Illogical reasoning

"It means we are able to be called human beings with all the rights of everyone else."
      --Debbie Strom, New York resident, celebrating the state's legalization of same-sex marriages; she and her partner plan to marry (as reported in Time magazine, July 11, 2011, p. 9)

The above quote is so deeply misleading that I need to comment on it. And my point should be acknowledged as being legitimate no matter where a person stands on the issue of homosexuality or even "gay marriage."

Let me explain what I think she means by her quote. Before marriage was legalized in New York,she feels that those homosexual couples who were denied marriage certificates and all the rights of this institution were, in the eyes of the law and therefore society, somehow lesser human beings than married heterosexual couples. This, she assumes, is not right, akin to women not having the right to vote, to blacks having to go to the back of the bus, and to the poor being trampled by the rich. Now that homosexual marriage is legal, the same-sex couples have attained equality because they have freedom to get married to each other, if they'd like. With this as a background, possibly a majority of Americans (even many Christians) might say, "Absolutely right, equal rights for everyone. Preach it."

Oh, please.

Just because homosexuals didn't have the right to marriage didn't mean they were without the same rights as everyone else. In fact, today, many people who are just as sincere as Ms. Strum do not have the same rights in New York that she has. Otherwise, those 25-year-old men who desire to marry their 14-year-old girl friends would be free (in New York or anywhere else in the U.S.) to legally practice what they believe to be moral and right. Yet could we really say these folks who have fewer rights are somehow less than human? What about those men who live in my state who want to marry a second wife? Guess they should be complaining too.After all, what kind of country is this that would make it so difficult to practice polygamy!

Wait, I'm not done. What about those women who desire to marry their second husband? We call that polyandry in this area. Folks wanting this lifestyle can't practice it, legally at least, so are these people deprived? Apparently, if we're going to buy into Ms. Strom's rationale. In fact, those who desire to marry whomever (and however many) they want should all be complaining that they too are less than human beings in this corrupt American system. As they say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Let's be straight-up, Ms. Strom. You were fully human before and you remain fully human after the law was changed by your governor. It's just that you now have the right to get married, whereas before you did not. That's all. Don't make more of it than there really is. And please note: I don't hate homosexuals, even if I happen to disagree with them about this issue. We can disagree without hating. Or, should I consider homosexuals who disagree with me as hating me? This is ridiculous.

This leads me to this question: Why is it that most homosexual advocates don't campaign for open marriage between sisters and brothers or child brides? Perhaps the homosexual advocates ought to rewrite the definition of marriage this way:

"Marriage can be defined as being between a man and a woman, two men, two women, two women and a man, a dog and his owner, or, quite frankly, any way the individual wishes to define his or her union with another/others as long as it brings such a person contentment"?

And in California, my old state, the governor is going to sign a bill (if he hasn't already) about a requirement to teach homosexual history in the California public schools. There is a provision in the bill as well saying that nothing negative can be taught on the issue of homosexual history. Can anyone say, "indoctrination"?

I taught in a California public college for eight years and worked alongside fellow English professors from a variety of backgrounds: homosexuals, environmentalists, and general liberals, just to name a view. All of them openly advocated their viewpoints in the classroom, even attempting to persuade their charges. (Ask my daughter who just finished her second year at this school what this is like--she has plenty of stories.)

Imagine the uproar if a bill was proposed saying, in effect, that a teacher cannot say anything negative about political conservatives, Evangelical Christians, or (shudder) those who disagree with homosexual marriage! The uproar would be deafening. But since being a homosexual somehow makes the person a "minority," anything that is said about a particular group in what could be taken in a negative fashion (even if it's just simple disagreement) is considered "hate speech."

Somebody please tell me, how did we get here?

Packer's speech causes uproar in Utah

Recently Mormon senior LDS Apostle Boyd Packer gave a speech from his chair at the October General Conference that explained the church’s stance on homosexuality. Inferring that homosexuals can decide to be celibate and not fulfill their fleshly desires, he said, “There is also an age-old excuse: ‘The devil made me do it.’ Not so! He can deceive you and mislead you, but he does not have the power to force you or anyone else to transgress or to keep you in transgression.”


He added, “It is to be shared only and solely between man and woman, husband and wife, with that one who is our companion forever. On this the gospel is very plain. We are free to ignore the commandments, but when the revelations speak in such blunt terms, such as ‘thou shalt not,’ we had better pay attention.”

Packer also talked about pornography, but it was his words on homosexuality that threw many from Utah into a tither. Yes, there are thousands of homosexuals living in this state, more than many people would imagine, and they’re still miffed about the church’s involvement in California’s Proposition 8 that was defeated last year, thanks in no small part to the efforts of the LDS Church.

Many of these folks ringed downtown’s Temple Square during the following week, claiming that Packer’s words were delivered at a time when several teens from around the country who had been wrestling with their sexuality recently committed suicide. They were angry, saying Packer’s insensitive words were delivered at a delicate time. A petition with more than 100,000 signatures was even delivered to church offices—like, that’s going to change the LDS leaders’ minds!—to ask for an apology. Almost every day, the event somehow continues to make the front page of the newspaper I read, the Salt Lake Tribune, while letters from angry readers about this issue appear regularly in the editorial pages.

The church has pretty much said since its inception that homosexuality is a sin. Critics could certainly point to the time when the church once advocated polygamy—the leaders even practiced it until1904, even though the prophet said not to do it anymore after 1890. Yes, the church has not always taught the “plain” gospel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But I can’t recall a time when this church ever promoted homosexuality.

Thus, I’m not sure why the activists got all frothy and offended while condemning everyone who disagrees with their position. Perhaps it’s a desperate attempt to change the church’s stance. Or maybe they just love blood in the water and a contrived feeding frenzy to attack a church that’s in its political way.

Here’s the point. Packer certainly wasn’t trying to stop anyone outside the church from practicing their homosexuality. He was saying that a person who wants to be a Mormon and remain in good standing just can’t do this.  Isn’t the church allowed to state the rules for its own members? The common argument I’m hearing during these past few weeks is that homosexuality is an inborn character trait, so those Latter-day Saints shouldn’t have to fight against their tendencies. But this is a weak argument. In fact, everyone is born with tendencies to do the wrong things because we’re sinners (Rom 3:23). Calling himself a “wretched man,” Paul wrestled with his sinful nature and concluded at the end of Romans 7, “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

I like to use the example of pedophilia to make this point. Suppose I agree with NAMBLA and felt I was born as a pedophile, believing my practice of sex with young boys to be moral as long as it took place between two loving people and nobody was hurt. I argue thusly: “If I’m born with this tendency, I should be able to practice it. Who are you to judge me or what an appropriate age is to have sex!” Imagine criminals using a similar defense in the court of law—“Judge, I can’t help my stealing, it’s just part of who I am, so I’m obviously innocent of the charges.” Can you see the problem?

And just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I hate you (i.e. “homophobia”). After all, Packer didn’t say he hates homosexuals. He never attacked any person. Rather, he said the behavior was wrong.

Ladies and gentlemen, we can’t be so thin-skinned and agitated when people disagree with our ideology. Defend your position without getting personalities involved. It makes for a much better debate.