Tag Archives: gay marriage

Gay Marriage, same-sex marriage

The impending failure of same-sex marriage

Leave a comment

Failure is imminent. As the newly-created subset of the institution of marriage, same-sex marriage will not succeed. Why? Simple. It cannot duplicate heterosexual marriage.

The propaganda laid out to the world was that homosexuals are just like heterosexuals and want the same long-term, monogamous, loving relationship enshrined in marriage. However, studies have not found faithful, lasting relationships to be the norm among homosexuals as the general rule. A large part of the reason is that the focus is on sex.

Focus on Sex

The typical Gay Pride parade is a display of nudity, cross-dressing, sexual expression, and sexual deviancy. These are not the types of displays that you would find at a Straight Pride parade, if straight people had them. The typical hometown parade is G-rated. The closest thing you get to heterosexual “pride” displays is the high school homecoming king and queen riding in a car together. The cheerleaders may wear skimpy costumes but that is about as close as you get to anything remotely sexual in nature. Hometown parades are a celebration of radical normalcy. These parades are populated by such “radical” groups as the local public service clubs, local veterans, some politicians, and churches. Lewdness is not welcome.

The contrasting parade illustrations can help us recognize the stark difference between the two “communities” as we might call them. The focus on sex is a self-centered focus. It exalts self-satisfaction above all else. It puts the pleasure of the adults in the relationship at center stage. Everything else turns around it. Thus, the relationship is off on the wrong foot at the outset.

Marriage Concepts

Unlike their homosexual counterparts, sex is not the major focus of heterosexual marriage. Heterosexuals have a very different mindset about marriage before they go into it. For them, marriage encompasses life itself. It comes with certain expectations of longevity, procreation, and fidelity. A brief outline of heterosexual marriage thought goes something like this: there is the dating, engagement, the marriage, the honeymoon, the first house, the first promotion, the first pregnancy, the first morning sickness, the birth of the first child, learning to be a parent, taking family vacations, saving for college, the first day of kindergarten, elementary school PTA meetings, middle school band concerts, high school activities, the ACT test, graduation, empty nest syndrome, the child’s fiancé, the child’s marriage, the first grandchild, and the retirement years.

Notice in that description how little time is focused upon the parents and how much time and energy is put into the children. The marriage begins with the couple alone and ends with the couple living alone after their child-rearing days are over. Only now, they have an extended family to care for and to support them as they age. This is a “whole life” experience where the role of sex was two-fold: to bond the couple and to produce children, which additionally bonds the couple as they unite around their offspring.

Mimicking Marriage

Homosexuals are now attempting to take heterosexual marriage as their standard and mimic it. Naturally, they can’t produce children on their own so either they are brought into the marriage from another heterosexual relationship, adoption, a surrogate, or IVF. But simply copying the heterosexual process by the unnatural introduction of a child does not change the initial focus on sex in the relationship nor can it lead to the same kind of parent-child bonding.

Inherent Dissatisfaction

Sexual satisfaction is not all that satisfying when you are doing it wrong. Simply on a pragmatic level, females have to use something to substitute for the male member and males have to treat other males as if they are females by using orifices that are not designed for sexual intercourse. There can never be a true bonding on the physical level. The couple does not have the necessary complementarity. It is a bit like mixing oil and oil. In the end you still have oil, just twice as much of it. Due to the high number of sex partners and the level of infidelity in the homosexual community, it is fair to say that sexual gratification is not the same as sexual satisfaction within these relationships.

It addition to the above, it must be reiterated that the sexual gratification of the adult homosexual couple can never lead to the production of children. If there are children involved, not more than one of the two adults can be biologically related to the child. There is not a bonding opportunity in looking at the child that the two of you created and debating whose eyes he has or from which side of the family he gets his height. This makes one of the “parents” a “step-parent” by default. It is very clear that step-parents are statistically much more likely to do harm to or even kill a child than the biological parent. This is especially true of men, which puts any child in a male/male household at higher risk. A study of heterosexual parenting conducted in Canada and Detroit found that the child with a step-parent was “40 to 100 times as likely to be murdered or maimed as those who live with two biological parents in the household.” Clearly there are issues of dissatisfaction when a non-biological parent is involved. The bonding that takes place between the heterosexual couple and the child cannot ever be attained by the homosexual couple.

Psychology

Dissatisfaction also arises because the psychological similarities of the same-sex couple is also lacking complementarity. It is a well-established fact that homosexuals have greater instances of mental health problems than their heterosexual counterparts. This is due, at least in part, to the fact that there is no counterbalancing influence from the person who is their psychological opposite. Men are more sexually driven than women. Women are more relationally driven than men. When the two are paired together, there is a moderating influence on one another. Apart from that influence there is a lopsided dynamic in the relationship. This is expressed in different ways between the two sexes.

Male homosexual conduct differs significantly from that of females in terms of fidelity within the marriage and the number of sexual partners over the course of a lifetime. Most male same-sex marriages are open marriages. This means the level of fidelity is very low. This is the pinnacle of the self-centered focus of homosexual behavior. The sexual gratification of the adults is primary. A preoccupation with sex leads to greater sexual deviancy as more and more is demanded in order to satisfy the appetite. There is no moderating female influence.

Female homosexual conduct is more faithful during the relationship than the males but less faithful than those in heterosexual marriages. The emphasis on relationship and self-worth causes the female relationships to break up rather quickly. The average relationship lasts about four years. Male relationships last longer on average but suffer from the high infidelity mentioned above.

Conclusion

Clearly neither of these arrangements is suitable for raising children, who take eighteen years to reach the bare minimum of legal adulthood. Heterosexual marriages are clearly superior in terms of their longevity, their fidelity, and their child-producing and rearing capabilities, the lifespan of the couple, the happiness of the couple, and the happiness and well-being of the children.

Those advocating for same-sex marriage would have us believe that there is no difference between the sexes. They want to pick and choose the elements of marriage that they can potentially accomplish (love, monogamy, longevity) while trivializing or ignoring those that they cannot. Simply attempting to mimic heterosexual marriage standards is doomed to failure since homosexuals cannot compete on the same playing field. They are not suitably equipped to do so either physically or psychologically. The history of same-sex relationships and marriages is against the longevity and fidelity they seem to seek. It is doomed to failure as an institution.

Moral of the Story

The moral of the story is simple: fighting the natural order of things only brings disaster and frustration. God created humans as male and female with the intention that they pair up in that manner. That can never be changed. Homosexuals who attempt to have what they cannot have will wind up with ongoing mental issues, suffer the ravages of the abuse of their bodies, and be no happier in the end than they were at the beginning. Ministers, counselors, friends, and family will be left to pick up the pieces. If you did not know before, NOW you know why.

Bible Interpretation, Church Discipline, Gay Marriage, Homosexuality, same-sex marriage

The troubling trail to Gay Affirmation

Leave a comment

Plenty of rational people remain befuddled at how we got to the point of having same-sex marriage imposed upon the country. It still “doesn’t make sense”. Past articles here have been written about some of the delusions in the pop culture of our time that have led us into this “Twilight Zone” type of existence. The process of mental erosion and manipulation has really been a long one and is too involved to chronicle in depth or in one post, but here are some of the major tools that were used to put us where we are today. Hopefully it will be instructive as these tactics will continue to be used on this and other subjects.

Trick 1: Emotionalism

The average person is not taught formal logic, argumentation, or philosophy to a meaningful degree. That leaves the door wide open for Trick 1. Emotionalism defies logic and other rational processes which is why rational people are so perplexed when they find someone immersed in it.

A typical scenario is this: a parent has a child who suddenly announces that he/she is “gay” and the emotional heartstrings begin to be played. The parent doesn’t want to think of their precious child as a sinner under God’s condemnation for engaging in homosexual acts so the line is drawn: choose the child or choose the Church. It has caused division in homes and churches because the parent’s or parents’ emotional attachment to the child is greater than their commitment to Scripture.

Similarly, a homosexual person who goes to a church and has a bad experience sets the stage for another emotional tug. This experience is used to indict the whole of the church as being mean to homosexuals in general. This move can then be used to justify shifting the focus to “bad church people” while ignoring church doctrine on the matter and their own bad behavior. Furthermore, we are not allowed to be reminded that other churches and church people are “good” to homosexuals. That card never gets played. Instead, people insulate and comfort themselves with a self-justifying cocoon padded with sympathizers.

The emotional attachment we have to people, be they friends or family, or our instinctive affection for simple common courtesy or an extension of love and care to a person cannot be allowed to outweigh what Scripture actually says and what historical Church doctrine has been. The call to Christ is a call to the crucifixion of one’s self to the lusts of the flesh and to a conformity to Christ. The things that mean the most to us, friends and family, and the things that tempt us have to be killed and killed again in this conformation process. Jesus knew the cost of following him was high in this regard. He knew that opposition and persecution would be found in governmental authorities and in our closest associations.

For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” – Matthew 10:35-38

The real test of fidelity to Jesus is when you have to confront your family members. That is a test that all too many people have not wanted to endure. Scripture takes a back seat to worldly, emotional attachment. The modern atheist movement has benefited greatly by playing upon the “emotional problem of suffering” and the homosexual movement has also had great success by appealing to frail, human emotions.

Trick 2: Narrowly Focus

By narrowly focusing on one thing, people on the margins can be swayed to an otherwise illogical position. How often have you heard someone say, “It’s about equality” when they were advocating for same-sex marriage? It was a common refrain. Equality is a buzzword with an emotional ring to it. It appeals to our sense of fair play. Never mind the fact that a male/female pairing is not the same as a male/male or female/female pairing in gender or procreative activity or any number of other factors. That observation is never allowed. If it is raised then it is mocked and dismissed before the focus is shifted to inheritance or benefits or the objector is bullied with accusations of being a bigoted, unfair homophobe or some other baseless charge.

Another example deconstructs marriage to focus on one element. “It’s about love.” Really? It is as if “love” were the only prerequisite for a marriage. What about the fact that all cultures throughout history have recognized that marriage was fundamentally a male/female bonding with the general intent to produce children? The male/female component absolutely must be dismissed by homosexual advocates because it would automatically rule them out by definition. So it is ignored. The same is done for procreation because that would also immediately rule out homosexuals. After all, how can you deny two people who love each other and want to commit to a lifelong, monogamous relationship the “right” to do that? You can’t unless you want to be labeled as a bigoted, unfair homophobe again.

“Monogamy” is another canard trotted out, as in the paragraph above. Again, marriage is skinned down to nothing but love and monogamy. Why? Because these are ideal goals of marriage which appeal to heterosexuals in our culture. It puts them on empathetic grounds with the poor, struggling homosexual couple who just want to be like the heterosexuals but, by some stroke of bad luck, they can’t be. On the surface, it seems that homosexuals can love and be monogamous, too, just like heterosexual couples. The truth of the matter, though, is that most of the men aren’t and the women are not as faithful as their heterosexual counterparts. Again, the attempt is to match a simplistic aspect of marriage to something that homosexuals could possibly achieve.

“Lifelong” is another adjective often used to achieve the same goal. To hear them tell it, homosexual advocates want that lifelong, committed relationship that heterosexuals have. The reality is that very, very few of them aspire to or achieve this. I discuss that in more detail in another article, but the upshot is that the vast majority of same-sex relationships do not last very long at all. An average of five years would probably be a rather charitable number overstating the reality.

Trick 3: Screw-up Scripture

Since most people do not spend a lot of time studying Scripture and the higher scholarship related to it, they are, again, easy targets for this Trick. Activists like to pretend that there is some legitimate debate going on in the biblical academic world regarding what the Bible teaches or the Church has historically taught. The reality is something rather different. There are a handful of people with some level of academic credentials that try to make waves, mostly for public consumption in attempts to muddy the waters for the uninformed. The mainstream of biblical academics realizes that the Bible is firmly against homosexuality and tomes like Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice really have settled the issue for all but the most die-hard supporters. While there are some unorthodox supporters in the higher halls of academia, most of the weakness is found among the laity and the pastoral class where scholarship is not always as highly valued as personal relationships (see Trick 1: Emotionalism above).

By confusing people they attempt to de-legitimatize Scriptural authority. A very fine example of this deceptive approach is this article with the subtitle, “Christians need to accept that Jesus was sometimes wrong—in fact, he might even want us to.” Oddly enough, the author acknowledges that Jesus would disapprove of homosexuality, but he then goes on to build a faulty argument as to why Jesus was wrong for us today! The mental gymnastics people will go through to condone what the Bible clearly condemns is stunning. But the uninformed youngster today might well read this and think that it is a wonderful, open-minded, contemporary, relevant, and scholarly approach to Scripture. In reality, it is simply leading people astray and causing division in the Church – which is the main objective.

Trick 4: Go Fix Your Own Sins First

The first time I was told that the church needed to go solve all its other sin problems before it got around to homosexuality I was dumbfounded. The absolute illogic of it was beyond comprehension. However, it was not a plot aimed at the logical person. It was aimed at the guilt-ridden person. People who feel inherently guilty because they recognize their own sinfulness can be convinced that they should not condemn anyone else’s sin until they fix their own personal “sin problem”.

Nowhere in Scripture do you find such a concept or statement. Everyone is sinful and everyone must repent and then control themselves so that they don’t fall back into their old ways of sin. And, like it or not, we are required to hold each other accountable for our sin. That is a brief description of what Scripture actually teaches.

The goal of this approach is to disarm people and remove them from the battlefront. A person who is sidelined by guilt will be at least tolerant of and perhaps become accepting of homosexuality.

Trick 5: False Portraits

Presenting a false portrait of homosexual life is crucial to gaining acceptance, especially among the young. The brief outline of homosexual life that I gave in my previous article tells us that it is an unstable, dysfunctional, and unhappy life. But you would never know that through TV and movie portrayals. They don’t talk about the drug abuse, the physical abuse, the cheap and tawdry sex, or the mental anguish. Sure, the heterosexual community has such problems as well but within the homosexual community they are multiplied many times over – especially for the men! The typical movie or TV portrayal will be a positive, funny, likable, and intelligent image which has the intention or result of leaving the viewer with only good feelings regarding the homosexual character. It does not show the man drinking because he is distressed or going home to a boyfriend or picking up a stranger at a gay bar for quick sexual satisfaction. The seedy side may make a few appearances on obscure cable channels but it does not make mainstream broadcasts or movies as a rule.

Trick 6: The Tolerance Shell Game

This was a good one. Cry out for tolerance then engage in intolerant behavior. Much like the guilt in Trick 4, this had the effect of causing churches to be more accommodating to homosexuals. It led to the ordination of people with same-sex attraction who were not acting upon that attraction. It seemed so reasonable, compassionate, and tolerant. After all, don’t we all struggle with sin that we don’t act upon? Sure! Churches began to liberalize even more in order to “welcome” homosexuals into their midst. Then somewhere along the way we began to see calls for ordaining practicing homosexual ministers, affirming homosexual couples, and then talking about conducting homosexual marriages. Any appeal to Scriptural authority was painted as bigotry, homophobia, “on the wrong side of history”, and so forth per Trick 3. Emotional appeals were ladled out as in Trick 1. Talk of equality, love and other narrowly focused parallels were tossed into the mix as per Trick 2 in order to “flood the zone” and here we are. We have same-sex marriage, practicing homosexuals ordained into the clergy, general confusion about Scripture among the uneducated and uncaring, and division within the church and the country. I’m reminded of Aesop’s fable of the Farmer and the Snake.

ONE WINTER a Farmer found a Snake stiff and frozen with cold. He had compassion on it, and taking it up, placed it in his bosom. The Snake was quickly revived by the warmth, and resuming its natural instincts, bit its benefactor, inflicting on him a mortal wound. “Oh,” cried the Farmer with his last breath, “I am rightly served for pitying a scoundrel.”

The greatest kindness will not bind the ungrateful.

Aesop’s Fables. Translated by George Fyler Townsend. Chicago; Belford. Clarke & Co. 1887.

And so it has been with the “tolerance” of homosexuals in the church. There was not an attitude of gratitude. They seized upon the opportunity afforded to them and continued their push for normalization. If one could not see beforehand that the goal was to change the church not to fit in and learn to abide by its doctrines, certainly it is clear now that this was and still is the ultimate goal for the activists. The “scoundrel” came in among us feigning calls for mercy and pity in order to waylay the merciful, kind, and unsuspecting. They played our Christian charity against us. It was a crafty move worthy of the serpent of Genesis 3.

Personal Reflection

Homosexual advocacy has arguably had its greatest success by circumventing the critical thinkers and appealing to forms of emotion and deception. Young people, who are often either not interested in such topics or haven’t had the education or maturity to think them through, are soft targets for these forms of manipulation for gay affirmation.

When I was in my young twenties and the topic of homosexual marriage was raised I was opposed to it on religious grounds and on the grounds of gender non-complementarity. Beyond that I was pretty much indifferent. It seemed like a silly idea. Nobody would ever really want to do such a thing and certainly the country would not tolerate it. It was ridiculous and laughable. At that time I really did not recognize the harm involved in homosexuality to the homosexual person nor did I think in terms of children, adoption, benefits, or other public policy matters. Even the idea that it would be an assault on religious freedoms never crossed my mind. I would probably have been very “live and let live” on the subject then. But as it has developed over my lifetime, my personal experiences with being married and raising four children, my religious education, my experiences with homosexual friends and family, my awareness of public policy implications, my observations on history, and so forth my positions have matured which has hardened my opposition to anything affirming homosexuality. Maturity has its benefits. How young people today will shape up remains to be seen. We can certainly learn some lessons from history in order to be more aware of the Tricks and better set to counteract them.

Gay Marriage, Homosexual Marriage, Homosexuality, Redefined Marriage

God, injustice, and gay marriage

6 Comments

God Hates Injustice

One does not have to read very far into the Bible to understand that God hates injustice. Humanity is warned in the second chapter of the Bible not to eat from the forbidden fruit. Yet, in the very next chapter the fruit is eaten and God imposes His justice.

The prophets are quite emphatic about justice. It seems that the rich and powerful were corrupting justice (imagine that!). Merchants were using scales set to rob their clients. The poor, the widowed, and the orphaned were exploited and robbed.

 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.

Isaiah 10:1-2

It is from passages such as these that we know that God hates the Obergefell v. Hodges gay marriage decision giving a veil of legality to the mockery that is homosexual “marriage”. This decision is in the category of “unjust laws” which Isaiah describes.

Against the Constitution

As the minority correctly noted, this decision had nothing to do with the Constitution. It was completely lawless. In fact, just two years prior the same court split the same way over the DOMA law (Defense of Marriage Act) where the majority argued that the Supreme Court had traditionally left almost everything about defining marriage up to the individual states. Had there been any consistency within the Court it would have dismissed this case as being unworthy of hearing on the grounds that the states have historically been left to define marriage on their own. In fact, 32 states had defined marriage on their own and decided it was between a man and woman. Two states recently had decided by vote to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. The process was at work.

This ruling is judicial activism at its worst (see Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon’s insightful comments). It usurps the democratic process put forth by the states and it usurps the development and passage of law through the congressional branch and the legislative branch. As such, it is” legislating from the bench” which is fundamentally unconstitutional. Such bad laws have been overlooked in the past, such as the Dred Scott decision. Abraham Lincoln acted as if it didn’t exist. The Supreme Court is only one-third of the government and yet in the 20th century it has been granted the imaginary power of supreme authority. It was not so in the beginning and never intended to be so by our Founders. This is simply an unconstitutional decision in abeyance of the law which was made for the purpose of pushing a social agenda.

Against History

In addition, there is no support for homosexual marriage in any country in all of human history prior to the late 20th century. It is one of the universal truths that marriage has always been between a heterosexual couple or in the case of polygamists between a heterosexual male or female and their heterosexual wives or husbands. In either event it was a coupling of heterosexuals together. Marriage was not created in the United States. It was not created by any government. It developed as an arrangement between parents for their children and was simply recognized by governments over time. The number of people and the age for marriage have been somewhat fluid across cultures but the fact that marriage was a heterosexual affair was never questioned. So to flout all of human history shows the arrogance of the majority and their complete divorce from the evidence of the universal worldwide precedence. .

Against Biology

Similarly, the Court proclaimed that there is no fundamental difference between males and females. A male or female marriage partner can be interchanged at will. The idea that anal or oral intercourse is the same as vaginal intercourse is bizarre. Only one has procreative powers. Only one provides gender complementarity. It is even more bizarre than Bruce Jenner claiming he has become female with a few nips and tucks, some makeup, and a new wardrobe. This decision is an abomination of the biology of the human body on par with a man claiming that he is a deciduous tree. In any sane world this would be considered crazy and its advocates certifiably insane. There is a basic biological component to marriage that has always existed. Couples married with the primary intent and expectation of raising a family and providing themselves as models for future generations. “I want a girl just like the girl that married dear old dad” is a line from a song but it expresses the way children learn from their parents and shape their expectations and goals for the future. Homosexuality is a dead-end street in this regard. There is no “next generation” without heterosexuality. Such “marriage” is removed from the possibility of naturally producing any children which means that legal benefits and selfish sexual lusts are the only reasons remaining to justify the marriage. So the Court decided, without any biological credibility, to proclaim a rural dead-end street the same thing as an urban super-highway.

Against Religions

Marriage has historically been valued across every major religion. Why? Because they have recognized that the family unit was crucial to sustaining society. This has been so widely agreed upon that we can call it a fundamental and universal religious tenet. The Judeo-Christian religions and their offshoots have held that it was the Divine will of God since creation for men and women to marry. Religions that recognized the New Testament as authoritative have even limited marriage to that of a single man and a single woman. It is upon this model that Western civilization has turned. To turn away from the sound advice of such broad religious history is ill-advised at best and diabolical at it worst. In fact, with this Court, it seems that diabolical is the best description because it contravened Western civilization’s fundamental religious doctrine that homosexuality should not be practiced, drew it up from the gutter, glorified it, and raised it to the same level as traditional marriage. When religious people across denominations and theisms agree that traditional marriage is a good and noble thing the Court should pay attention. But attention is the last thing in which this Court was interested. Had they paid attention to the religious community, to the biology, to the heterosexual nature of marriage, or to the Constitution they would have unanimously ruled to support traditional marriage. Instead, the majority decided to legalize perversion. It’s not marriage. It is a mockery at every level and the height of injustice.  “Woe to those who make unjust laws.”  God is not pleased.

Gay Marriage, Homosexual Marriage, Homosexuality, same-sex marriage

Of Wisdom and Foolishness

2 Comments

The realm of comedy for making political statements and shaping public opinion has long been dominated by the liberal left. It makes sense. Conservatives are more straight-laced and serious and therefore easy targets. But as Jay Leno demonstrated in the weeks before stepping down from the Tonight Show, heavily criticizing liberal politicians and social policy can draw exceedingly high ratings. So the sword cuts both ways; it is just that fewer people swing the sword leftward.

Comedic talents on the political right include Rush Limbaugh and his parodist cohort, Paul Shanklin, as successes but most other attempts have been weak or failed, whether they be in TV or movies. Nevertheless, it is a growing trend among those on the right to parody and poke fun at those on the left in an attempt to turn the tables to some degree. Where intellectual arguments are most often met with failure, the poignant punchline can prick the pickle, so to speak, sometimes.

Leftward logic and humor tend to be heavily dominated by mockery, derision, hostility, often lots of foul language, and a strong play on emotions. Shallow arguments based emotion and stirring rhetoric are called sophistry, a form of false wisdom. Rightward thinking people tend to use actual logic (like noting that men and women were made for sexual union and same-sex couples were not) but this escapes the leftward thinker. Rightward thinkers also tend to not play on emotions as successfully as leftward thinkers do, probably because they are less emotionally driven than their counterparts. We who engage in apologetics readily admit emotionally driven people are the most irrational we encounter. One person who commented on the cartoon below was happy to tell me that he hated Christians because of the Christian stance against homosexual marriage.  I asked him if he also hated Orthodox Jews and Muslims, but never got a response. Oddly enough, he said he was a Christian and somehow that allowed him to feel free to hate his fellow Christians.  Hate for fellow Christians isn’t a Christian value, but perhaps he’s not read the Bible yet. We can consider him logically challenged. His emotions clearly overwhelm his reasoning faculties.

So it is with so many who claim to be Christians and yet deny core church doctrines on marriage and homosexual sin. It’s doctrine à la carte day in Christianville!  “I’ll have a little sin please, but leave off the homosexual sin. I just don’t like the way it tastes. Too gritty or something.  A touch of adultery would be fine, though. And I’ll need a little drunkenness to go with that. Oh, and not too much Hell this time around either. Grace? Yes, I’ll have a heaping helping of grace! Pour it over the mashed potatoes and false doctrine, please.”

The cartoon below appeared on the Facebook page of a very liberal former student. It is sophistry.  It attempts to mock parental concern about homosexual marriage. The inference one is to draw from this is that children don’t care about homosexual marriage so no one else should care about it either. It is dismissed with a cookie as if the topic were utterly irrelevant. However, because a child finds things irrelevant doesn’t mean that they actually are irrelevant.  Thus, my muse was struck and I proposed a more witty and realistic follow-up conversation following the child getting a cookie. As a father of four, I have some experience in such matters.  But, shockingly, my liberal friend and his friends on Facebook (all but one) did not find my sense of humor all that amusing. Therefore, feeling under appreciated, as a humorist, I have posted the cartoon and my witty rejoinder here, where I trust it will be more highly valued (wink, wink) by a more general audience.

gay-marriageAfter the Cookie
Then, when the child gets his cookie he asks, “But how are babies made without a mommy and daddy?”

The biological father gets to answer, “Oh babies come from lots of places. Sometimes they’re found at a godless, secular adoption agency (because Catholic adoption services and those like them were closed since they had religious objections to homosexual marriage). Other times they are made in a lab test tube because gay marriage is unnatural marriage. It can’t produce children but sometimes people like to pretend there’s no difference! You’ve played pretend before haven’t you?”

The gender-specific-male child replies, “Yes! We used to pretend that there was a monster under the couch and it would eat me if I put my foot on the floor. But I’m too old for that now. Is it something like that, daddy?” to which the naturally male father who conceived the child with his naturally female mother says, “Something like that son. There’s also a cabbage patch option and a stork delivery system, too. But we can talk about that later. “

Glancing down at his cookie and 2% farm fresh milk from a cow naturally conceived by a male and female bovine, the son thoughtfully says, “But my friend Johnny says it’s wrong for boys to marry boys.” “Oh, really, son?” the natural father replies, “Why does he say that?” The young progeny replies, “Because his dad said that God says it’s wrong. And his dad says that God made marriage for boys and girls and that it’s a sin if you do it wrong.”

Dad (the male complement to a mom) replies, in his [note the use of the male pronoun “his” which is opposite of the female pronoun “her”] great wisdom, “Like I said, sometimes adults like to play pretend. Sometimes adults like to pretend boys marrying boys is the same as natural marriage – like when a boy marries a girl, the way Johnny’s dad said God designed it. And sometimes adults like to pretend that it isn’t a sin. That way they feel better about themselves.”

“Why don’t they feel good about themselves, daddy?” the boy asks. “Well,” says dad, “it’s because the Bible that Johnny’s dad reads says they will go to Hell if they don’t stop sinning.”  Puzzled, the boy asks, “What is Hell, dad?” “Oh,” adds the father, “it is a terribly hot place run by a bad guy and his army of bad people where people go when they die if they’ve not done what God said they should do. Kind of like, . . . Cuba. So if they pretend it’s not sin, then they can have all their fun and live guilt-free!”

The sexually conceived male offspring now replies, “I thought when you got big you quit playing pretend, daddy.” Wisely the biological father now says, “You should, son, you should.” The boy responds, “Gay marriage sounds dumb.” The conjugally married male parent responds, “I knew you’d figure it out son. Way to go! I knew your mother’s genes weren’t that bad. Have another cookie.”