Macklemore’s “Same Love” and the Incoherence of Postmodern Morality

macklemore

Over the last several years, we have witnessed an all out media campaign to portray homosexuality as normative and good.  Whether it’s through network TV (Modern Family), or through the demonization of anyone who disagrees (Chick-Fil-A controversy), or through endless legal challenges (the recent Supreme Court decision), the message has been consistent:  homosexuality should not just be allowed, but should be celebrated as upright and moral.

Indeed, the message is even more than this.  Not only is homosexuality portrayed as moral, anyone who opposes it is declared to be immoral (not to mention evil and wicked).   Incredibly, and in an almost unprecedented fashion, the argument for homosexuality is being made on moral grounds. I dealt with this issue at length in a prior post here.

Of course, one is free to make a moral argument for just about any behavior.  But at least it ought to be a coherent and rational one.  Unfortunately, the argument for the morality of homosexuality is neither of these things.  It survives because it makes misleading emotional appeals that (unfortunately) the average person is unable to recognize.

I was particular struck by this reality the other day when I was scanning through radio stations and came across a song touting the merits of homosexuality.  I had never heard the song before (I am not that up on pop culture!), but later I discovered it was the song Same Love by the rapper Macklemore.

The song embodied the modern (or should I say, postmodern) argument for homosexuality perfectly. And it was also utterly incoherent as an argument.  Let me go through a number of the lyrics and point out the problems.

1. The right-wing conservatives think it’s a decision, And you can be cured with some treatment and religion

Here Macklemore appeals to the claim that homosexuality is genetically predetermined.  While this is a dubious scientific claim, let’s grant for the sake of argument that people are genetically disposed to certain behaviors, including homosexuality.  The problem is that genetic disposition has zero implications for the morality of a behavior.

We might be convinced that pedophiles are born with a predisposition towards sex with children, but few would want to claim that therefore it was moral, right, and good.   Alcoholics might be born with a predisposition to drink, but I have never heard an AA meeting proclaim alcoholism to be a moral activity on these grounds.

In each of these cases, the reality is the opposite of what is suggested by Macklemore.  Just because certain behavior is difficult for someone to avoid is hardly grounds for declaring that someone should abandon their efforts.

Imagine  giving that message to the youth of the day: “Please choose the right moral behavior.  But, if you discover something is really attractive to you, and if you discover that is difficult to avoid, then it must be OK.  The only behaviors that are really immoral are the ones that you feel no inclination to follow.”

2. And “God loves all his children” is somehow forgotten, But we paraphrase a book written thirty-five hundred years ago

Here is something interesting.  In order to defend the morality of homosexuality, Macklemore appeals to God.  That is a rather curious course of action given that the worlds three major theistic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), with thousands and thousands of years of history, all agree that God regards homosexuality as immoral behavior.  This should quickly dispel the myth that only “right-wing conservatives” hold such views.

But, his appeal to God raises a bigger and more fundamental question.  How would Macklemore know what God thinks about this issue?  On what grounds could he declare that God is for one behavior or against another?  Does he receive private revelation from God?

He attempts to answer this question by appealing to a principle he puts in quotes: “God loves all his children.”  Presumably he is quoting something here, but he doesn’t tell us what.  It couldn’t be the Bible because he clearly rejects it is as a book 3500 years old and irrelevant .  So, where does this mysterious maxim come from that tells him what God is like?

Of course, Macklemore doesn’t have an answer to these questions.  He thinks a vague appeal to God will suffice as an argument.  But, he has no basis whatsoever for thinking he knows what God would have to say about such things.  In the end, all we are left with is Macklemore’s private opinion about God.  But, this is not an argument.

If he is going to make an argument on the basis of God, then what he really needs is a credible divine revelation.  But he has just thrown that under the bus.

3. And I can’t change, Even if I tried, Even if I wanted to

Once again, imagine these words being said by the alcoholic: “I can’t change, even if I tried.”  Wonder what his AA sponsor would say?   Or can you imagine a serial adulterer saying these words: “I can’t change, even if I tried.”   Wonder what his wife would say?

In the end, the “I can’t change” argument is not an argument.  Whether someone feels inclined towards a behavior or even trapped by a behavior has nothing to do with whether it is a moral behavior.

4. Gender to skin color, the complexion of your pigment.The same fight that led people to walk-outs and sit-ins, It’s human rights for everybody, there is no difference

Here is the standard appeal to the issue of equality, and a comparison to racism.  But this argument, although ubiquitous, simply does not work.  First, there is nothing moral or immoral about one’s skin color.  But, one’s sexual behavior can be moral or immoral.  Thus, the homosexuality-is-the-same-as-being-black argument confuses behavior with an external, visual characteristic.  There is nothing “discriminatory” about telling someone that what they are doing is wrong.

Second, and even more fundamentally, homosexuals are not being treated unequally under the current marriage laws.  Everyone (regardless of sexual orientation) has to follow the same exact laws.  For example, a man cannot marry his daughter.  A sister cannot marry her brother.  People cannot have multiple spouses.  These are all laws about marriage that apply to everyone equally.  Thus, homosexuals have no grounds to claim they are being treated unequally.

For homosexuals, the real complaint behind the complaint is as follows: “I am not being allowed to define marriage for myself. I am not being allowed to make marriage whatever I want it to be.”  But, that has never been true for anyone.  No one is allowed to define marriage entirely on their own.

So, the appeal to legalize homosexual marriage is not about equality or civil rights.  Ironically, it is about the opposite.  It is really about one group getting special treatment.  It is really about one group being allowed to redefine the institution according to their own personal preference (while, incidentally, other groups are not allowed to redefine the institution according to theirs, e.g., polygamists).

5. When I was in church they taught me something else, If you preach hate at the service, those words aren’t anointed, That Holy Water that you soak in has been poisoned

Here Macklemore takes the moral high ground once again, making sweeping claims about who is a “hater” and who has been “poisoned” and whose words are really “anointed.”  That would be all good and well if we could trust his ability to discern absolute moral norms.

But, as we observed in a prior point, there is no reason to think that he has access to the absolute moral norms of the universe. It’s pretty arrogant to claim that one knows who the haters are, and who is poisoned, when one has no grounds for making such claims. Is Macklemore God?

Of course, Christians make absolute moral claims all the time.  But, they do so on the basis of God’s revealed word in the Bible.  Although some will say that they don’t accept the Bible as God’s word, they are missing the point.  At least Christians have a rational basis for making absolute moral claims (namely divine revelation) whereas Macklemore has none.

Put simply, if I have to choose between the credibility of the moral claims of an apostle who knew Jesus or the moral claims of a modern hip-hop artist, I am going with the former.

6. Love is patient love is kind.

Amazingly, Macklemore concludes his song with a quotation from the Bible!  I don’t think he realizes it, but he is quoting the Apostle Paul (1 Cor 13:4).  Of course, this is inconsistent with his prior claims that the Bible is out of date and irrelevant.

Moreover, he would have done well to observe what Paul had to say elsewhere in the very same letter.  For instance, 1 Cor 6:9: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality…will inherit the Kingdom of God.”

Paul helps us realize and important truth that Macklemore, and most of our modern culture, miss entirely, namely that God is not just love.  Yes, he is love, but he is more than that.  He is also holy.  And his holiness makes him entirely intolerant of sin.

So intolerant, in fact, that he required the death of his very own son to pay for the sins of his people.  The cross is the perfect example of God’s character.  He is both loving (so that he was willing to give up his only son), and he is holy (so much so that he could not leave sin unpunished).

In the end, Macklemore’s song is the perfect example of the postmodern approach to morality.  It is heavy on rhetoric, but short on substance.  When probed, his arguments prove to be problematic at almost every point.  Only God can provide a basis for absolute morality. And one can only appeal to God if they have a credible claim to have divine revelation.

Comments

Macklemore’s “Same Love” and the Incoherence of Postmodern Morality — 44 Comments

  1. I heard this song for the first time the other day, as well. The repetitive chorus (performed by Mary Lambert) reminds us that the feeling is the homosexual person can’t change, even if they wanted to. I thought this was somewhat ironic since I think the implied purpose of the entire song was that others might in fact change their values when it comes to the morality of homosexuality. “No law’s gonna change us, we have to change us.”

  2. It is absolutely amazing how the LGBT movement has popularized the whole gay agenda through the entertainment and news media. I find it very interesting that when Jason Collins in the NBA “came out” as the first gay pro-athlete, that the media completely ignored the fact that he has an identical twin brother who is not gay. But that doesn’t fit with their agenda since they’re convinced that being gay is genetic.

    • Homosexuality is about a sexual preference. It’s pretty widely known knowledge that twins don’t have the same preference in food or music. Why would their sexual preference have to be the same.

      Also, I haven’t thought anything pro gay is necessarily touting the morality of homosexuality rather than it’s lack of immorality. Honestly, it’s just as ridiculous as arguing the morality of having a preference for spearmint gum or cinnamon…the morality of which is irrelevant. That’s what the whole LGBT movement is about.

  3. I don’t think you’ve hit a single point on here, there’s a lot of misunderstanding of the points being made (and not being made), not to mention of sexuality in general in this post.

    “The right-wing conservatives think it’s a decision, And you can be cured with some treatment and religion”

    I don’t think that his point here is to claim sexuality is genetic, rather the point is that it’s not a conscious decision. Which should be obvious to anyone at the age of puberty or above. Heck the very concept that you can’t choose who you fall in love with is the basis for innumerable love stories throughout the ages. An easy way to check this is is to go and ask any straight person you know when they decided to not be attracted to their own sex.

    The anti-gay therapy people actually do take this ludicrous position, though they’ve evolved now after numerous failures to teaching abstinence instead of a cure.

    Imagine trying to teach a straight person to be attracted to their own sex. This is nonsense of the highest order, and is a peculiar dishonesty forced upon people by their faith.

    I suspect Macklemore is just pointing and laughing (quite justifiably) at these maniacs, though I haven’t heard the song.

    “We might be convinced that pedophiles are born with a predisposition towards sex with children, but few would want to claim that therefore it was moral, right, and good. Alcoholics might be born with a predisposition to drink, but I have never heard an AA meeting proclaim alcoholism to be a moral activity on these grounds.”

    But these are dishonest comparisons. Pedophiles and alcoholics harm themselves and others, human sexual behaviour should be consensual and can really be as risky as its participants like.

    Good reasons can be proposed to restrict pedophilia and alcohol consumption, but consensual love between two people? I’ve never seen a good or moral reason, and the anti-gay crowd seem unable to suggest one. If there’s no reason not to do something, what reason is there not to do it?

    I find it hard to believe you’ve never heard that God loves everyone. It’s quite a common Christian trope. Fair play to you if you haven’t, you’d actually be being more honest than the Christians who do say this, even the most love infused Christian theologies have trouble reconciling it with reality.

    Or perhaps you just completely misunderstood his point.

    The comparison with racism that is made of the anti-homosexual prejudice is apt. It arises because racism is an unjustifiable prejudice, exactly the same as the anti-homosexual prejudice. This is where the similarity lies.

    “homosexuals are not being treated unequally under the current marriage laws.”

    This is just disingenuous and a fine example of the sly dishonesty that people are forced into to defend a ludicrous position. Straight people can marry the person they love, others cannot (and for no good reason).

    “No one is allowed to define marriage entirely on their own.”

    Well not currently, but should that be the case? If no one is harmed and all are consenting adults what business is it of anyone else’s?

    The fact of the matter is human beings have defined marriage throughout our history, it is ours to define. From the ancient rules of women-as-property, inter tribal grouping, many wives, captured damsels and slaves to the much more modern Victorian ethic of family and child rearing. Marriage has always been in flux, the important thing is to do the right thing, not necessarily the traditional thing (many of our traditions were awful).

    “It is really about one group getting special treatment.”

    Another bit of common dishonesty. If your position requires you to be so disingenuous it is time to reconsider your position.

    “Put simply, if I have to choose between the credibility of the moral claims of an apostle who knew Jesus or the moral claims of a modern hip-hop artist, I am going with the former.”

    You’d take the word of an ancient peasant over someone living in our far more educated and literate modern world? That sounds like a terrible idea. Have you seen what they believed in back then? Vicarious redemption, sacrifice, angry gods, justified genocide, slavery, dictatorship and might makes right. All things that we have rejected in the modern world.

    The question of the morality of sexuality is actually extremely simple, which is why most societies are coming to their senses on this issue.

    Harmless consensual activity between adults shouldn’t be legislated against. Even five year olds can see this.

    I think this is a dangerous issue for the theists to stake their moral authority on for precisely this reason. As society improves and moves on then these churches, temples mosques and synagogues will be left in the dust. Slightly sinister and embarrassing irrelevancies, as racists are viewed now. You can see this happening in Ireland right now as the Catholic Church loses its grip on a whole generation, largely through taking impossible moral positions on just about every issue they make a statement on. It seems that religion has a morally retarding effect on its believers, preventing from making the same progress as the rest of the world, and this could be its downfall.

    • Appreciate the response. However, I think your comments actually have the same problems that Macklemore’s have.

      >”I don’t think that his point here is to claim sexuality is genetic, rather the point is that it’s not a conscious decision.”

      So, all unconscious decisions are moral? Couldn’t the pedophile claim this?

      > “Heck the very concept that you can’t choose who you fall in love with is the basis for innumerable love stories throughout the ages”

      You are confusing an “is” with an “ought”. Just because it is the case that something happens does not mean it ought to happen. Just because a person falls in love with someone from the same sex is no grounds for declaring that one ought to do so. What if a son fell in love with his mother? Is that good and moral?

      > “But these are dishonest comparisons. Pedophiles and alcoholics harm themselves and others, human sexual behaviour should be consensual and can really be as risky as its participants like.”

      Actually, this is not a dishonest comparison. For one, homosexuality is harmful. Any behavior that so distorts God’s intended use for the body can have all kinds of ramification on someone, emotional, mental, psychological, and spiritual. The most obvious harm is the consistent and unrepentant immoral behavior separates one from God. Second, you assume that consensual sexual behavior is moral. Where do you get this from? Lots of instances of consensual sex can be immoral. A son and his mother for example.

      > “The comparison with racism that is made of the anti-homosexual prejudice is apt. It arises because racism is an unjustifiable prejudice, exactly the same as the anti-homosexual prejudice. This is where the similarity lies.”

      Calling an immoral act immoral is not “prejudice.” You are free to disagree about what is moral or immoral. But it is changing the terms of the debate to accuse someone of being “prejudiced” simply because they disagree with you.

      > “Straight people can marry the person they love, others cannot (and for no good reason).”

      Here is exactly where you are wrong. Straight people cannot marry whomever they love. You have completely ignored my argument. Straight men cannot marry their mothers. Straight fathers cannot marry their daughters. Straight sisters cannot marry their brothers. You need to address this fact before just repeating the false claim “straight people can marry the person they love.”

      > “You’d take the word of an ancient peasant over someone living in our far more educated and literate modern world? That sounds like a terrible idea. Have you seen what they believed in back then? Vicarious redemption, sacrifice, angry > gods, justified genocide, slavery, dictatorship and might makes right. All things that we have rejected in the modern world.”

      You list a lot of things above that you think are “wrong” or “immoral.” But how do you know they are wrong? Where do you get that from? This is precisely the problem with your position, and Macklemore’s. You make sweeping moral claims but have no grounds for them.

      And yes, I would trust the words of Jesus (and Paul) over a modern rap artist. That fact that you would not is a frightening one.

    • you’re the only sane person i’ve come across here so far.
      the comparison of pedophiles abusing children to consenting homosexuals having sex is more appalling than anything, and the claim that homosexuals are equal under marriage law now is outrageous.

      • Eugene, I noticed that you haven’t actually engaged any of the arguments in my article, nor any of the arguments in my responses. Below is my response to your concern over the reference to pedophiles which I gave earlier:

        There is a reason that homosexuality is compared to pedophilia in posts like this one. It is a reductio ad absurdum style argument. It shows that the premises put forth by the pro-homosexual argument lead one to absurdity. Or, put differently, the same arguments used to justify homosexuality can be used to justify pedophilia (e.g., “It just feels right,” “I can’t help myself,” “I was born this way”). Thus, unless homosexuals are willing to accept the morality of pedophilia, they will need to come up with new arguments. The problem is that they are not concerned with the cogency of their arguments (nor does our culture seemed concerned). They are only concerned with saying statements that prove to be persuasive to people (e.g., “This is just how God made me”) despite the fact that those statements are completely groundless.

        • Calling paedophilia or alcoholism a bad thing doesn’t rely on religion based moral codes. We can determine that both of those things are bad without needing religion to tell us so. They are bad because they cause harm, and violate a person’s consent. But to define homosexuality as bad, you need to call on religion. And in this country we have this pesky little thing called “freedom of Religion”. That means you can’t impose your religious moral code on others. So no matter how much YOU think that homosexuality is hurtful to the individual, you have no right to impose that view on anyone else. You have no right to discriminate against anyone on the basis of that view. You only have the right to not practice homosexuality yourself.

          • Thanks for the comments, Max. But, there are a lot of misunderstandings in your post.

            1. “Calling paedophilia or alcoholism a bad thing doesn’t rely on religion based moral codes. We can determine that both of those things are bad without needing religion to tell us so. They are bad because they cause harm, and violate a person’s consent.”

            You have adopted your own standard for morality here, namely “whatever causes harm and violates a person’s consent.” But, where did you get this from? Without God, there is no reason to think that harming another person is morally wrong. Indeed, without God there is no reason to think any act has any moral qualities at all. In a world without God, things just are. You have smuggled in your own private moral code through the back door, but you have not given a justification for it.

            Moreover, you assume that homosexuality does not cause “harm.” I have disagreed with this in numerous comments above, so I won’t repeat it now. So this is a bit of circular reasoning on your part. You assume that homosexuality causes no harm (which means it is moral), and then you declare all things that cause no harm are moral. You need a better argument here.

            2. “That means you can’t impose your religious moral code on others. So no matter how much YOU think that homosexuality is hurtful to the individual, you have no right to impose that view on anyone else.”

            This is patently false. Our country has upheld all sorts of moral norms in our country over the years and “imposed” these on others. There are laws against prostitution (between two consenting adults!) which are imposed. And Christians have a right for their voice to be heard in this moral debate. In addition, if homosexual marriage is approved, is this not enforcing your morality on others?

            3. “You have no right to discriminate against anyone on the basis of that view. You only have the right to not practice homosexuality yourself.”

            First, there is no “discrimination” against homosexuals. Everyone is treated equally under the current marriage laws. There are already many laws that prevent people from marrying whomever they want; e.g., a father cannot marry his grown daughter. See my comments above in other places. Second, we have more than a right to not practice homosexuality. We have a right to engage in the debate about what moral standards this country should hold to. Give that the family (mother and father) is one of the core pieces of a healthy society, this is something that we have a right to defend. You are free to engage in this debate as well. But what you are trying to do is squelch debate by pretending that no one has a right to impose their moral views.

          • I can define my own moral code, and it is no different essentially than you referencing the Bible. What I can’t do, is design my own moral code and then expect to enforce it on others. The Bible is only an authority on morals from the point of view of someone who accepts it as an authority; I don’t. So therefore your morals, based on the Bible, have no more meaning for me than mine do for you.

            The only sensible morals, the ones we can all agree on and base laws on, are the ones that control harm to others or self. So for example, we can say that prostitution is exploitation and that it causes harm to both parties, and so therefore is illegal. But there is no scientific evidence that homosexuals harm anyone. You may disagree with this, but mainstream science no longer supports the view that homosexuals are “sick”. Christians claim homosexuals are sinners, based on the Bible. I claim homosexuals are not sinners, because they aren’t hurting anyone. I know which ethical code makes more sense to me. And our countries practice separation of church and state, this means you don’t get to tell me whether an act that doesn’t hurt anyone is moral or not.

            Your argument that harm to homosexuals arises from their separation from God, while self-consistent with own beliefs, has no meaning for me. I don’t believe in God, or I may believe that God doesn’t have an issue with homosexuals (there are such Christians). And again, you are not allowed to tell me what my morality must be. Your argument that homosexuals are sinners and therefore they are separated from God and therefore they are hurting themselves is self-referencing. That is a circular argument.

            Allowing homosexuals to marry, does not discriminating against you. To propose such, would be like saying that not making Christian women wear burqas is discriminating against Muslims. No one is asking YOU to marry someone of the same sex. It does not impact on your life. Perhaps you are afraid it will impact on your children, influence them somehow. But that is not the fault of gay people. If your children decide not to follow your religion’s edicts, that is between them, you and your God. It has nothing to do with the gay people who want to get married. If it were otherwise, you may as well also ban people from practising a different religion than yours, because it might influence your children to change to that religion. But you can’t do that, because there is this thing called Freedom of Religion.

            I believe I have debated the topic with you point for point, and not at any time attempted to suppress your replies? I have simply done what you suggest, which is argue for the case as I see it. I am not attempting to squelch your argument. I respect your argument, but do not agree with it. And in time, I believe, more people will come to think as I do. And then one day the law WILL be changed, to allow gay people to marry. And that will simply be an example of democracy in action.

          • Max, you’ve completely avoided the question I asked which is, “How can you have morals at all without God?” You’ve completely side-stepped this question and repeated your earlier claims that it is wrong to hurt people. I happen to agree that it is wrong to hurt people, but I have reason, namely because humans are created in the image of God and God commands that they not be harmed. What is your reason? You have not offered one.

            You keep repeating that homosexuality is completely private and doesn’t impact anyone else. That is ridiculous. Society as a whole is affected when we redefine the family unit, one of the core units of any civilized culture. You are redefining an institution that is thousands of years old, and asking the government to call it right and good. How does that not affect a nation’s culture? You just need to admit you are reshaping and redefining the moral culture of America.

          • Michael, as much as you want me to accept that a moral code is more appropriate because it is defined by the Bible, I simply won’t cede this point. Christians are of the view that humans are unable to discern right from wrong without an instruction from God. I believe this is a fallacy. Humans CAN discern right from wrong without a written instruction from God. Infact, there is even an evolutionary basis for this. Many animals, including Bonobos, Chimps and others, even dogs, are capable of demonstrating altruism – ie: a sense of fairness. For example chimpanzees who will take two bananas, and then upon noticing their fellow only received one banana, will break one of their bananas in half to ensure each gets an even share. So I most definitely am not side stepping anything. It’s just that I don’t agree with you that Humans (and some other animals also) are capable of exhibiting altruistic behaviour. IE: thinking outside of their own needs to show concern for another. Chimps can’t read the Bible, yet they are able to exhibit altruistic behaviour. So I’m pretty sure if chimps can do it, so can Humans.

            Your second point, about homosexuality impacting everyone because of the change in the family unit is again a value judgement based on what you choose to define as normal. How does it affect you, really? Let’s leave aside, for the moment, some of the issues paul raised (I’ll come back to those) about homosexual harm. Just in terms of changes to the family structure, your religion doesn’t entitle you to define what the family unit must consist of for others. It only defines norms that you must abide by. You can argue, but ultimately if enough people in the population are demanding change, then you have no “God given right” to block those changes. All you can do is continue to try and convert people back to what you see as true Christianity. Does it really affect you if someone else is having a gay marriage? Or bringing up children? My parents divorced when I was 6. My father and step-mother lived unmarried,and to this day, 4o years later, remain unmarried but in a happy union. At times as a child, My mother and her boyfriend lived in the same house as my father and his girlfriend. There were no tensions or rivalries. At other times other people lived in the house, trusted good family friends whose care the kids could be left in. This was a very bohemian and unconventional upbringing. A little later in my childhood my mother joined a ‘hippy commune’, and I and my sisters lived there for some time. All my siblings and myself grew up mentally sound. We didn’t become junkies or crack whores. We didn’t attract unhealthy relationships. We did well in school. On all external appearances we are typical middle class people. But we have an experience of different lifestyles that proves to us that the question of how the family unit is structured is far less important than the love and support that parents give. By your standards, you would judge my childhood to be one where I was exposed to all manner of sin, yet I turned out alright.

            Btw, I will respond to Paul on the questions of harm he raised, but feel free to weigh in.

          • Max, you have a profound misunderstanding of the issues related to what constitutes a “moral norm.” You appeal to evolution as a basis for establishing moral norms. But, you are confusing the way animals behave (or why they behave that way), and the way they ought to behave. You are confusing an “is” with an “ought.” There is nothing about evolution that determines whether something is, in fact, morally wrong. Indeed, why should I care if strong humans kill weak humans? Isn’t that the law of survival of the fittest? If you were up to speed on writings on philosophical theology you would know that even evolutionists concede there is no basis for moral norms within evolution itself. For instance, see works by William Provine and Alan Rosenberg.

            But your appeal to evolution is even more problematic than this. If evolution were the grounds for morals, then you would have to acknowledge that morals are always changing and evolving. So, while this culture may regard torturing little children as “wrong,” you would have to concede that in a future world a culture may determine that same act to be “good.” If so, what grounds would you have for objecting?

            Your own family experience is not germane to the discussion. No one would claim a one to one correspondence to people who grow up in broken families and people who have moral problems. An isolated example does not prove anything. However, when one looks at society as a whole, are you seriously going to try to argue that is on a trajectory of moral improvement? And the moral decline of our nation has been directly in line with the decline of the family. Countless studies have shown this, but you refuse to see it.

          • Michael, I gave my example to show that it’s possible to have a non-standard family unit and still be normal and healthy. You completely failed to grasp that point by calling it a “broken home”. It wasn’t a broken home. There was nothing broken about my childhood. But you are correct that I can’t use that as a scientific argument. Studies of broken homes are invariably weighted with families where there is conflict and a tug of war between parents over custody, in my case there was no animosity between my parents – so I’m not inclined to think that studies of broken homes are relevant to either my own case, where the home was not broken, it was just different, or the case of children of same-sex parents where the parents are in a stable relationship.

            In Fact, studies are starting to support the idea that same-sex parents are just as capable of providing a stable childhood as heterosexual parents. Here for example: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-in-gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html

            The study cautions that bullying in high school may yet prove to be an issue (it isn’t in primary school – the kids are no more bullied than ‘normal’ kids) but I would argue that since homosexual parents are still an oddity, that it is likely that the kids will be bullied, because bullies pick on anyone who is different. But this is not the parents fault or the kids fault. And it is something that will change as homosexual parents become more commonplace. Immigrant children also suffer from being bullied until second or third generation. Do we tell immigrants not to marry or have children? The answer to bullying is not to root out anyone different and make them conform. The answer is to confront bullies, and support those being bullied, giving them encouragement and strength to maintain their self esteem.

          • Max, the term “broken” was only referring to a divorced home. There need not be an ugly divorce for the label to apply. Regardless, I did not fail to grasp your point. I simply showed how your own personal story is irrelevant. Society as a whole has been getting worse, and that corresponds directly with the demise of the family. You still have not responded to this. The single study you cited does not overturn the mountains of evidence that kids with a mother and father are more healthy and more well-adjusted.

            I noticed you also never responded to the issue of how you establish morality in an evolutionary worldview. As I noted, simply observing animal behavior (or even explaining why animals behave the way they do) is not a basis for determining how they ought to behave. I encourage you to do some more research into intellectual foundations for morality because I think you will see that it is impossible without God.

          • Max said: “In Fact, studies are starting to support the idea that same-sex parents are just as capable of providing a stable childhood as heterosexual parents. Here for example: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-in-gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html

            This is a a joke! First off, this is an article that reports the authors interpretation of the study, not the study itself. But then the author gives us the truth: “The experiences of 130 gay, lesbian and heterosexual adoptive families in Britain, with children aged four to eight, were examined”
            You’re kidding me right? 4-8 year olds? That doesn’t tell us anything! That’s like saying “we’ve tested 130 people who’ve smoked cigarettes for 3-5 years and we’ve found absolutely no evidence that smoking cigarettes causes cancer!” Surely you’re not foolish enough to believe that this article has any real value at all? Surely you’ve at least looked at the study yourself just to make sure the author isn’t coloring the results to support their agenda, since people never do that with studies. Surely you’re not just parroting some reporter’s opinion of an extremely small scale study with very little real scientific data, right?

          • Max said: “Allowing homosexuals to marry, does not discriminating against you.”

            Actually, in a very real sense, it does. The whole reason homosexuals want government sanctioned “marriage” is for monetary reasons. So when they “marry” then the money that the government collects from me is then given to people who choose to practice homosexuality and call their union a “marriage” and it’s given to them specifically because they “choose” to “get married” and by doing so they then qualify to receive money that I have paid and they are getting the money BECAUSE they are involving themselves in something my religion says is wrong. So it IS violating my religious rights. It’s very similar to the abortion mandate that the courts are allowing companies out of because it violates their religious beliefs. In the end, for the homosexual, it’s all about money. Let me opt out of supporting them solely because they choose to be in a homosexual relationship and then you can say I’m not being discriminated against.

    • Joe, I thought about one of your statements over the last few days because I think it is a pretty good point.

      You say: “Imagine trying to teach a straight person to be attracted to their own sex. This is nonsense of the highest order, and is a peculiar dishonesty forced upon people by their faith.”

      I wrestled a little with this, thinking that it would indeed be absurd to try to teach a straight person (like myself) to be attracted to their own sex, so why would I advocate this for homosexuals? As I thought about it more and how I might approach a conversation with a Christian who is struggling with homosexual feelings, I realized that I wouldn’t necessarily counsel them to try and be attracted to the opposite sex, but rather to seek Christ’s help in being released from the sin of lust. Perhaps God is calling such a person to celibacy, and they must begin a life-long battle against temptation. Or perhaps God will one day grant them attraction to a member of the opposite sex and call the to marriage. What God is not calling them to, as stated clearly in the Scriptures, is homosexual behavior.

      Some of your statements above show that you are less than convinced by religious justifications for prohibiting same-sex marriage. While I find God’s Word more convincing than anything, history actually bears out many reasons why any civilization is most successful when God’s prescribed “one man, one woman” formula is followed in marriage. Anthony Esolen gives this idea a full treatment, as well as many other reasons homosexual marriage is disastrous to society that are not expressly rooted in religious texts. He titles it, “Same-Sex Marriage: 10 Arguments for Sanity”. It’s worth the long read.

      http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1201&id=6198

  4. Very helpful post. My wife and I talked about how confused we were after listening to this song as well the first time we heard it.

  5. So often, when arguing against homosexuality, it is compared with other things that most consider immoral: pedophilia and alcoholism, in this post. Is it possible to re-work the argument to equate it to something not accepted as immoral but rather neutral or even moral? That is the ground the opposing argument stands on. Is is possible to argue from that ground to this post?

    • There is a reason that homosexuality is compared to pedophilia in posts like this one. It is a reductio ad absurdum style argument. It shows that the premises put forth by the pro-homosexual argument lead one to absurdity. Or, put differently, the same arguments used to justify homosexuality can be used to justify pedophilia (e.g., “It just feels right,” “I can’t help myself,” “I was born this way”). Thus, unless homosexuals are willing to accept the morality of pedophilia, they will need to come up with new arguments. The problem is that they are not concerned with the cogency of their arguments (nor does our culture seemed concerned). They are only concerned with saying statements that prove to be persuasive to people (e.g., “This is just how God made me”) despite the fact that those statements are completely groundless.

  6. Your “rational basis” for believing that all Christian morals should decide the absolute legality and illegality of the actions of other humans (many of whom don’t even believe there IS a God) is that someone heard a voice in their head 3,000 years ago? And decided that those words should be the “rational” basis for laws forevermore?
    How about stoning children for being disobedient? Adulterers? Cutting off the hands of thieves?
    The laws of the United States are meant to allow you the freedom to do as you wish without harming other people (and more recently, yourself). For a Christian, you sure don’t seem to like the concept of free will (something I’ve noticed from many Christians recently), which from my understanding is what the religion is based on.
    Also, in order to say what you have said, I must assume you would take a scientific discovery of a genetic explanation for homosexuality as pure nonsense? Funny, that must be how people felt when Galileo said the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, (You know.. the Catholics who wanted to kill him for that belief.) I think it might have more to do with you being too afraid to admit you’re wrong about something and moving on, (Something else Christians seem to be bad at… racism? sexism?)
    It seems to me as though the one comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is spreading much more hate than those trying to love them and allow them to live their lives in a way that does not affect you. (Which is yet another thing I’ve noticed a lot of Christians doing lately..)
    Everyone can’t live by your morals. That’s something YOU have to live with.

    • Thanks, Andrew. Appreciate the comments. Let me offer my thoughts.

      > “Your “rational basis” for believing that all Christian morals should decide the absolute legality and illegality of the actions of other humans (many of whom don’t even believe there IS a God) is that someone heard a voice in their head 3,000 years ago? And decided that those words should be the “rational” basis for laws forevermore?”

      No, my rational basis for morality is God himself. The only reason the Bible is mention is because Christians believe that it is God’s word. And the credibility of the Bible’s claims is much bigger than someone hearing a voice in their head. The person of Jesus is the most compelling evidence for Christianity.

      Also, you need a rational basis for morality if you are going to make absolute moral claims. What is your basis?

      I should also make clear that Christians don’t believe every behavior advocated in the Bible should be forced on society. No one is suggesting that homosexual activity should be illegal. People are suggesting, however, that enshrining it in marriage is going too far. There has to be some moral boundaries for a society if it is going to thrive and survive.

      > “How about stoning children for being disobedient? Adulterers? Cutting off the hands of thieves?”

      I assume you are trying to appeal to Old Testament laws. Such laws applied only to the nation of Israel when it was being ruled directly by God. Christians are not suggesting that these laws should be used in the United States.

      > “The laws of the United States are meant to allow you the freedom to do as you wish without harming other people (and more recently, yourself).”

      This is patently false. There are many laws that prevent you from doing something even though it happens between two consensual adults and therefore would be deemed by many as harmless. For instance, there are laws that prevent fathers from marrying their daughters. To be consistent, you would have to agree that law should be abolished too. You would have to argue that we should allow mothers to marry sons, brothers to marry sisters, and people to have multiple spouses. Sure, we can create a country like this, where it is a total moral free for all, but that is not necessarily a good thing. Christians are simply saying that it is harmful to allow marriage to be completely obliterated in this fashion.

      > “For a Christian, you sure don’t seem to like the concept of free will (something I’ve noticed from many Christians recently), which from my understanding is what the religion is based on.”

      You have misunderstood the argument. Free will just refers to what people are able to do, not what they ought to do. Just because someone is able to do something doesn’t mean they should. And there is nothing wrong with making societal laws that forbid them from doing so. So back to my earlier example, I agree that a mother is “free” to marry her son, but I don’t think it is in the interest of society to allow her to do so.

      > “Also, in order to say what you have said, I must assume you would take a scientific discovery of a genetic explanation for homosexuality as pure nonsense? Funny, that must be how people felt when Galileo said the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, (You know.. the Catholics who wanted to kill him for that belief.)”

      If you think that the genetic argument for homosexuality is as certain as the earth revolving around the sun, then you are grandly misinformed. The idea that there is a genetic link to homosexuality is entirely unproven. But, as I said in my original article, it doesn’t really matter even if it is true. Just because a person has a natural inclination towards a behavior doesn’t make it right.

      > “It seems to me as though the one comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is spreading much more hate than those trying to love them and allow them to live their lives in a way that does not affect you. (Which is yet another thing I’ve noticed a lot of Christians doing lately..)”

      First, I didn’t compare homosexuals to pedophiles. Instead, I used an argument that showed that the same logic used to defend homosexuality could be used to defend pedophilia. And no one has refuted that argument. You ask why we can’t let people live their lives since it doesn’t affect us. But, it does affect us. No one is suggesting homosexuality should be illegal, but once it is enshrined in marriage it affects everyone. In addition, the homosexual community has not tried to live a quiet private life saying “just leave us alone.” Instead, they have bombarded our culture with an aggressive, in-your-face, pro-homosexual agenda. This aggressive stance has made it affect everyone.

      It should also be said that it is not loving homosexual to endorse their lifestyle. The loving thing to do is to call them back to what God has intended for them to be.

  7. Interesting take on the following:
    And “God loves all his children” is somehow forgotten, But we paraphrase a book written thirty-five hundred years ago.

    My two cents: I think Macklemore is intentionally guilty of the line he is singing. A little meta? He knows he is paraphrasing (could he be so bold as to be alluding to 1 John 4:8), but is doing so to demonstrate that individuals use the Bible for their own ends and means, co-opting verses and taking them out of historical context to support their present-day belief system. Perhaps he is just doing the same – but looking for some inclusive language? Or perhaps he is suggesting all these exegetical manipulations have created such a threadbare religious language that it’s more noise than substance. But even so, the reality at the heart of such a worn language is again very real and for him perhaps it boils down to – anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

    You left out the lyrics right after – “God loves all his children” is somehow forgotten, But we paraphrase a book written thirty-five hundred years ago –
    Mack raps, “I don’t know”
    Were you intentional about leaving out that line?
    Maybe with that last line, he’s simply trying to rhyme with ‘ago’ or maybe he is not arguing here at all but rather thinking aloud, musing, trying to wrap his head around some inconsistencies he sees?

    I am NOT a Macklemore apologist by any means but you make a lot of assumptions about him. I would think as a writer/rapper who is penning the lyrics for such a song that he is indeed aware that ‘Love is patient love is kind’ is cherry-picked from 1 Cor:13:4. After all, anyone who has gone to a wedding has probably heard that passage read aloud. Since one of the tenets of the song is gay marriage, I’m gonna give him the benefit of the doubt that he did his homework on that one.

    You are a skilled debater and schooled in argument-styles and I get your overall point, but in all fairness, there are parts to your entry that feel awkward. You ask, “How would Macklemore know what God thinks about this issue? On what grounds could he declare that God is for one behavior or against another? Does he receive private revelation from God?” and yet do the same thing to him – drawing conclusions that would make me ask, “Does Michael receive private revelation from Macklemore?”

    • Hi, Scott. With respect, I notice what I take to be a couple of oversights in your response to the article. As with other attempted rebuttals (above) if one re-reads before posting, they may find their answers in the original article.

      The most important example is the last: the argument in the article is that Macklemore has already dismissed the Bible as not credible to the discussion. This leaves direct revelation as the only tenable grounds on which to base his sweeping assertions about what God is “for”. It is cogent and logical and your “I know you are but what am I” argument is not applicable.

      Your first paragraph gives the rapper the benefit of considerable doubt. But even if he were making a point about exegetical abuses, the historical context affirms God’s view of homosexuality. No manipulation is needed to make the point: God’s plan for human sexuality does not allow for behavior which corrupts and destroys.

      Lastly (and leastly), I think the author left out the “I don’t know” because it was a throw-away line. It would be a stretch to examine every “you know?” or “I don’t know” in music in terms of their inquisitive import.

      I wish you all the best, Scott and don’t presume to change your views with so few words. My prayer is that you will be led to find the truth for yourself, for then you will be more likely to assign it the proper value. Peace.

  8. “… Christians don’t believe every behavior advocated in the Bible should be forced on society. No one is suggesting that homosexual activity should be illegal. People are suggesting, however, that enshrining it in marriage is going too far. There has to be some moral boundaries for a society if it is going to thrive and survive.”

    As a Christian, I find this to be the most confusing aspect of the gay marriage debate. When you start to unravel this logic, it feels arbitrary and hypocritical.

    Of all Biblical behaviors regarding marriage and sex, why are Christians so bent on forcing this particular one on society? Why aren’t Christians fighting to make unbiblical divorce illegal? What about remarriage after divorce? Sex before marriage? Cohabitation?

    I can understand why society pushes back when Christians talk about legislating morality based on the Bible. From their perspective, we only want to legislate people who are (usually) outside of the church. Outlawing divorce, remarriage, or sex before marriage would have an effect on “us”, the people within our congregations, while outlawing gay marriage has an effect on “them.” All this talk about “moral boundaries for society” sounds great until you realize that we’re picking and choosing our battles like items at a buffet.

    Even your logic concerning homosexuality seems inconsistent. You suggest that homosexual activity shouldn’t be illegal. Why? To what standard do you appeal when deciding where to draw the line?

    As someone who loves Jesus and is concerned about how he’s used politically in our country, I don’t know if I’ve ever heard a consistent answer to the question of how we should determine which Biblical standards we should “force on society.” I’m beginning to assume there isn’t one, but I’m interested in hearing your take on the issue.

    Respectfully,
    Ike

  9. Ill keep it short and simple. Although I disagree with every point you made, I won’t go against all of them, only the one that really got under my skin: your opinion on pre-dispositions. Answer me these questions… actually, I’ll answer them for you:

    Who are alcoholics hurting? if it’s not hurting their family… they’re inflicting irreparable damage to their own body if it’s TRULY full-blown alcoholism (which over time, never fails if treatment is never seeked). This can have a 100% recovery rate if the alcoholic is willing to change. Now, I know what you’re going to say next: Well, treatment will work for a homosexual if they’re willing to change; and your probably correct. Here’s the thing, why is an alcoholic willing to change? The only, and I mean ONLY reason an alcoholic will change, is because it’s either hurting themselves, or hurting somebody else. When I say it’s hurting somebody else, I dont mean it goes against their opinion, I meant it in a way that it’s hurting them financially and it’s hurting their way of life in regards to being able to interact. Hurting someone else/themselves is the only plausible reason an addict gets help. It’s what gets them through rehab. Now, riddle me this pal: who is a homosexual harming? And again, I don’t mean harming through way of opinion?………..I’ll wait…..

    And #2, Pedophiles. This actually makes me sick to my stomach. Who are these people hurting? I shouldn’t even have to answer that. It’s illegal. It’s not illegal because it’s nasty, or goes against society’s norms or whatever you’re going to try and throw at us.. It’s illegal because it harms somebody. It WILL break a child’s world mentality and well-being. For that reason, it REQUIRES treatment. There is no way around it.

    Jump off a cliff..

    • Patrick, your entire response makes three core assumptions about moral norms:
      (1) Hurting someone else is immoral.
      (2) Something is immoral only if it hurts someone else.
      (3) Homosexual activity is not harmful.

      The problem is that all three of these are problematic for you.

      (1) As a Christian I certainly agree that hurting someone else is wrong. But, I have a reason for believing that, namely that God makes human beings in his image and commands that they not be harmed. What is your reason? I would argue that apart from God, you have no grounds to make any moral claim.
      (2) The idea that something is only immoral if it hurts someone else is patently false. As I mentioned in a prior response, what about sex between a mother and her adult son? That is consensual, and, on the surface, harms no one. BUt, it is sick and wrong. If you are consistent you would have to say it is moral, upright, and good.
      (3)In your entire post you think it is a given that homosexuality is not harming anyone. But, how do you know this? Just cause you think it, doesn’t make it true. As a Christian, I have good reasons for thinking it is harmful, namely that any activity that so defies the sexual norms that God has laid down inevitably leads to serious harm in all sorts of ways, emotional, psychological, mental, spiritual, etc. In addition, I would argue that homosexuality, when celebrated throughout a culture, destroys the family unit, which is a core unit that keeps society healthy. But, more than anything, a persistent commitment to homosexuality leads someone to be in danger of God’s justice. And that is something that I would want all people to avoid.

      As for your request that I “jump off a cliff,” I have to ask why you would say this? Cannot someone disagree with homosexual dogma without being treated this way? I happen to hold a view that has thousands of years of history, and happens to be the view of the founding fathers of America, and the view that our country has held for hundreds of years (until recently), and the view of all major theistic religions. Surely, that warrants some reflection from you beyond name calling.

  10. Michael,

    Thanks for the post. Strong work. Just thought I’d add to your argument.

    Macklemore (and the rest of Hollywood, it seems) clearly thinks that to “love” somebody means to simply support them and push them along whatever road they happen to be on. That’s why they claim that people who oppose gay marriage “hate” gays.
    This is silly. So silly. If I love my wife, should I enable her if she has an addiction to shopping or should I enable her to scream at our kids if I see her doing that? “It ain’t hurting me, so why should I care?”
    Let’s say i catch my neighbor’s 14 year old son cutting himself. By Macklemore’s definition, I should simply say “Well, it ain’t hurting me,” and just move on. This is hypocrisy, and it’s slapping us right in the face- but we can’t identify it.
    Love is first identifying that we are all created in Jesus Christ’s image, and treating people the way we’d treat Jesus Christ. “For that which you do unto the least of these, you also do unto me.”

    Anyway, thanks again.

  11. Michael, i cannot argue your opinion. Most respectively, I’m not trying to. All i was trying to accomplish was to point out that the ONE argument the author made, made me sick. It dealt with opinions (i just got REAL weird deja vu, sorry for the side note). I would never try to argue someone else’s opinion, honestly. But Michael, please tell me how homosexuality hurts you, other than how it goes against God. And I swear on HIS name, I’m not trying to come at you because i disagree with your opinion. I just only wish others could have an opinion without getting irritated and explain where they are coming from, because I honestly just dont understand it, and that’s what really upsets me. I don’t agree with your example. A son would have sex with his mother because he trusts her. She’s his existence. At that age, why would you think you mother would want to hurt you? …She doesn’t, but when that child finds out that his mother has a problem… he’ll be broken. What I’m saying, is that when that son finds out what really happened in that situation, he WILL be broken. That’s his mother… and you CANNOT compare it to an alcoholic or a pedophile. It’s not an opinion. It’s a fact… I wont argue anything else the author has to say because it’s ALL opinion. Opinion’s can NEVER be wrong… ever.

  12. And you admitting that you are a Christian and ‘thinking’ it is harmful, is an opinion. I apologize for my ‘jump of a cliff’ comment. It was wrong and uncalled for.

    • Hi Patrick, I linked this article above and I think it might be really helpful for you too. I noticed you speak a lot about being free to do things that don’t harm others, and how a lot of these things are matters of opinion. i would challenge you to think through how it is we know anything we know. When my high school chemistry teacher taught me Avogadro’s Number, I didn’t roll my eyes and say, “Well that’s just your opinion. You use yours and I’ll use mine.” I would have failed the class. I was required to take the information on the good authority of my teacher, who took it on the good authority of their college textbook, etc. etc. Each one of us did not have to re-calculate Avogadro’s Number. In fact, a massive amount of the things we believe we take on authority from others. Believing something on someone else’s authority is not bad; believing something on someone’s bad authority is bad. It would be bad to believe my chem teacher if they actually got their teaching license from a Nigerian website. So we believe what God says about our morality based on His good authority–and it doesn’t get any greater than God’s authority because He made us.

      Still, I wanted you to take a look at this article because you seem to be stuck on this opinion thing. Did you know that history actually bears out many reasons why civilizations are most successful when God’s prescribed “one man, one woman” formula is followed in marriage? Anthony Esolen gives this idea a full treatment, as well as many other reasons why homosexual marriage is disastrous to society. His views are not expressly rooted in religious texts, but taken from history and statistical surveys. He titles it, “Same-Sex Marriage: 10 Arguments for Sanity”.

      http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1201&id=6198

  13. This was a very good post. These are the things I’ve been concerned about for a while. The “I was born this way” argument is the one I’ve been the most confused about by people. I just can’t understand why that fact alone suddenly makes it okay. Yet, without fail, everyone gets mad when you show them why that logic is absurd. They seem to think I’m calling homosexuals alcoholics or pedophiles. Which is amusing to me. Either they are really not capable of grasping the logical concept, or they are being willfully intellectually dishonest in order to create another emotional argument.

    I had also had the same concern about the fact that Macklemore discredited the Bible (or at least the first half of it), and continuously referenced it for reasons why homosexuals should be able to marry. All in all, I think you hit the points very well.

    • I don’t know if the “born this way” argument makes homosexuality “ok”, but it does raise a difficult question for Christians: If they are born that way (i’m inclined to believe they are), how are gay people supposed to live? Pretend to be straight? Go celibate? Pursue a responsible, monogamous gay relationship?

      I’m not going to pretend to know how to answer this question, but I think the lack of a clearcut answer has made it difficult for us to engage with homosexuals. Instead of trying to legislate it, I think we need to regroup and figure out what it is we’re trying to say to our gay brothers and sisters.

      • Thanks, Ike. But, I don’t think the answer to this question is unclear. The person who has urges towards people of the same sex is called by God to resist and fight those urges, just like he would fight any other sinful urges. The same can be true for heterosexuals. If a heterosexual person wants to have sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend, they are called by God to resist those urges. If a husband has an urge to have sexual relations with a woman other than his wife, then he is called to resist those urges. For someone with homosexual urges, this may mean remaining celibate for their entire life (or until they begin to desire someone of the opposite sex). This will seem outrageous to a homosexual, no doubt, but it is no more outrageous than asking a man to resist every woman other than his wife for his entire life.

  14. This thread is pretty sad and depressing. It’s one of the most commented on that I’ve seen in a while and yet I see all these postings of people who just want to come here, spew some rhetoric and call it an argument and then never post again when an actual discussion on what they have said begins. I guess it’s just a demonstration of where our society is at..everyone just wants to assert their opinion as if it’s fact without being willing, able or interested in defending anything they’ve said. Very sad… Thanks for your initial post and taking the time to address each person who has commented on your blog Dr Kruger.

  15. Dr. Kruger,

    Thank you very much for wading into this difficult area. You have exemplified the directive given Christians for this sort of thing (1 Peter 3:15) and you have also shown the “foolishness” of the wisdom of this world (1 Corinthians 1:20).

    I pray for your continued success.

  16. One of the themes that recurs in the comments here is that a gay lifestyle “does no harm”. (Melanie, Joe’s World, Ted, Andrew, et. al.) But there has been extensive research done on the fact that this lifestyle does, in fact, harm its proponents as well as the great society at large.

    1. “A twins study that examined the relationship between homosexuality and suicide, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, found that homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall mental health problems and were 6.5 times more likely than their twins to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not attributable to mental health or substance abuse disorders.” (R. Herrell, et al., “A Co-Twin Study in Adult Men,” Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.)
    2. “A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.” (Lettie L. Lockhart et al., “Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.
    3. “In their book “Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence”, Island and Letellier postulate that “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.” (D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991): 14.)

    And the very institution of marriage is damaged:

    4. The myth of monogamy among gay “marriages” is that only 4.5% of homosexual males are monogamous whereas 75.5% of heterosexual married males and 85% of married females remain faithful to their vows. (Sources: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170.)
    5. The average homosexual “married” male has 3-5 extracurricular sexual encounters each year. (David H. Demo, et al., editors, Handbook of Family Diversity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000): 73.)
    6. Where gay “marriages” are allowed, few of the marriages actually take place. In Vermont, where gay marriages have been sanctioned for years, “…only about 21 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont has entered into civil unions. Put another way, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions.” (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)
    7. By contrast, in Vermont, heterosexual married couples outnumber cohabiting couples by a margin of 7 to 1, indicating a much higher level of desire on the part of heterosexual couples to legalize their relationships. (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)

    And society as a whole is damaged:

    8. In Canada, the damage done to free speech rights by the gay agenda is enormous. McLean’s magazine and columnist Mark Steyn had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves against “tribunals” whose only job is witch hunting.
    9. Teachers are no longer free to teach but have to indoctrinate students on the acceptable ideology.
    10. Parents are no longer free to teach their children as they wish for fear of ruinous witch hunts against their families. (More info at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/)

    So the “no harm” argument in favor of gay rights fails on every front. And we owe it to each other to know the truth of the matter
    .
    Blessings,

  17. “There is nothing discriminatory about telling someone they are wrong.”
    This is exactly where the battle over homosexual marriage came from. You think you can tell other people how to live and what to believe because it is what you believe. The true battle here is freedom of religion. Because your holy book says it is wrong, you feel everyone must follow it, but this country was founded on the tenant of religious tolerance and acceptance; not forcing others to think and believe as you do.

    • Andrew,

      There is an incredible irony in your post. You are frustrated that I would tell someone they are “wrong.” But you are busy doing precisely the same thing. You think those who believe in traditional marriage only are wrong. Those who oppose homosexuality are wrong. Certain laws of government are wrong. And on and on. How, with a straight face, can you chide me for declaring something to be wrong, when you are so busy doing it yourself?

      We just need to be honest about the fact that both sides think they are right, and they both think the other is wrong. There is nothing inappropriate about this. What is inappropriate is to pretend that you are not doing this and that only the other side is.

      If both sides are making moral claims about right and wrong (and they are), then the real question is, “Which side has a credible basis to make moral claims?” Throughout this post I have challenged folks to come up with a credible foundation for morals apart from God. So, what is your foundation?