Dan Popp
Gay is the opposite of married
By Dan Popp
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. — Abraham Lincoln
If we were to write down all the sexual arrangements — excuse me, "lifestyles" — that could be named, and then organize them by similarity, marriage and homosexual behavior would be about as far apart on the paper as we could place them. On the left side of the page would be sodomy, lesbianism, bestiality, pedophilia, orgies and casual "hookups." Way over on the right side all by themselves would be celibacy and marriage.
On this continuum, polygamy would be closer to monogamous marriage than homosexual behavior would be. And I suppose I need to say here that I am not endorsing polygamy in the slightest. God created Adam, then formed Eve — not Eve, Rita, Mabel and Betty. Yes, polygamy was condoned in the Old Testament, but if we take time to read the narratives we'll learn that it invariably brought alarming consequences. The point is that, even when our Creator allowed polygamy, He condemned same-sex sex.
One objection to "gay marriage" is that, if homosexual commitments are to be called marriage, then there's no reason to deny marriage to any collection of people, animals, or other beings. Once the paradigm is about "rights" being "denied," rather than qualifications being recognized, there is no logical limit to the differences that can be declared "equal."
This has been dismissed as a "slippery slope" argument, but it isn't. On a slippery slope, polygamy would be much higher on the hill than the matrimony of two persons of the same sex. A slippery slope argument would be, If we allow one man to marry several women, it won't be long before one woman wants to marry several men. And if both of those are OK, what is to prevent two men from marrying two women? In that case, the two men are married to each other (as well as to the women), and we will have arrived at homosexual marriage. Going from "gay marriage" to polygamy would be moving up the moral slope. That is not this argument. This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning. If you may revise the English language to suit your lusts, then on what basis can you say that others may not do the same? If a tail is henceforth to be called a leg, then a tongue surely is a kind of tail, and an ear will be discovered to be a tongue, and a dog is of course a rhinoceros.
But making nonsense of the language won't magically legitimize immorality.
Sane societies recognize the institution of marriage in order to distinguish the only productive lifestyle from the destructive lifestyles. And, by the way, this is the proper role of government according 1 Peter 2: to "commend those who do right" — to promote righteous behavior — as well as to protect citizens from unrighteous behavior.
Marriage stands against everything else. Every marriage is a testimony to the fact that there is a god; that he created the human species male and female; and that he has revealed a solution to the social turmoil, disease, heartbreak and poverty caused by misuse of his gift of sex. This is true whether we're talking about Christian marriage, Muslim marriage or Hindu marriage. So inventing one's own kind of living arrangement and calling it "marriage" is anti-theistic. It defies not only the biblical God, but the concept of any deity greater than Self.
It also defies nature. Widespread "tolerance" of homosexual practice is a mark of a society's decline and imminent judgment. It is a rejection of reason; it is mass insanity (Romans 1).
When someone must remake the language in order to make his point, he has admitted that he can't win the argument using words in the normal way. Not content with turning the word marriage into babble, our postmodern barbarians do the same thing with the word gay. It originally meant, "carefree." Specifically, it came to designate a person who wasn't tied down with the responsibilities of married life. The old movie title, The Gay Divorcee illustrates this definition. It also meant "debauched" or "dissolute."
Now, gay is not an ugly epithet created by the religious right; it's what homosexuals have chosen to call themselves. It's an unfortunate choice given their current political agenda, because it's a reminder for those who understand the meanings of words that gay is the opposite of married. Marriage may be a lot of fun, but it is not free of responsibilities; so someone who is gay is unmarried by definition, just as someone who is married has chosen the path away from unchastity, including same-sex unchastity.
Isaiah warned, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil" (5:20a, NASB).
Conversely, maybe we could say, "Blessed are those who call things by their right names."
© Dan Popp
August 22, 2011
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. — Abraham Lincoln
If we were to write down all the sexual arrangements — excuse me, "lifestyles" — that could be named, and then organize them by similarity, marriage and homosexual behavior would be about as far apart on the paper as we could place them. On the left side of the page would be sodomy, lesbianism, bestiality, pedophilia, orgies and casual "hookups." Way over on the right side all by themselves would be celibacy and marriage.
On this continuum, polygamy would be closer to monogamous marriage than homosexual behavior would be. And I suppose I need to say here that I am not endorsing polygamy in the slightest. God created Adam, then formed Eve — not Eve, Rita, Mabel and Betty. Yes, polygamy was condoned in the Old Testament, but if we take time to read the narratives we'll learn that it invariably brought alarming consequences. The point is that, even when our Creator allowed polygamy, He condemned same-sex sex.
One objection to "gay marriage" is that, if homosexual commitments are to be called marriage, then there's no reason to deny marriage to any collection of people, animals, or other beings. Once the paradigm is about "rights" being "denied," rather than qualifications being recognized, there is no logical limit to the differences that can be declared "equal."
This has been dismissed as a "slippery slope" argument, but it isn't. On a slippery slope, polygamy would be much higher on the hill than the matrimony of two persons of the same sex. A slippery slope argument would be, If we allow one man to marry several women, it won't be long before one woman wants to marry several men. And if both of those are OK, what is to prevent two men from marrying two women? In that case, the two men are married to each other (as well as to the women), and we will have arrived at homosexual marriage. Going from "gay marriage" to polygamy would be moving up the moral slope. That is not this argument. This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning. If you may revise the English language to suit your lusts, then on what basis can you say that others may not do the same? If a tail is henceforth to be called a leg, then a tongue surely is a kind of tail, and an ear will be discovered to be a tongue, and a dog is of course a rhinoceros.
But making nonsense of the language won't magically legitimize immorality.
Sane societies recognize the institution of marriage in order to distinguish the only productive lifestyle from the destructive lifestyles. And, by the way, this is the proper role of government according 1 Peter 2: to "commend those who do right" — to promote righteous behavior — as well as to protect citizens from unrighteous behavior.
Marriage stands against everything else. Every marriage is a testimony to the fact that there is a god; that he created the human species male and female; and that he has revealed a solution to the social turmoil, disease, heartbreak and poverty caused by misuse of his gift of sex. This is true whether we're talking about Christian marriage, Muslim marriage or Hindu marriage. So inventing one's own kind of living arrangement and calling it "marriage" is anti-theistic. It defies not only the biblical God, but the concept of any deity greater than Self.
It also defies nature. Widespread "tolerance" of homosexual practice is a mark of a society's decline and imminent judgment. It is a rejection of reason; it is mass insanity (Romans 1).
When someone must remake the language in order to make his point, he has admitted that he can't win the argument using words in the normal way. Not content with turning the word marriage into babble, our postmodern barbarians do the same thing with the word gay. It originally meant, "carefree." Specifically, it came to designate a person who wasn't tied down with the responsibilities of married life. The old movie title, The Gay Divorcee illustrates this definition. It also meant "debauched" or "dissolute."
Now, gay is not an ugly epithet created by the religious right; it's what homosexuals have chosen to call themselves. It's an unfortunate choice given their current political agenda, because it's a reminder for those who understand the meanings of words that gay is the opposite of married. Marriage may be a lot of fun, but it is not free of responsibilities; so someone who is gay is unmarried by definition, just as someone who is married has chosen the path away from unchastity, including same-sex unchastity.
Isaiah warned, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil" (5:20a, NASB).
Conversely, maybe we could say, "Blessed are those who call things by their right names."
© Dan Popp
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
