Gays Do Have A Right To Get Married

Gays do have the right to get married in America. There is no discrimination. Everyone is held to the same standards.
– 
What? If this is the case then why all of the hullabaloo about marriage equality? This is because the LGBTQ community have no desire to participate in marriage: they want to destroy it.
 –
Gays actually do have the right to get married in America. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life. Sure, homosexuals aren’t able to marry someone of the same sex, but neither am I. No one is. We are all treated equally under the law. Therefore, we are all equal already. We are all free to choose to enter into marriage or not. No one is trying to prevent homosexuals from being together. They can be together if they want to in America, that just isn’t marriage.
 –

What’s the big deal?

– 
Why can’t we just change the definition of marriage to include any two adults who love each other? Well, if you don’t respect or believe in the opinion of God, there really is no reason not to…if you are willing to accept the consequences.
We have already changed the definition of marriage once, and it has led to widespread destruction in our culture. Marriage went from being between one man and one woman for life, to one man and one woman for as long as they feel like it.
 
A little over 40 years ago, “no fault divorce” became recognized. Now anyone can divorce for any reason, or no reason, when previously one could only sue for divorce if there was abuse, abandonment, or adultery. The result? Divorce skyrocketed, fathers abandoned their children, crime spiked, and society has been severely harmed.
 –
Rather than turning back to what marriage is supposed to be, we are pressing on in the wrong direction, which will ultimately lead to the abolition of marriage.

The abolition of marriage

It is not possible to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual marriage without completely abolishing marriage.
– 
Same-sex marriage advocates will immediately whip out the Slippery-slope fallacy if you point out this fact, but this fallacy does not apply.
– 
Slippery slope reasoning avoids dealing with the issue at hand, and instead shifts focus to extreme hypotheticals. When it comes to accepting same-sex marriage leading to the abolition of marriage we are not engaging in extreme hypotheticals, but dealing with the reality of the LGBT arguments.
 –
If you make the argument that everything that is both spherical and the color orange is an edible citrus fruit, then we have to conclude that basketballs are edible citrus fruit. This is because basketballs are orange and spherical, which the argument says are fruit.
 –
The main argument same-sex marriage advocates make is that any two adults who love each other should be able to get married. Equality. But where is their foundation? Why are they choosing to limit marriage to just two people? Why shouldn’t three people who love each other be able to get married? It’s discrimination to limit marriage to only two people.
 –
Why do we even have to love each other to get married? Limiting marriage to be about love is discriminating against people who want to get married for other reasons, such as these two men from Australia who married so they could win world cup rugby tickets. They will only maintain the marriage for as long as is necessary and then cordially terminate the contract. Pretty smart.
– 
Why do we even have to limit marriage to adults? The NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association), which is often present at gay pride parades, wishes to strike down the age discrimination when it comes to marriage.
– 
Why limit marriage to people from different families? An Australian judge says that “incest may no longer be taboo,” and that, “If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone.”
– 
Why even restrict marriage to humans? People occasionally marry animals in India to ward off curses for example. Or what if someone wanted to marry, say, a building or structure to prevent its demolition?
– 
If you don’t accept that marriage is between one man and one woman for life because that is God’s definition of marriage, then you have to conclude that marriage is just a human construct. If marriage is just a human construct, then there really is no right or wrong, and we can change the rules as much as we want since we made the rules.
– 
Therefore, changing the definition of marriage actually results in the abolition of marriage, and the establishment of mere contract law. People merely “get married” in order to achieve some sort of legal benefit. “Marriages” can be as long or short as those in the contract deem beneficial, and the members in the “marriage” could be any composition of genders, ages, or species.
– 
This isn’t a slippery slope, but a logical conclusion since the same arguments made to support same-sex marriage can be applied to other aberrant forms of “marriage.” If we want to support marriage “equality” and be “tolerant” of the desires and preferences and others, then we have to be open to any shape a marriage might take. This isn’t fantasy. It’s already taking place today.
– 
If you support gay marriage because of “equality,” then you must also support every other conceivable size and shape of marriage, or else, you are a hypocrite. If the frequent Biblical glorification of the one-man-one-woman-for-life model is a farce, and if the Bible actually means something else when it condemns homosexuality (or just is simply no longer relevant), then so long as everyone (or everything) in the marriage is happy, then why discriminate? Are you a bigot?
– 

LGBTQ bullying

– 
When it comes to the debate over “marriage rights,” there is generally considered to be two sides.
There are those who support “marriage equality” and tolerance and equality and love, etc. Then there is the other side which is viewed to be a bunch of intolerant bigots who hate homosexuals. Indeed, it is widely held that you cannot oppose “gay marriage” unless you are simply a hateful “homophobe.”
– 
This makes sense. It’s much easier to push your agenda if your opponents are demonized. If you can create a clear “good-versus-evil” dichotomy, and paint yourself as the good guys, then you can shut down intelligent dialogue about the issue. Propaganda at its finest.
 –
As I pointed out above, being pro-gay marriage is the same as being anti-marriage. Many people who oppose gay marriage do so because they are pro-marriage; pro-marriage because marriage is the foundation of any society. The health of a marriage translates to the family, which in turn carries over into society. Sick marriages lead to sick people which leads to a sick culture. To give one example, this is why young men who grew up without a father are twice as likely to end up in prison. I think people should be allowed to be pro-marriage without being demonized.
– 
Yet, the “marriage-equality” advocates seem to frequently ignore the evidence of their opponents, and simply choose to label them all as hateful and backwards, not worthy of respect.
– 
It actually is possible to support traditional marriage and not be an evil, hateful bigot. If proponents of “gay marriage” cannot see this fact, then I think we really must question who the intolerant ones really are.
– 
Gays can get married in America. No one is stopping them; however, they don’t want to participate in marriage. Whether they consciously realize it or not, they are for the abolition of marriage. 
 –
Originally published on November 18, 2014

18 Comments

  1. Hi Reagan I note you referred to pologomy in your post and I was wondering what your stance is on this since there are many references to pologomy in the Old Testament such as Exodus 21:10. Additionally, do you believe that if a man dies childless his widow should be “given” to his brother, and his next brother after that, as per Matthew 22:23-32? It seems to marriage as per the Bible is not as clear cut as you imply.

  2. There are also many references to murder in the Bible. Just because something is in the Bible, doesn't mean it is condoned. A lot of the Old Testament is historical. Polygamy is not what God wants.

    Also, that passage in Matthew was an attempt by the Sadducees to trip Jesus up. The Sadducees did not believe in life after death, so they were using this cultural practice to try and make Jesus' idea of an afterlife look ridiculous. The Bible does not say this is a practice we must adopt.

    If you read a couple chapters back in Matthew, you will find where Jesus quotes Genesis, clearly stating that marriage is between one man and one woman.

  3. Firstly, you dont know what God wants. There is no way of knowing that unless you have a sit down with Him and ask. Which I am fairly certain you haven't done. Secondly, I'm curious that you use the term historical. From reading your blog you seem to take a lot of the Bible literally, for example patriarchy which could be termed historical, yet you dismiss references to pologomy and adulterers being put to death as historical? How do you choose the bits you take literally?

  4. God does tell us what He wants for us in the Bible. God can also speak to us in other ways. Though I'm not sure if you are a Christian or even believe in God.

    I don't, “take the Bible literally.” I'm not even sure what you mean by “Patriarchy” so I don't know if I believe that. The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, or figuratively. It's meant to be read in context.

    Here in America we recently had mid-term elections. If you have seen any political ads, then you probably have witnessed how taking someone out of context can make it seem like they believe something they actually don't.

    A lot of people take the Bible out of context, even Christians. The Bible is meant to be read as a whole, not cherry picked. If we read the Bible in context, it becomes clear which parts are meant to be taken literally, and which parts are figurative. It also is very clear which parts are merely describing events, and which parts are instructional.

    It's really pretty simple actually.

  5. The same goes for any book, actually. If you read a self-help book and treated every individual sentence as the instruction of the author, you are probably going to end up with a lot of contradictions and bad advice. You have to read the book in context. Just like the Bible.

  6. It just doesn't make sense to me. You believe homosexuality is wrong because of the Bible. Yet the Bible also says homosexuals should be put to death but you choose not to believe that part as its historic? Could it all not be historic? I am Catholic so yes I am Christian. I also have gay friends that I absolutely believe should be allowed to marry each other. Out of curiousity do you have any gay friends?

  7. If you are a Christian, then you should understand how the Bible is sometimes giving commands, and other times describing historical events. We see Cain killing Able, but that doesn't mean we should go murder people.

    Also, the coming of Jesus changed a lot of things. He fulfilled the old law found in the Old Testament. The penalty of death for homosexuality was a command for the Israelites, but it does not apply to Christians.

    This is clear when we look at Jesus. When the woman caught in adultery was brought to Him, He didn't condemn her. Instead, He forgave her and told her to go and sin no more.(John 8:3-11)

    Also, does not the Catholic church say that homosexuality is a sin? And yes, I do personally know people who identify as gay.

  8. Additionally, would you be opposed to the “thruple”? Three people getting married?

    If so, why?

  9. The Catholic Church is opposed to homosexuality although I believe it is becoming more tolerant. It is an aspect of the Church I don't agree with. I also believe in birth control and I think women should be allowed to be priests.

    Do you have an actual friensdhip with the people you know who are gay and do you accept them as gay?

    I don't oppose a multiple marriage as long as nobody is abused, taken advantage of, forced into it etc. I have no experience of this though and have never met anybody living like that.

    On a side note how do you explain homosexuality in nature? At least 10 species in nature practice homosexuality.

  10. Interesting.

    Yes, I do, and I strive to accept all people. But the Bible tells us not accept sin. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 13 that love does not rejoice in unrighteousness. It is possible to accept someone but not accept their lifestyle.

    Okay, so then you would accept pedophilia, incest, polygamy, etc. ?

    I don't feel I have a need to explain homosexuality in nature. We are people, created in the image of God, distinct from animals. I don't think we should strive to compare ourselves to animals, or to be like animals.

  11. Excellent article Reagan, you made some very clear points. How fast marriage is going by the wayside troubles me a great deal, because when marriage goes, family goes with it. I also like your reply to Rachel where you said that the Bible is meant to be read in context. I wish more people understood that!

  12. Wow you scare me with the way you are predicting the future of marriage… It seems so possible the way culture is heading these days. Great article.

  13. As my dad has said marriage is a religious affair why is the state even in it. There is also a belief that there is only one place on the bible that speaks against homosectual (fornication) but every where the bi le speaks of marriage it is a man too woman relashionship.
    Also don't let people change the meanings of words because gay really means happy and I surely am gay (happy) because of christ

  14. You make a good point about the State. I have wondered this myself. I have since learned that you can make the case that the State does have an interest in marriage, since if marriages fall apart, it suddenly becomes the job of the State to pick up the pieces. They State and society has a whole has to pay the price for increased crime that results from a surplus of children who grow up without fathers or in broken homes. Poverty also grows, and the State has to pay more in welfare.

    However, if the State protects marriage, then society as a whole will be healthier, and we will not need a big government to take care of the populous. Guarding marriage is a self-limiting factor on the government. Of course, few politicians and people today want the government to shrink. The more marriage falls apart, the bigger government can grow.

    And you are right. The Bible makes it clear from the very beginning what marriage is. It doesn't need to constantly tell us homosexuality is wrong. It would be like if someone wrote a book on morality and said at the beginning, “cussing is wrong,” and then hardly mentions cussing for the rest of the book, and so people say, “well, the author must not think cussing is wrong.”

  15. Ok so this will be a long comment but its only cuz I’ve been waiting to say A LOT of stuff on posts!!! LOL

    Duuuuuuuuude…I’m entertained that you even bother writing back to such ridiculous comments!!! LOL Btw: Good article!!! So the Catholic church doesn’t believe in birth control…I didn’t even know that…It doesn’t seem like anyone follows it cuz all my extended family on both sides of my fam is Catholic and no one has more than 4 kids!

    Anyways, yeah I was reading the comments they’re just funny!!! People get so bent out of shape about stuff…Its like who cares…you don’t have to agree buuut CHILL!!! I actually took off all comments off my blog…TOO MUCH HATE comments and I feel bad not responding to every nice comment too, it was to time-consuming for me!

    Buuuuuuuuuut LIIIIIKE I do have to say the thought of betrothal would freak me out!!! My take on all of the dating/courtship/betrothal stuff is this…The Bible doesn’t give SPECIFIC guidelines on the matter. Adam God put to sleep and made him a chick…wakes up and BAM…he MARRIED!!! Esther got chosen out of a beauty pagent, Jacob worked like a kajillion years for his girl, Ruth laid at his feet…AWKWARD…So the way I see it is that every love story is different. There is NO cookie cutter formula that applies for EVERYONE. Betrothal would work well under the RIGHT circumstances…I can only think of ONE guy that I wouldn’t say NO to if went to my dad and asked for my hand in marriage…doesn’t mean i’m NOT interested in others, I just don’t know them well enough to not go through a courtship. But yeah I mean, God does give specific guidelines for certain things, Not touching, not being unequally yoked, Fleeing temptation, So the way I see it is that you can follow God’s guidelines in any of these.

    ummmmm…OK, book IDEA: Maybe you could write a book as a single male to single females on how you view things. Modesty/boundaries/relationships/attitudes, a males perspective . I mean you could combine a lot of stuff you already have written, like about physical touch, communication boundaries, what men think when girls try to do certain things to get their attention….Idk…that makes sense? You could call it, “Hey Christian Girl!”

    Heeeeey this is random but you should do an article on a Males perspective on chivalry. Like, what’s your take on it. I mean, I don’t wanna sound feminist but sometimes I think girls expectation of it is a little overboard. I know girls that are married and EVERY SINGLE time they wait for their husband to open the car door…I’m like, WHY??? Ain’t nothing WRONG with YOUR HAND…I’m jus sayin…LOL!!!

    I would be interested in your article on modesty. I believe very strongly on this matter. Have you ever heard of Apostolic/Pentecostals? That’s what I am, we believe in holiness within and without.

    So have you checked out MY BLOG yet???

  16. Haha! Yeah, the comments can be rather amusing. People do seem to take it personally when you disagree with them on this topic. I understand why you disabled comments.

    And I completely agree with you regarding betrothal. I think I say it pretty often that there is no formula. In fact, I have even said that I don’t think I will even go the betrothal route, even though I think it’s the best, because I don’t have the right circumstances in my life. I don’t know anyone well enough (I’m kind of a recluse. Haha!) So I’ll probably have to do some form of courtship.

    The only thing I don’t support is recreational dating, or any form of dating that involves acting like you are married before you actually are. That just isn’t loving.

    So the book would basically be the ultimate guide for Christian girls on how to treat their brothers in Christ? That’s a thought. Kind of like the counterpart to Chivalry, like you mention. I actually did start writing a book on Chivalry but I was getting too convicted by my own words and had to stop. Haha! I didn’t feel qualified to be writing such a book.

    But I don’t really think chivalry is so much about opening doors, but more about considering others as more important than yourself. I think Chivalry might actually be more important for men than for women, since our culture so strongly encourages men to see women as cheap. Chivalry can help condition men into seeing women as the priceless creations they are, deserving to be treated as more important than themselves. Opening doors for women can help train men to consider women as deserving as respect and dignity.

    This goes both ways though. So I think women should spend more of their time thinking about how they can treat others as more important than themselves, rather than what they think they deserve to be done for them. What this practically looks like will be a little different for men and women though. For a man it might mean opening a door, for a woman it might mean dressing modestly, etc.

    Here is an article I wrote that is kind of related:

    http://reaganramm.com/i-am-a-sexist/

    What article on modesty are you referring to? I’ve written quite a few. Haha!

    And I’m not really familiar with your denomination. What do you mean by holiness both within and without?

    And I have checked out your blog! It’s very unique! I was reading your post called “Prince Worthy” and you made a lot of great points. I especially liked where you said, “Sometimes we are sooooo busy LOOKING at other people, that we FORGET to STOP and TAKE a look in the mirror!!!”

    We’re just going to be disappointed if we look for happiness and fulfillment in finding there perfect person. They don’t exist. We can only be fulfilled by becoming more and more like Christ, and growing our relationship with Him. 🙂

    Thanks for the comment!

  17. “There’s no reason that people ought to be deprived of their constitutional rights now that those rights have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals.”

  18. This post was written before the SCOTUS ruling.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.