Friday, March 11, 2011

Homosexual Sex is the Problem—not Marriage

We have all had discussions with people who are trying to convince us of something. At times our intuitive senses set off alarms, thinking, “I hear what you are arguing, and it sorta makes sense, but isn’t there a deeper rationalization going on here? Do you have a different motive than this pietistic approach?”

Like when your children petition for pizza because “Pizza is healthy” (it has all four (4) food groups, right?) when you know they haven’t gained some new desire to eat a balanced meal—they want pizza because it tastes good!

I recently discussed the homosexual marriage issue with Ten Minas Ministries--the oft-used approach of “I’m not going to argue against same sex marriage from a biblical perspective; I will prove it wrong without utilizing Divine Command ethics.” It boiled down to the simple proposition: (1) Same-sex marriage results in homosexual sex acts, (2) Homosexual sex acts are immoral, so therefore (3) Same-sex marriage should be banned to prevent immoral acts.

Now, I recognize the numerous holes within this proposition (the greatest being proof—outside Divine Command—that homosexual sex acts are immoral), but I did appreciate it for its refreshing honesty. Christians aren’t against gay marriage; they oppose all forms of homosexual sex. In other words, they don’t want to ban gay marriage; they want to ban homosexual sex.

Unfortunately for the Christian in America, ever since Lawrence v Texas any law banning homosexual sex* (or heterosexual sex acts) is deemed unconstitutional. Unenforceable. Worthless. They can petition all day—they could even get a legislature to pass a law—and it would do no good. Homosexuals could still have sex.

*consent is assumed for this blog entry.

The battle cry of “Ban Homosexual Sex” is a loser, both from a political correctedness standpoint and a political effectiveness view.

So if you can’t eliminate it from happening, what is the next best thing? To reduce it as much as possible, I should think. Yet that raises the crucial question--How does banning homosexual marriage reduce homosexual sex? The simple answer—it doesn’t.

The push to ban homosexual marriage is basically retribution for the Christian’s inability to ban what they REALLY want declared illegal—homosexual sex itself. And all the arguments have the taint of disingenuous justification. The complaint, “It is unnatural!” comes from heterosexuals enjoying the exact same “unnatural” oral, hand and anal sex. (To put a blunt note upon it.) The criticism from celibate priests it fails to procreate. (Oh the irony!) The Mormons crying for “traditional” marriage. *Cough, cough.*

Like the child trying to convince us they have an interest in being healthy, when we realize they really want to eat something they like; we see this for what it is.

So step up—stop cowering behind the façade of “protecting marriage.” Ask for what you really want—a ban on all homosexual sex. Instead of a marriage amendment to the US Constitution; ask for a homosexual amendment to the US Constitution.

Let us see the arguments for what they are.


  1. While they are at it, maybe they could get a ban on the animal kingdom for all the homosexual sex going on there.

    I agree. It has nothing to do with marriage.

    ... Zoe ~

  2. Indeed interesting how Minas avoids the marriage issue because it would require DCT... but then attacks something else that can only be deemed immoral if DCT is employed (I guess, apart from the "it's unnatural" argument).

    The "it's unnatural" one is quite odd, to me, since we violate what nature would have on its own all the time anyway. Prosthetics are unnatural. So is fertility thereapy. I recently posted at Daylight Atheism on similar lines. They were discussing Catholic teaching about contraceptive use and how anything that "frustrates" god's designs in nature is immoral.

    But if contraceptives "frustrate" his procreative design... don't immunizations, prosthetics, surgeries and the like "frustrate" the obvious design of frailty and weakness into the human person as well as an unforgiving harshness to the natural world?

  3. Hendy.

    And deodorant! Never forget how much deodorant “frustrates God’s design”!

  4. Minasis making an argument for a ban on homosexual marriage without using Divine Command ethics using Divine Command ethics. I see. Slick.

    Having listened to James Dobson ad nauseum, some of the contentions are how it threatens "traditional marriage". He argues it's a slippery slope to polygamy, being able to marry a sister or brother, or even your dog. According to brother Dobson, who would be able to tell someone they can't do these things if we don't defend traditional marriage?

    I'm not sure what the big fear is. People are homosexual or they aren't. I would think having a same-sex couple in a committed relationship would produce less fear than letting them run around on the loose having sex with lord knows who. Because we all know that being homosexual makes you perverted in every other way.*sarcasm*

  5. I think feminine hygiene products are probably very unnatural. I'm almost certain that God did not create them.

    ... Living ~ (if you could call it that.) *grin*

  6. I stumbled onto this and found it quite an enjoyable read, although I'm wondering how one can separate the religious implications while calling something immoral because, unless I missed something, it's immoral because religion says it is. And I tend to agree with the author; while society wants to do something about it, there's nothing that can be done and simply because if it can't be done out in the open, as it were, it can be done behind one's closed doors and out of society's eyesight.

  7. I think your assessment is spot on. It reminds me of what has recently gone on at my alma mater, Harding University. There you can be expelled for any unmarried sexual activity. Some GLBT students began an ezine which they also distributed hard copies of on campus. The school responded by blocking access to the ezine on campus. It's received alot of media attention, and you can read about it here:

    The ezine was intended to make people aware of the presence of GLBT students there and to share their stories. They want acceptance within the Christian community there. I thought the ezine powerfully shared the struggles of these individuals as they came to terms with their sexuality and shared it with those around them. Though Harding has a legal right to block sites at their school, that doesn't mean the decision is the best one to make. Students can still find ways to get access to the internet site. And the GLBT students are still on campus, even if the school tries to silence their voices. I think the decision serves to make a statement about the school's values. Period. Blocking the site won't change or stop anything.

  8. So often is "contrary to nature" the reason a point of morality is, in fact, considered moral that it should almost be part of the definition of "moral." Many of our moral precepts are instituted precisely because we have to defy nature to survive. While that may or may not pertain in this case, it's disingenuous to suggest that the "moral" thing to do is always in line with nature.

  9. This might be a sidetrack, but I often hear the "it's unnatural" argument used in opposition to genetically modified food crops. The argument would carry a lot more weight if agriculture itself wasn't so unnatural. Not only the current state of factory farming, but all forms of agriculture practiced for the past eight thousand years are acts of defiance to nature.

    But is anything in the modern way of life natural? Synthetic fibers, plastic polymers, concrete houses, nuclear power, etc? It seems like "it's unnatural" is just a poor rationalization these people use to address something that makes them uncomfortable.

  10. Christians argue that marriage reduces promiscuity. So if their goal is to reduce gay promiscuity, and they claim that marriage ACHIEVES this aim, they should logically support gay marriage.

    And yet they don't. They generally reply that gays are intrinsically different from straights, so marriage won't have the same effect on gays that it does on straights. But they don't have any evidence for this.

  11. Anonymous said:
    But is anything in the modern way of life natural? Synthetic fibers, plastic polymers, concrete houses, nuclear power, etc? It seems like "it's unnatural" is just a poor rationalization these people use to address something that makes them uncomfortable.

    We're not supposed to be wearing anything woven together out of two different materials. Why it's just "unnatural". *grin*

  12. I think gay marriage is viewed as an insult to heterosexuals. I think they see gay sexual practices, etc. as disgusting, and do not want to dignify gays by letting them marry each other. They simply see heterosexual marriage and children as being on a much higher, more dignified plane. (plain??)

    I believe they view it as a degradation of the dignity of marriage-like having a dog and cat get married or something.

    MY view is that gay marriage would be a good thing. It dignifies the relationship between the gay partners, just as it does when heterosexuals marry. It's a serious, respectful commitment to each other and benefits society.

    Marriage is a respected institution, generally, and the more gays that are married, the better off society will be, in my opinion. It would benefit and honor those gays in a monogamous relationship and put society's stamp of approval on their monogamy.

    Society is smart enough to see the difference between this issue and polygamy and sex with children. Very different things.

    So basically I think heterosexuals are worrying about the wrong things. They should worry more about spouses who cheat or promiscuity in general and the harm that those things do.

  13. I like your example of kids arguing pizza is health food. Some Christians promote, and try to protect, marriage as a 'divine institution.' Yet, the apostle Paul (arguably one of Christendom's first and chief apologists), posits it's better to be married than to "burn," (sounds like pizza to me). but it's better to not be married if you can swing it. While Paul never actually qualifies what he means by "burn," I think most would agree that he implies that marriage is what makes sex okeedokee. It's a license to do what comes naturally. Many Christians don't want to give the license to gays to do what comes naturally to them. They want to keep marriage a straight country club.

  14. Male-male sexuality is very threatening to men, because most men do it. marriage is the place where "proper" sex happens, and all the male-male sex that happens outside of marriage (gym, military, sports etc) is something else not as valid.

    for most men, this compartmentalization is appropriate and serves their needs, but for those men among us who want to build a partnership and an identity around male-male sex, it upsets an already absurd paradigm of the condoned marital sex neutralizing the overlooked homosexual behavior