In Behind The Beauty, Cracks Appear, Eric Meyer lamented about homosexual marriage and the ten states who voted for amendments that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. I posted a response to that and Mr. Meyer took exception to some of my comments in a new article, Once With Heads Held High.
He missed my point about the demolition derbies and I admit I did not explicitly state the point. In his original article, he was lamenting about denying homosexuals the pursuit of happiness.
As for the American dream, well, your crusade has tarnished that as well. Remember ï¿½life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? So much for the last of the three. When two people love each other enough to commit their lives to each other, why should anyone else stand in the way of their happiness? And yet we do, as a society. In the name of our discomfort, we impair their happiness. Life and liberty are still mostly assured, although itï¿½s likely Matthew Shepard would choose to disagree, if only he could.
This is what I said in response:
Mr. Meyer then laments how conservatives have shattered the American dream of the pursuit of happiness. I really hope he is not trying to say that every citizen of this country should be unlimited in his or her pursuit of happiness – but that is how his statement seems. I’ve watched a few demolition derbies at the county fair. That looks like it would be fun to do and would make me happy. Does that mean I should be allowed to drive around on the streets and smash into cars? Why was John Wayne Gacy locked up for only doing that which made him happy? Polygamists are happy when they have multiple wives. Why is that prohibited? Men of NAMBLA are happy with little boys. Should we allow those men to pursue their happiness? My children are happy when I let them eat ice cream, cake, cookies, and candy. Am I keeping them from the American dream when I don’t let them eat those things all the time?
The point I was trying to make is there indeed has to be limits on such a pursuit – such as does the pursuit of happiness for one individual cause harm to another. So here explicitly is the point I was trying to make: If what makes one happy causes harm to another, the government has the duty to balance and limit individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Now, one may argue, and many have, that allowing homosexuals to marry harms no one. Evidence to the contrary does indeed exist. Evidence shows that homosexual acts are indeed physically harmful to the participants. Some may argue that well at least they are only hurting themselves and they are consenting adults. First, when they seek healthcare, it affects more than just themselves. Do we then only allow homosexual acts for the rich who can pay for the required healthcare? Second, should we legalize cocaine for those who agree that they will only use cocaine in their own home when they are by themselves? After all, that would be an activity by a consenting adult and no one else is getting hurt. In fact, one could argue that snorting cocaine in the privacy of one’s own house is a better activity than homosexual acts because at least the drug dealer is benefiting from the activity whereas no third party benefits from the homosexual act. That’s where the logic of “two consenting adults” leads. To parallel Mr. Meyer’s extension of my demolition derby example, he said it would be OK to smash up cars on the street if I got permission from all the car owners. Does he believe the drug user should be allowed to use because he received permission from the drug dealer? Is his mantra Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll? Thirdly, in some European countries, homosexual marriages have been legal for many years. Today, we see the results: fewer marriages and more children born out of wedlock in those countries. Studies have shown that children do better in homes with a mother and a father. People want to sacrifice the future generations for their own personal happiness.
In his argument that polygamy won’t be an issue brought on by allowing homosexuals to marry he offers personal opinions as support. He says universities won’t offer free tuition to six spouses of an employee. What happens when the first university does and that university attracts all the top people because of the benefits? Other universities will follow suit. Same with insurance companies. None may have policies for multiple spouses now – mostly because polygamy is illegal – but if it were to become legal because polygamists assert their right to the pursuit of happiness, insurance companies would change. It’s the simple economic law of supply and demand. No supply now because no demand.
He then somehow tries to say polygamy would be OK anyway because most of the Old Testament patriarchs had multiple wives. This would be comical if it wasn’t so sad. I guess he is saying that God approves of it because it is mentioned in the Bible. God did not command those men to marry multiple wives. God never condoned it. In fact in the New Testament, Jesus, the son of God, said that marriage was between one man and one woman.
Mark 10:6-8 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
For those who don’t know, twain means two. Just because something is mentioned in the Bible does not mean God condoned or commanded it. If Mr. Meyer were to read all the Old Testament, he would read about King David and how King David committed adultery and then murder in an attempt to cover up the adultery. Does Mr. Meyer think God condones adultery and murder because it is mentioned in the Bible? I certainly hope not.
Mr. Meyer goes on in an attempt to justify homosexual marriage by saying that a homosexual marriage does not weaken an already existing heterosexual marriage. I concede that my marriage to my wife is not affected by a homosexual marriage in San Francisco. However, if homosexual marriages were allowed, it is not the existing marriages I am concerned about. I am concerned about my children’s generation and grandchildren’s (if the Lord wills I have any) generation. If they grow up in a culture that has a more open view on marriage and thus a more open view on child-rearing, then that generation’s attitude is certainly affected. Marriages are weakened with a more liberal view towards them – for who is to say what limits if any can be imposed on a marriage? The more you expand something, the more it will continue to expand. With weakened marriages, child-rearing is thus affected and future generations will not receive the best upbringing possible. Some may receive adequate upbringing – but not the best. Don’t we all want the best for children?
Mr. Meyer then goes on to quote a court case dealing with marriages based on race and equates marriages based on gender to that. First, different skin color (there is only one human race) is a far cry from different behaviour. People are not born homosexual. People choose their actions. We are not pre-programmed robots with no will. One can argue that people are in fact born with predispositions towards certain things but predisposition towards something is different from being incapable of doing anything else. Because of genetics, some people have a predisposition towards diabetes, but those people can avoid diabetes through a proper diet. Being born a sinner, I have a predisposition to sin. But I am not powerless to avoid sinning. Having trusted Jesus Christ as my saviour, I can overcome temptations and avoid sin. Many times I do not overcome; nevertheless, I am capable. People who are born with dark skin cannot overcome this and thus should be protected by the courts. Equating special rights for homosexuals is demeaning to those who suffered because of skin color and fought the civil rights battle for equal rights.
Bottom line though is that God created us and he sets the rules. We are answerable to God – whether you believe he exists or not, whether you are Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Christian, Catholic, atheist, humanist, Satanist, or whatever. God created them male and female from the beginning. Don’t get mad at me. God made the rules.
Share on Facebook