The Same-sex Conundrum II

If you were to reduce the argument of the same-sex community down to its core you would find the word equality. This word is all too familiar to us in this country given our history of racial discrimination. The homosexual community even attempts to use the history of Jim Crow laws and racism against blacks to bolster their position as another minority being discriminated against. Far be it for me to marginalize the hate or discrimination gays may face, but let’s be real. There have never been gay water fountains, or “straight people only” bathrooms. I have never seen homosexuals by law have to step off the sidewalk because straight couples were walking by, or get their food handed to them out of the back door of a restaurant because straight men and women were being served in the main dining hall. It seems the inequality lies in the comparison gays are attempting to make between themselves and blacks. First, discrimination by race is inherently more likely because race can be determined by sight with very little to no knowledge required about someone otherwise. Sexual orientation however, requires a level of intimate knowledge about an individual. Therefore a gay person could choose to conceal their sexual preference and evade discrimination altogether in many cases. Blacks never had such a luxury. This matter of choice also extends to another point concerning gays using the history of blacks. Never have blacks or any race for that matter ever chosen their color. They were born that way! I know there are those proponents in the gay community who would say the same, but in the words of one anonymous black woman in a public debate about this subject, “You have never seen an ex-black.” Despite these glaring differences the debate continues with equality at its foundation.

But what equality are they aiming for and at what cost to society? How can you give equal ground to two different unions with vast inherent and irreversible inequities  between them as it pertains to the contribution they make to society? One being the ability to produce offspring, which is not insignificant since the perpetuation of the human race is wholly dependent on it.  And what about the values that have been passed down over thousands of years from the incentives that having children creates. The incentive to work, save, sacrifice and pass on some degree of assets to ones offspring has been the life blood of civilization as men/women desire their children to live better than they did. I know of no stronger incentive for good than the look in a child’s eye who is wholly dependent on you to provide his/her welfare.  We must face the fact that we live in a world held together by the values and motivation we inherit from our families. So what is the cost of changing all the social structures that have been suited for the marriage of men and women, and the values it creates, to include a union that has no inherent ability to contribute the same incentives to society?

Almost no one will argue that Christianity is to be credited with the way in which we think about family today. Consequently it is Christianity that is in the cross-hairs of the homosexual community. Many of them claim that the biblical model of marriage is restricting, and obsolete. They say the exclusivity that the Bible encourages one to have with their spouse of the opposite sex is antiquated and not in step with the times. But if this is true then it begs to question, why do they want to get married?

10 Responses to “The Same-sex Conundrum II”

  1. Micah Stewart

    Awesome thoughts Iran! I’ve never understood homosexuals at all. For two men to “be gay,” one has to act like a woman. By definition doesn’t that defeat the purpose?


  2. NotAScientist

    ” One being the ability to produce offspring, which is not insignificant since the perpetuation of the human race is wholly dependent on it.”

    This would be a valid argument if you had to be married to legally have children, or if infertile couples couldn’t be legally married, or gay couples couldn’t adopt.

    “But if this is true then it begs to question, why do they want to get married?”

    Because marriage existed prior to Christianity, and it has become something else socially within our country. And given the fact that people can get legally married with no attachment to your religion or any religion, why not?


    • cultureandconvictions

      Thanks for commenting and visiting the site. While I think adoption is great it doesn’t perpetuate the human race… Also the perpetuation of the human race encompasses more than just the addition of lives but it entails the perpetuation of values that effect those lives for the good. You don’t have to be married to legally have children, but any society that attempts to abandon the commitment and values that marriage encourages and just have kids out of wedlock cannot expect to remain at its best. I think we are seeing that played out before us today…lastly infertile couples can still bear children in principle but same-sex unions cannot.

      You are right marriage existed before Christianity, but it is Christianity that contributed to the marriage model we espouse today. Christianity introduced mutual consent and not arrangement as it gave equality to both partners (heterosexual). It also introduced exclusivity or monogamy between the two. You will be hard pressed to find a civilization untouched by Christianity where those ideas are features of marriage. These are precisely the features that same-sex couples are fighting for. This is why I asked the question. How is it that the same-sex community can borrow from the Christian worldview (whether they are aware of it or not) the things that serve their cause and not accept the part about marriage being between a man and woman?


  3. Carolyn Franklin

    Thank you Mr. Pitre for your response to the above argument. I learned quite a bit from your statements. What I hope it does encourages is a quest for knowledge, especially among Christians. A lot of what I hear from others is can be attributed to simple ignorance. If this country’s citizens understood that the freedoms that we enjoy, the Constitution itself, and other areas such as, business ethics, our system of education, and other areas that we consider “secular” have a biblical foundation, hopefully they wouldn’t be so quick to cry out for “change”. By they way, have you and your wife ever considered teaching a class on apologetics?


  4. djoaquin

    I really enjoyed this Pastor! I believe this entire fight is get society at large to say the homosexual lifestyle is “okay”. I see the statement, “how can love be wrong?” all the time. The real question is, “how can sin be right?”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

%d bloggers like this: