Two Contradictory Examples of How Gay Marriage Is Being “Debated” Today

Gay activists intent on redefining marriage and thereby marginalizing and stigmatizing Christian viewpoints on family, marriage and sexuality are utilizing some very contradictory arguments these days. Consider these two examples I came across recently which illustrate the point well.

Example 1: John Shore, author of “UNFAIR: Why the ‘Christian’ View of Gays Doesn’t Work” embeds a video of an emotionally distressed young man who has cut himself, been bullied, and even considered suicide at times. Shore proceeds to write this, addressing Christians:

Tell me that your belief system didn’t help put the hot tears on this kid’s cheeks. Tell me that the bullies who torment this kid aren’t in any way encouraged or empowered by your tacit approval of their actions. Tell me that the shame this kid feels about himself has nothing to do with the shame that you believe all gay people should feel for themselves.

… Tell me, please, how none of this kid’s anguish has anything to do with you.

… need I even respond to this libel? And yet, there are so many more examples like this of gay activists deciding they understand what Christians think (when they don’t) and attacking Christians for something Christians don’t believe. Notice how all Christians are to blame (supposedly) for the actions of bullies and the sadness in this young man’s life. There is a growing effort by gay activists to claim that the blood of teen suicides is on the heads of Christians who oppose redefining marriage.

Example 2 — Barry Deutcsh of FamilyScholars decides to unilaterally establish the parameters for how sexuality, marriage and gay-issues ought to be discussed:

There are some arguments no reasonable person makes anymore. A person arguing that consensual gay sex is intrinsically immoral and perverse has disqualified themselves from reasonable debate. In mainstream society this is a settled question, and there’s no longer any need for any LGB person or ally to answer such arguments anymore (except perhaps with a raised finger).

… well, isn’t that novel? Any articulation of the Old Testament, New Testament and Christian tradition about the purpose of human sexuality is simply off the table! Christians, says this author, are simply not allowed to use arguments or moral principles from their own tradition. This same author has the audacity to describe his pre-conditions as a reasonable litmus test for having a “civil discussion” on redefining marriage.

I can’t think of anything more ironic than those who claim to have established the civil method of debating marriage (example 2) simultaneously blaming their Christian interlocutors for the bullying of children (example 1). Christians are told to abandon their tradition (in the name of “civility”) and accept these sorts of libels constantly spread about them — simultaneously!

A final point: there is remarkably little self-monitoring in the gay rights movement, even as gay activists continually attempt to smear Christians with a broad brush: if one crazy street preacher claims all people who experience same-sex attraction are cursed by God, for instance, all Christians share that belief, they claim. This type of guilt by association attack comes up time and time again. And yet, gay activists almost never condemn the tactics their fellow gay activists employ to attack and marginalize Christians.

If gay activists actually want to have a civil debate on marriage, they can begin by ceasing to claim that every hurt visited on young people is the responsibility of Christians, and acknowledging our right to use our own tradition and moral principles as a guide.

I’m not asking them for permission, I’m asking us to call them out when they violate any of these simple, objective principles for debating in good faith. A mark of hypocrites is that they always are quick to point out perceived hypocrisy. Maybe that’s why the charge of hypocrisy is the most common attack gay activists attempt to level at their Christian opponents.



  • Susie

    If I could jump in… does John Shore ever consider that the reason the child harms himself is because he does not like being gay? Is that something he could ever consider? And as far as bullying – I’m coming to realize that as with so many other things, behaviors that schools are supposedly trying to decrease, are instead increasing to unreal levels. Bullying is one of them. Kids don’t just bully gays or those thought to be gay. Whites bully blacks. Blacks bully whites. Girls bully girls for any and no reason. If you read the papers or talk to your school-age children, you will be amazed at the way kids talk to and about each other. More and more children are exhibiting incredibly uncivilized behavior. If John Shore cares about that young man, he will want to know the real reason our society is going into such decline. It’s not because kids, or their parents, are getting more religious.

  • Bruce

    A question for all those supporting homosexual “marriage.” I am Catholic, and I believe and accept Church teaching when she calls me to love God and my neighbor. I also believe and accept Church teaching which characterizes homosexuality as a disorder and a source of pain and suffering for those afflicted with it. I follow her when she calls me to love homosexuals by helping them to live chaste lives. Chastity outside of marriage (which can only occur between a man and a woman) requires a person to abstain from all sexual activity. Why on earth, then, would I promote homosexuals forming relationships involving sinful and disordered sexual acts?

    • Greg B.

      No one is saying that you can’t follow what the church teaches, no matter how misguided it may be. Nobody is asking you to promote homosexuality. But you don’t have the right to provide “help” gays and lesbians when they don’t want or need it. You just have to accept the fact that what is considered right and just under Catholic doctrine and what is right and just under civil law are not always the same thing. In this case, they’re in direct conflict. But that’s ok. As difficult as this is for some devout Catholics to accept, the two don’t have to agree. Catholics aren’t the gate keepers to civil rights.

      • Bruce

        Well, Greg, Catholics live in the same nation you live in. We have a right to our opinions and our votes count to. To suggest that we cannot vote according to how we believe, but you can, is to be discriminatory. Everything is cool, as long as it supports YOUR view and YOUR opinions, right? Nope. We believe our view of the world is THE view of the world and we have a right and a duty to share it and promote it. You cannot stop us, even if you kill us. We have a long history, perhaps you could read up on it.

      • Irishtroubadour

        Greg B.:: Read Isaiah 9:6 which states “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Notice how it says how the Government shall be upon his shoulders, everything under the civil law is suppose to coexist what is under the Catholic Church’s doctrines. If it were that way, things would be pretty good in the world. But, alas, there is always a Martin Luther, whose has good intentions, just bad timing, and bad communication skills. It’s nice that Gays and Lesbians might not want or needed it, but that’s like saying someone who needs help, refusing. The Catholic Church agrees, civil law doesn’t. Why, because our Civil Law is still in its Adolescent Rebellious Phase. The Catholic Church, well she’s one tough cookie, and definatly has the age and wisdom, because she’s like a parent, watching her kids do stupid things over and over again. But what Adolescent wants to listen to their parents?



Receive our updates via email.