bronx_ marriage_rally_bannerGreat thoughts from D.C. Innes, the associate professor of politics at The King’s College in New York, who attended the traditional marriage rally in the Bronx, NY opposing the plan to make same sex marriage legal in that state.  He tackled the issue of same sex marriage being presented as a civil rights issue dead on.

Advocates of the change present same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue. They ask, if you can, why can’t we? …

But there’s a problem. It’s not marriage. As I enjoyed my first and perhaps final stroll through the Bronx, I searched for a plausible analogy and settled on another unique human relationship: the church. In our society, churches have certain tax advantages over other organizations and a respectability that not every organization has. What homosexuals want is comparable to insurance companies demanding that they too be recognized as churches. This would improve their public image and their bottom line at the same time. There is a surface resemblance, no? Like churches, they have buildings, they bring in money, and they take care of people.

But there’s a problem. They are not churches. There is something essential to a church that does not and cannot happen in an insurance company as an insurance company, namely the worship of God. So, too, there is something essential to marriage that does not and cannot happen in an intimate, homosexual friendship, namely reproduction. Granted, there are heterosexual couples who cannot have children. But that is an accident of nature. In homosexual couples, it is a principle of nature.

7 comments
  1. I’m not really sure what to think about the gay marriage issue. I’m not really sure if it is something you develop or something you are born with. 

    1. It isn’t something to be born with..There is no gay gene and gay attitudes arise once those people engage in the sin. A person acquires those lifestyle attitudes such as: feminine speech, limp wrists, etc.

  2. How is the church/insurance company analogy at all germane to this argument?  From what I understand, the SSM proponents not asking for a special class of marriage with any additional benefits not offered to man-woman marriages.  Procreation can happen inside of a marriage, true.  It can also occur outside of it, as former Gov. Schwarzenegger can attest.  Further, it is entirely possible for both members of a same-sex marriage to procreate, and many do, utilizing methods that medical science have made available to them.

    I work for an insurance company and attend church.  I think the author’s argument is stupid and slightly demeaning to both churches and insurers.  Additionally, it does absolutely nothing to refute the civil rights argument.  He attempts, and fails, to make a cute and salient point.  All he does is end up looking like a fool.

  3. I think the church/insurance analogy is quite accurately germane to homosexual marriage argument. I mean the American people have said time and time again that they only recognize marriage between a man and a woman. We said with Prop 8 and the Supreme Court said it with DOMA. I mean it’s quite asinine and offensive that homosexuals try to link their choice with that of being black, as to an appeal to emotions from others. Frankly, I think it’s sickening that the American people are basically being forced to recognize homosexuality as a norm, and furthermore call anyone who doesn’t agree with the choice a ‘homophobic’. We hear on the radio,the television and in the papers; I mean the agenda of the homosexuals is attempting to brainwash everyone into validating their sexual acts which the American people will not stand for, as we have and will prove time and time again.

  4. That is an interesting analogy–and a pretty good one at that.  I wouldn’t call it a dead ringer, but it certainly adds value to the discussion.  

    Since the beginning of humankind, homosexual behavior has been considered deviant by just about every society, and the ones who embraced it eventually ended up falling.  Of course, there’s a difference between the homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior.  The Bible condemns the latter, but is silent on the former.  The homosexual orientation is an emotional illness that is generally caused by deprivation of love.  Most lesbians didn’t bond properly with their mothers during infancy (because of illness, trauma, etc.), and most homosexual males didn’t get enough masculine love from their fathers or a father-substitute, particularly during puberty.  When developmental needs go unmet, they are brought into adulthood, and the kind of love that the person missed out on is what they will crave the rest of their life.  It’s a really sad position to be in.  The homosexual orientation is not a sin per se, but like diabetes, a broken bone, cancer, etc., it’s nothing to celebrate either, and is something that one should seek healing for (and, to my knowledge, God is the only one who can heal such needs).  

    Anyway, legitimate civil-rights issues involve a characteristic that one is born with.  There is no reliable evidence that anyone is born with the homosexual orientation.  However, some may be more predisposed to it than others (such as males who are highly artistic), just like some may be more predisposed to alcoholism, violence, etc.  But that’s different from saying that those behaviors are genetic.  Anyway, sexual orientation is no more a civil rights issue than preference/indifference toward alcohol is.

    1. “Such as males who are highly artistic”….boy, stereotypes are a real timesaver, aren’t they?
      I find it quite interesting that you opine that there is no reliable evidence for a genetic component to homosexuality, yet you’re perfectly comfortable stating that if I’m gay, it’s because Daddy didn’t love me enough. 
      While I will admit that the media’s labeling of it as the ‘gay gene’ may have gone a bit far, there is actually quite a bit of evidence that certain markers on the X chromosome, as well as chromosome pairs 7, 8, and 10 could contribute to sexual orientation.  It’s not incontrovertible, but little having to do with science is.  I think it’s safe to say that a combination of biology and social structure contribute to one’s orientation.  Additionally, I would say that, if it is indeed a choice, and to go back to the author’s original analogy, why should straight vs. gay be any different than, say, Lutheran vs. Catholic.  You may believe different things, you may have different rituals, different sacraments, but neither of you is an insurance company.  Therefore, both are eligible for the benefits available to all churches.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Sick of Winter?

I shouldn’t even be posting this because I can’t complain.  It’s going…

Discipleship in a Fast-paced World

I just started re-reading a great book called, A Long Obedience in…

Is Freedom of Religion Fading?

On a cold November morning in 1620, one hundred and one British…

Rick Santorum to Author American Patriots: Answering the Call to Freedom

Verona, PA – Patriot Voices Chairman and former Republican presidential candidate Rick…