Gay Marriage

Read part 1.

Resolving the dispute

The entire dispute is one of worldviews. The two views, Secular America and Christianity, are in conflict. Inherent presuppositions mean it is not enough to ask which view is correct. It is also appropriate to consider which one is more rational. Which worldview is more coherent? God has given all men intellect (Gen 2:19-20), and Christianity can be shown to be true by presenting good, persuasive arguments for its central tenants and showing the world makes sense only when viewed through a biblical lens.

Ronald Nash observed that men should choose a worldview system which provides the most coherent picture of the world.¹ He went on to explain three worldview tests which this essay will apply to the Chick-Fil-A controversy: reason, experience and practice.

On the basis of reason, experience and practice, it is clear the secular American worldview which condemns the anti-gay stance as “hateful” is completely irrational. Greg Koukl noted something is “irrational” if it violates clear principles of reason or flies in the face of clearly demonstrable evidence.² A coherent worldview must pass the tests of reason, experience and practice. If a worldview fails any of these three tests, it is illogical and irrational. Secular America does fail each of these tests; therefore the secular American worldview is illogical and irrational.

Introduction

On June 16, 2012, a seemingly innocuous comment made by a Christian businessman in support of traditional marriage during an interview on a radio program sparked a national debate on homosexuality. Media outlets covered the issue at length and a fast food chicken company was thrust into the limelight as the poster-child for “intolerance.” Pundits, politicians and celebrities disapproved of the businessman, Dan Cathy’s, stance on homosexual marriage. These were Cathy’s statements:

We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that…. I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.¹

This essay will examine the worldview of those who call Cathy’s statement “intolerant;” this worldview will broadly be labeled “Secular America.” There will not be sufficient space to examine Secular America’s entire worldview, so we will study only the rational basis for morality within Secular America. In a larger context we will see the intellectual bankruptcy of the secular worldview and, hopefully, demonstrate the absolute sufficiency of the Christian worldview as the only coherent way to make sense of this fallen world which we, by God’s grace alone, inhabit.

At this moment, six states plus the District of Columbia recognize what they call marriages between partners of the same sex. Three more states will be voting on legislation or citizens’ initiatives that will also recognize same-sex marriage. On the other hand, nine states have statues specifically prohibiting same sex marriages, and another thirty prohibit the practice in their constitutions. This Tuesday, the citizens of Minnesota (my state) will vote on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Opponents of the amendment have tried to challenge it as a civil rights issue. For them, homosexuality should be treated as a minority status. People are born with their “sexual orientation” and it is unreasonable (they say) to discriminate against them. Persons of the same sex don’t harm anybody else if they cohabit or marry, so any law that prevents them from marrying is discriminatory. Their slogan goes, “Everyone should have the right to marry.”

The debate, however, is not about the rights of same-sex couples. It is about power, force, and, ultimately, about the use of violence against citizens who will not cooperate in the mainstreaming of homosexual behavior. If you think this is an overstatement, think again.

We are not really deliberating the definition of marriage. Marriage is simply marriage, and it is always between a man and a woman. This is not opinion; it is fact. You can claim to be married to a car. You can claim to be married to a building. You can claim to be married to a microbe. But you won’t be. Ever.