Gay activists continue their campaign to gain acceptance and sanction by mainstream society. We have repeatedly attempted to address these questions in this journal and have tried to point out the unchristian nature of gay bashing. Christians are not to be in the bashing business--no matter what the issues. Recreational drug, cigarette, and alcohol use are all behaviors we believe a Christian should avoid, but we do not believe abusing those who indulge in these destructive activities is what Jesus would do or what we should do. The response we believe needs to be made in all of these cases, including homosexuality, is to teach, encourage, and promote constructive alternatives to these destructive habits.
The latest move by gay activists has been to attempt to force society to accept gay marriages. In spite of attempts by gay theologians to interpret the Bible in a way that sanctions such unions, there is far less scriptural arguments against other types of unions than the many scriptures that teach against homosexuality. On what basis, for example, can one argue against polygamy? Especially on what basis could one argue against three gay men deciding that they were in love and wanting to get married? A similar discussion could be carried on about incest.
The point is that the biblical concept of marriage involves a multiplicity of things. The sexual aspect of the biblical union is just one aspect of marriage. Also involved is the biological reproduction of children, the building of special family relationships with grandparents, brothers and sisters, and a whole network of support and reinforcement. There is a moral standard that is consistent and totally constructive in its results. Once we accept an alternative to that absolute moral standard, there is no moral argument that can be logically made; incest, polygamy, polyandry, and even sodomy and bestiality can all make arguments for acceptance.
If the Bible is not accepted as a guide for moral decisions, on what basis can any act which claims love as the driving force be denied? The answer to that by people like Andrew Sullivan (New Republic , June 7, 1996) is to claim that homosexuality is "morally and psychologically" superior. If you accept the play/movie The King and I as the real world of polygamy, you might be able to argue against such a claim from a cultural or social standpoint. From a scientific standpoint, there is strong evidence against claims like Sullivan's. Homosexual acts are by nature physically damaging, which is one reason why AIDS is so easily transmitted by homosexuals. Arguments about psychological advantages of any of these behaviors are impossible to support or deny.
Charles Krauthammer has challenged gay-marriage advocates to explain why they would oppose the marriage of a mother and her daughter (Time, July 22, 1996, page 102). I do not believe they can give a logical answer to his challenge.
--John N. Clayton
Back to Contents Does God Exist?, May/Jun97