never made to redefine marriage itself in terms of sexual roles. For this reason, it is those who wish to overthrow the traditional definition of marriage that are the extremists.
"Advocates for the traditional view of marriage are bigots."
Answer: This charge is simply absurd. It merits no response. That the charge is made is a reflection more
on the narrow mindedness of the person who hurls it at traditionalists, than it
is on a person who simply wishes to maintain a time-honored vision of marriage
and the family for the protection of the defenseless. The implied assumption that unless you agree
with the actions of another person, you must instead be filled with hatred
toward that person, commits the “black or
white” fallacy, is reflective of the infantile thinking of a spoiled child (of
any age) who doesn’t get their own way, and, applied consistently, would render
impossible every single social relationship everywhere.
"Straight marriages are not impacted, and are certainly not damaged, by the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual arrangements."
Answer: Arguments for the standard traditional model
of marriage do not rest on whether current marriages are impacted. They rest fundamentally on matters of
morality, including the very existence of morality, the disruption of society
when morality is abandoned, the potential harm to children who are left without
a vision of marriage when marriage is redefined, and parents and teachers who
are hindered from providing that vision to their children when traditional marriage
is ridiculed.
"The sorry record of high divorce rates in straight marriage demonstrates that the traditional view of marriage is a failure."
Answer: So much for human nature! The Bible calls this sin. It also offers the remedy for human sin through the forgiveness of our sins in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But the suggestion that the reality of human failure means we should throw out standards altogether, is absolutely preposterous. That very proposition toward overhaul removes all hope for moral improvement. And it removes the very standard that provides direction for moral improvement. Indeed it renders the very notion of moral improvement incoherent and meaningless.
"Religion has no legitimate role to play with respect to secular public affairs."
Answer: The United States constitution offers no restriction whatsoever to the use of religious argumentation. If it did, it would effectively offer free expression of opinion to everyone else EXCEPT those who believe in a God who has revealed His will in the Bible. Our founding documents argue OTHERWISE. The first amendment to the Bill of Rights says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Compiled
by Pastor Gary Jensen
Zion
Lutheran Church
Snohomish,
Washington
March
28, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment