Questions To Ask Advocates Of Homosexual Marriage (Part 1)

Not all of these questions will be relevant to every advocate of homosexual marriage, since different individuals use different arguments. And you may think of some better questions than mine. But these questions are quick, easy ways to redirect conversations and get people to rethink their position on the issue. Depending on who you're interacting with, you may have to go into more depth.

If homosexuals have a right to marriage, don't bisexuals have a right to polygamy? People often bring up something like polygamy in general or incestuous marriage, but I think that connecting polygamy with bisexuality has some advantages. For one thing, bisexuality is closely related to homosexuality, so raising bisexuality makes people think of the dangers of expanding marriage in a context closely related to one in which they've already accepted an expansion. And bisexuality doesn't carry the sort of social stigma that something like polygamy or incest does. If you present people with a bridge between something they accept, homosexuality, and something they don't accept, polygamy, it may cause them to rethink their position and be more cautious and rational about it.

How is it secular to do something like base our system of government on the notion that we're endowed by our Creator with rights or print "In God We Trust" on our currency? Proponents of homosexual marriage often claim that only secular arguments should be considered when the issue is under dispute. Often, an appeal is made to separation of church and state or the people involved in the discussion are assuming such a concept from the start, as part of the background of their discussion. But societies like the United States aren't secular, nor should they be. The government often operates in explicitly religious ways, or more subtly with religious motives, and voters frequently decide how to vote based on religious grounds. When societies legislate against something like murder or theft, their motives often involve what would sometimes be classified as secular arguments, but religious motivations are involved as well. In the United States, most states currently don't recognize homosexual marriage. Do they have some motives that could be categorized as secular? Yes, and they have some religious motivations. The idea that governments and voters can't make judgments and act on matters of public policy based on religious grounds is irrational, unlivable, unconstitutional, and contrary to how our nation has always operated and continues to operate.

Sometimes people will try to get around what I've outlined above by shifting the focus from secularism to religious pluralism. Supposedly, it's acceptable to do something religious, like base our system of government on the notion that we're endowed by our Creator with rights or print "In God We Trust" on our currency, because such actions are religiously pluralistic. But religious pluralism isn't the same as secularism. By changing the subject to religious pluralism, the previous argument is being abandoned. And in what way is something like printing "In God We Trust" on our currency religiously pluralistic? Not all religious belief systems involve God or a God active in human affairs, in whom we'd trust. If all that's required is that a governmental action be religiously pluralistic in the sense that it reflects the beliefs of more than one religion, then opposition to homosexual marriage qualifies. It's not as though Christianity is the only religious belief system that opposes homosexual marriage.

But other people will argue that while secularism isn't required, it's beneficial from a practical standpoint when arguing over an issue like homosexual marriage. If you get into a dispute on the subject with an atheist or liberal Protestant, for example, that person won't agree with your religious arguments. But why would he have to agree with those arguments upfront? I can make a case for my view of Christianity, then make a case for the view of homosexual marriage that follows from my Christianity. It's not as though I have to limit myself to whatever my opponent already agrees with me about at the beginning of the discussion. An opponent of homosexual marriage may choose to limit himself to arguments of a more secular nature in some contexts. That could make sense. But there's no requirement that he do so in every context.

Christians can essentially approach this subject much the same way Jesus approached the issue of taxing in Matthew 22:15-22. Show me a dime. What does it say on it? I'll make my case against homosexual marriage just as secular as the government's currency. As long as we're printing "In God We Trust" on our currency (among other religious activities by the government), don't talk to me about secularism.