Why, DB, are you so willing to deny the benefits of marriage to those persons who are constitutionally unable to handle any other than multiple sexual partners? And why limit marriage to those in long-term loving relationships? Do not the demands of inclusivity call for abandoning such atavistic and bigoted limitations? If you really want to embrace those on the sexual margins, you really need to move beyond them.

Judging on literary grounds alone, this is brilliant satire, whether you agree with Pastor Speckhard or not.

The comparison to interracial marriage is phony, as is every other attempt to equate sexual persuasion with race. People of two different skin colors can still generate children by the marriage; people of the same sex can’t. As hard as so many people have tried to make it otherwise, reproduction is still part of the foundation of marriage, and the biggest reason why “gay marriage” is an oxymoron.

Yes, we all know that racial bigots — who weren’t all Christian conservatives (let’s not re-write history)! — opposed mixed marriages, for reasons that were neither religiously justified nor scientifically valid. But even if the integrity of the sciences had not been compromised by social-action interest groups, we would still have valid religious grounds not to call same-sex unions “marriages”. Yes, some form of committed long-term relationship is better than promiscuity. But it would be even better not to abuse the gift of sex. And it still wouldn’t justify calling that relationship a “marriage”.

The “satirist” is absolutely correct about one thing. That is the generation coming up now is indeed eschewing arguments (biblical or otherwise) against equal rights for all people, whether they be in the arena of marriage, housing, jobs, whatever. Thank God for that.

And as for my Anglican brother, if you don’t see the striking similarity between the arguments used against interracial marriage then and same-sex marriage today (it’s unnatural,etc.), then perhaps you need to do some serious Googling and look up the arguments made then and now and compare them side by side. And what statistics are you referring to in regard to same-sex marriage and promiscuity? Are they from a “we can convert you gays to straights” group? A good dose of common sense is in order here.

E.g.:

1. How is gay marriage like interracial marriage?
2. Who were the conservative Christians who were against interracial marriage? Did they rely on Biblical bases to do so? Do they represent a majority or fringe of the whole population of Christians? (Oh, and back to #1: so what?)
3. What evidence do you have that gay marriage moves gays away from promiscuity toward loving relationships (especially in light of the statistics that seem to indicate to the contrary)?
4. Why is it “sad” that people disagree with your preference and perceive your position as logically (and scripturally) indefensible?

Just wondering.

And happy new year!

Gay marriage is akin to interracial marriage, not to sexual promiscuity.

Christian conservatives opposed interracial marriage half a century ago, and we all know they were wrong.

The gay marriage movement is a move away from promiscuity and toward loving relationships, not the reverse.

The first time I ever visited the website of the Church of Sweden, there was an advertisement on the site for, I kid you not, “Sex Tourism in Stockholm.” I have no idea whether it is still there now, but it was as of about the middle of 2002.

So your spoof is closer to reality than you might have thought.