The latest social issue to take the news by storm, gay marriage, is yet another example of the progressives attempt to manipulate a discussion to get a favorable result. This is the common tactic of progressives. Frame the discussion so that the populace will sympathize with their view. The uneducated populace who so many lack the ability of critical thinking are easily duped.
The argument from the progressives are that gays should be allowed to marry; simply put, they already are. Those who identify themselves as gay can get married. It is not illegal for them to do so. If two people of the same sex stand before someone and say some form of vows and that person or persons proclaim them to be married, no one is going to arrest them coming out of the building. A protester interviewed stated that he had come here from Iran where he and his partner were not allowed to get married. He was horrified that in America they too were telling him what he could and could not do. But the truth is, they are not telling him what he can and cannot do. If he wants to marry another man, go ahead. There is literally no one stopping him from doing so. It is already legal for people of the same sex to get married.
So then why do we hear in the news that the battle is to make it legal for people of the same sex to get married? Because the progressives want to make it a matter of persecution. If they can present themselves as the persecuted, then America will sympathize with them. We always feel for the persecuted. But they are not being persecuted.
The real argument is not about whether people of the same sex can get married. It is about whether they will get benefits awarded or regulated by the government that are related to married couples – hardly a matter of persecution. Tell the Christians in Sudan this is what you call persecution and see what they say. The proponents of this argument and their allies, the progressives want the government, and ultimately society to validate their marriage. “Well what gives the government the right to say marriage is one thing and not another?” A typical progressive approach to a debate. If we in America still had the ability to think critically and logically we would see right through this statement on two levels. First, by definition, since the government is an organization they have to define things. That is what organizations do. They define things that are relevant to their existence. Government defines things all the time. If you are below a certain level of income you are defined as being in poverty – and you receive certain benefits. Ironically enough this is a definition the progressives fight for ferociously. Try saying we are no longer going to define certain people as poor for the purpose of awarding benefits and see what happens. So the government defines what marriage is because by definition they define things that are effected by policies. Secondly, since by definition the government (or any organization) must define things that relate to policies, there has to be some criteria. Could the government define marriage to include people of the same sex? Absolutely; and they could also define it as one man and sixteen women, or one woman and sixteen men. They could also define it as a man and a child or a woman and a child; pretty much any combination is possible. But a definition has to have a limit, a set criteria or else it is not a definition. Because it is related to policies the government is forced to define marriage.
So the real argument from the progressives is that they disagree with government’s definition of marriage and they want it changed to meet their criteria. But they cannot present the argument to the public in this way because the masses would not see them as persecuted or victims and they would not have their sympathy. They must say that gays ar not allowed to get married because the government says so. This is simply not true; it is an intentional lie. Government has decided to define marriage as one man and one woman because they believe this is what is best for society (in reality many politicians go along with this out of political expediency; nevertheless, it is politically expedient because the majority of society, their voting constituents believe this way). Government does this all the time. For example, people who have a mortgage get to deduct that from their income tax because government believes owning a home is a good thing for the economy.
Homosexuals already can get married. They are pressing, not for the right to get married, but to have that marriage added to the government’s definition of marriage. They will ultimately win that argument. We are not going to stop it. Those of us who oppose such things, specifically on the grounds of morality need to stop depending on the government to do our job. When the government recognizes same sex marriage as legitimate, we don’t have to. We can speak against such things, as we should. We should speak against all manner of destructive sin – not just homosexuality. We must speak the message of freedom, of deliverance from sin, all sin. We have been far too timid and compliant. Our goal is not simply to offend nor to defend our position. But we recognize the destructive nature of sin. To remain silent is to allow people to die in their sin whilst we remain complacent in our self righteousness.