Gay Marriage Debate Reframed

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the gay marriage thing. Well, I can’t hardly NOT think about it since it’s being shoved in my face every day in a variety of ways.

My basic attitude is one of “live your life like you want, just keep it to yourself.” I know that sounds a little different than the standard Christian approach of beating people over the head with the Bible (or more usually selected texts of the Bible). I’ll tell you what is right, and what the Bible says. But I really don’t care if you want to be homosexual or whatever. I don’t care either that you want to live with someone of the same gender and call it marriage. What I object to is being forced to recognize anything you are doing as good or acceptable. I object to using government to force recognition of your perversion. Go ahead and pervert all you want, but keep me and society at large out of it.

To reframe the debate over gay marriage I propose defining marriage properly. Definitions like a “commitment to one another” or a civil union or even “one man and one woman” miss the boat as far as I’m concerned. Marriage should be defined according to its nature, that is, monogamy. Marriage is actually a sexual commitment. One sex partner, indefinitely. Adultery then is still defined as straying outside of that commitment, and worthy of divorce. This not only hits at the heart of the subject, it also hits at the nature of homosexuality without really trying.

Why? The entire homosexual lifestyle promotes serial adultery. Monogamy is anathema to them. Homosexual authors, writing about homosexual marriage, stress that a homosexual marriage is only healthy if there is no “sexual ownership of each other.” Each partner must be free to engage in sex with as many partners as they wish. And they do. The average homosexual has anywhere from a little over one hundred partners to as many as 1,000 in a lifetime. The average is estimated at about three or four hundred.

So if we properly define marriage as sexual fidelity that would probably make most homosexuals shut up about marriage. If they want marriage, let ’em have it. They just have to stay dedicated to one sex partner indefinitely. Equally, like everyone else.

Shalom,
Bruce