RECENT  POSTS:  » 'Indianapolis Star' to Governor Pence: FIX THIS NOW » Bill Maher's monologue on dialogue he'd prefer remain a monologue » Video: Even Michael Steele thinks Indiana law is too broad; Ryan T. Anderson constantly interrupts, still loses » Watch Gov. Pence heap praise on lobbying group that admitted #SB101 was all about same-sex marriage » Shellshocked Gov. Pence in full-blown spin mode » Video: Man who's called for exporting gays goes on CNN to defend Indiana law, earns deserved result » Man who insinuated it's better to be thrown into sea than support homosexuality attended #SB101 signing ceremony » Considering vast (and frankly odd) amount of time he spends talking about us, no wonder Tony Perkins thinks we're 'special' » FRC keeps lying about where majority of Americans stand on marriage equality » Audio: Indiana restaurant owner openly discriminates against gays, glad to have added protection to do so  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/29/2012

Another pastor, another list of reasons why gays will break marriage

by Jeremy Hooper

We gays are not humans, but rather slippery slopes on whose backs innocent children, cherished institutions, and even society itself will ultimately slip and fall. Or so the common condemnations go:

"If marriage is not a reflection of God's design for sexuality, then upon what could any definition of it rest? The answer is marriage can be redefined at will and Screen Shot 2012-05-29 At 5.18.55 Pmassume any shape we choose to grant it. No one who is serious-minded can then deny the inevitability that a redefinition of marriage today will necessarily give way to further redefinitions tomorrow. If we grant that marriage can be between two men or two women, then upon what logic can we deny marriage can be between one man and three women? The only limit to a continually expanding definition of marriage then becomes human perversity -- which is to say there is no limit. And remember, of course, that much else flows from the definition of marriage. How would insurance premiums be impacted in the future if spousal benefits were required to be extended to a small harem? Is it really wise to allow for children to be adopted into same-sex marriages or polygamous marriages?

A decision to allow same-sex marriages today lays the foundation for the definition of marriage to become Silly Putty tomorrow, capable of endless reshaping in the future. That, in turn, is a recipe for children to be made victims of all sorts of abuse and the welfare of our society to receive a fatal blow. It is simply not the case that no one will be harmed if marriage in America is redefined."

-Pastor Paul Brewster
of Madison, Indiana's Ryker's Ridge Baptist Church

I always "love" how we are somehow the notion on which polygamy hinges, even though its a biblically-rooted custom that was around long before the modern marriage equality movement. If it is to ever be, it will be decided upon its own independent, wholly disconnected merits—arguments that could arise at any point, regardless of how many of our states or federal laws afford equality to same-sex couples. As long as there is human will, there will be the potential for any person or group to make any case. The individualized legal worth associated with the movement will determine its outcome, not any one precedent.

But whatever. My husband and I will continue to play the role of pastoral scapegoat, if that is the fetish that modern evangelicals insist on embracing. And besides, considering the mess that so many heterosexuals have done to marriage, they should probably thank us for turning the institution into something as fun as Silly Putty.

So yeah-chastise away, Pastor. Our marriage is strong enough to take it.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails