A Principle of Logic
We must begin today introducing to you a principle of logic: it is known as reductio ad absurdum. In simple English, it means to "reduced to an absurdity." The idea is relatively simple; if you start with first principles in your argument, then proceed in a logically correct way to a set of conclusions, and those conclusions are obviously absurd — then your principles are wrong.
My mother had a simple way of putting this. Whenever I would come up with some great new theory about how to do things, she would wait until I had reasoned my way through to the point where something was going to go wrong. As a young teenager I was sure my logic was correct, and therefore made the mistake of assuming that my conclusions were too. She would then point out to me that my conclusions would force me to do something stupid. She would follow this with motherly wisdom: "don't do dumb things." It is precisely that principle I wish to bring to you today. The basic assumptions which support homosexual marriage are flawed; we will show this by pointing out the absurdities to which they lead.
The modern movement which we might call sexual liberation is based upon three simple principles:
· Sex is primarily for pleasure. That is to say the primary purpose of sex is pleasure. Procreation is an incidental byproduct of pleasure — even when it is a desired byproduct.
· Men and women are interchangeable parts. Women can fly airplanes, march in combat, serve in the Senate, and many other things that used to be the exclusive province of men. Therefore, they are interchangeable parts, and thus sexual relations between two men carries the same meaning as sexual relations between a man and a woman.
· Sex is a 100% personal matter. Society has no interest in, and therefore no right to regulate, sexual relations between any two or more people. Note that this is not a practical principle (in the sense that society is not able to regulate, due to the difficulty of regulation) but a moral and political one. It says, rather proudly, what I do sexually is no one else's business. This has great appeal to Americans who value their freedom so much.
It is our purpose this morning to show that these principles lead to absurd and indeed dangerous conclusions. In particular, homosexual marriage as a legal principle sanctifies and these principles into the law. The consequences of that sanctification into law are the disasters we are now suffering.
The Necessary Results
We may examine these arguments one by one:
The Sexual Revolution Becomes Law
The point here is simple: by legalizing homosexual marriage, and declaring it to be the equivalent of ordinary marriage, we make the principles of the sexual revolution permanent in our legal system. In other words, from here on out, we legally require what up until now has been optional. Consider the impact the sexual revolution has made on our society:
· Divorce has risen from a minor problem to the point where now half of all marriages end in divorce — with all the consequent trouble caused by that. The result of broken marriages upon our children — and the resultant delinquency rate — is just the beginning.
· We were told that legalizing abortion would make it "safe legal and rare." Rare is now defined as over 1 million abortions per year. If you believe that life begins at conception, this is a horrific slaughter.
· 40% of all children born in America are borne out of wedlock. Most of the time this means they will be raised without a father. The effects on our children are well-known and disastrous. This will simply make it worse, as we shall see.
· Pornography is now endemic in American society. Interestingly, radical feminists see this as a threat to women — something Christians could've told them 50 years ago. It reduces women, in men's eyes, to a piece of meat.
If homosexual marriage is legalized, it is obvious that the basis for marriage is now sex. Practically any preacher with counseling experience can tell you what happens next: marriage becomes exceedingly fragile. Any other consideration in law is eliminated. Therefore, it becomes legitimate both in court and in society's eyes for a man to divorce his wife because she no longer sexually fulfills him. Put that in simple English: when she ceases to be a babe, he's entitled to look for a new trophy wife. Women become disposable — and angry.
The Great Divide Between Men and Women
If homosexual marriage becomes normal, in the moral sense, then it must be concluded that men and women are not really "made for each other." The romantic premise of the last 800 years in Western civilization is therefore false. The idea that the complete and total woman appeals to the complete and total man (and vice versa) is now false. Sex alone matters, and it doesn't matter what sex you are. Let me give you a particular example:
In my church, on a number of occasions my wife has been counseled — in all seriousness — to divorce me. In my church. Indeed, on two of those occasions the advice has come from the wives of the church elders. And on what basis did these women tell my wife that she needs to divorce me? On the grounds that otherwise she will "never be fulfilled." In other words, we now say that marriage is a barrier to a woman's accomplishments . She cannot achieve her God-given potential while married. Men are now the enemy of women, where they used to be the complement to women. The Scripture teaches us that it is not good for man to live alone; but modern thought says it is good for a woman to be divorced. Why? Only when she is single can she be sexually active and also fulfilled. This is a consequence of the interchangeable parts nature of our sexuality.
Let me give you a specific example: what does it mean when you see my wife and I walking hand in hand? Three generations ago you would conclude that we were in love. Now however, you must conclude that something is dreadfully wrong and that I am oppressing her. I'm obviously far too possessive of her, and therefore denying her role as an interchangeable part.
The Effect on Chastity
I suppose I must first begin by stating the benefits of Chastity — since our society assumes that there are none. Let me give you just a few: you are much less likely to be shot and killed in a fit of jealousy (and that is the number one cause of murder). You are much less likely to catch venereal diseases, and if your partner practices chastity as well you are completely safe from them. Your children will not be out of wedlock, and therefore have much greater chance of success in this life. Likewise, the husband is much less likely to succumb to "six months disease." That last is the feeling that sets in about six months after marriage when the husband realizes that his wife respects marriage so little that she would sleep with him before marriage. Marriage requires trust; chastity builds trust.
Remember that homosexuality and in particular homosexuals is defined by sexual action. You are a homosexual because you commit homosexual acts. Therefore, if you are to be who you are to be, chastity is prohibited. It now becomes a barrier to righteousness — since homosexuality is righteousness. Taken to its extreme, this now gives us a legal basis to stamp out chastity. After all, how could a high school counselor say to a 13-year-old boy that he should try out homosexuality to see if he is a homosexual, if his parents keep on insisting that he practice chastity? Obviously, chastity is now the problem.
Do you remember David and Jonathan? Their friendship was exceedingly deep; so much so that modern society assumes they must of been homosexual lovers. The only deep relationship between two men that our modern society will allow (and I mean that legally) will be that of homosexuality. Friendship between men — something accepted for thousands of years — must now be interpreted as being a homosexual relationship. Language you see is public. Language is not always spoken however; I wear a wedding ring. It tells you that I married. If I have a close personal friend who is male, modern symbolic language says that must be interpreted as a homosexual relationship. Therefore, both my friend and I will avoid a deep relationship to avoid being misinterpreted in that way. In other words, homosexuality makes deep male friendships impossible. I leave to the women in the audience to determine the effect on female friendships.
All Intercourse Is Permitted
if homosexual marriage is legal, tell me: on what possible grounds would you oppose the following?
· Two men sharing the same wife (I suppose there is some abominable name for this, but I don't know what it is.)
Based on our three principles above, how would you forbid polygamy? The effect of this is to make every man in society an instant bachelor. As long as a man can afford it, based on those three principles, there is no reason to deny him multiple wives. For example, in this age of tolerance how would you forbid a Moslem his religiously permitted four wives? What prevents a man from just simply coming home with a new wife — quite a surprise to the old one, of course, but after all sex is a private matter. We as a society have no reason to forbid this. Indeed, fundamental Mormonism allows quite a bit more in the way of multiple wives; numbers in the 60s are not unknown.
Think how women are going to have to react to that. Your only defense is to make sure you never marry in the first place. And what you do when you grow old, well, I'm not sure.
The Culture of Divorce
By enshrining sex as the basic principle of marriage, we have changed divorce into what is euphemistically called "no-fault divorce." We were told that this would make divorce much simpler for those who have been wrong, but would not increase the divorce rate At all. Let's see; you make it easier and people won't want more of it? The fact is that no-fault divorce is full of abuse. Most men who've been through one will tell you tales that you might not believe. For example, I know of one man who is making the payments on his former house (while he lives in a small, cheap apartment.) His wife lives in the house with her new boyfriend. He's paying child support, but the kids are raising themselves. He's not allowed to see them. Why? Because his wife accused him of child molestation. No evidence was produced, no witnesses testified to it, but her unsupported word was sufficient. We have exchanged the rule of law for the whims of feminism. If we place homosexual marriage on the same basis as ordinary marriage we are asking for more divorce and more abuse.
A Disaster for Childhood
Finally, consider this: homosexual marriage makes a disaster of childhood. It does this in two ways:
· Because we have now divided children into homosexuals and heterosexuals, and categorized all same-sex friendships as homosexual relationships, we force children into sexual behavior at a much earlier age than is normal. Did you know that we force kindergartners in the state of California to be able to define such words as "lesbian, transgender, gay, bisexual?" We force sexual maturity, or at least sexual decisions on children who are completely unready to make them.
· Worse, we forbid the relationship between a teacher and the student (or a mentor and the student) from being anything but sexual. I am not speaking of the prohibition of statutory rape. When I was a beginning teacher, my mentor vividly told me of the principle of "twenty for five” — by which he meant 20 years in prison for 5 min. of sexual pleasure with a student. By making all relationships sexual, however, a male teacher is well advised not to form mentor relationships with a male student. Those relationships, for many student, are absolutely essential to growing up. Think back on your own personal history; is there a teacher you can name who took special interest in you and whose counsel you greatly valued? That teacher today risks being fired for improper conduct; sex with a minor.
· Of course, another logical conclusion of these three principles is that sexual relations with minors are not morally wrong. We have pedophile groups today who proclaim "sex before eight or it's too late." Based on the three principles above, their logic is correct.
I must point out that the pastor at our church would find this document reprehensibly judgmental. He is a stout member of the "emerging church" movement. That movement essentially espouses postmodernism, and in particular the idea that there can be no such thing as absolute truth. Everything is an option. He would, however, probably agree with some of my conclusions — particularly about incest and pedophilia. His principles are superior to his logic at times. The frustration comes when he applies postmodern thinking to this; I suspect I would hear him tell me that I need to stop thinking linearly and start thinking "out of the box." For such a thinker, reductio ad absurdum does not exist. For the rest of us, it is all too clear that absurdum has arrived.