Alan Shlemon: Same-Sex Marriage – Echo Zoe Ministries

Alan_Shlemon

Alan Shlemon, of Stand to Reason, returns to Echo Zoe Radio for this episode to discuss Same-Sex Marriage. This is a weighty and charged topic, and comes with a lot of emotional baggage on both sides of the issue. Alan employs the trademark “Ambassador's Model” that Stand to Reason is known for to cut through the emotional aspects of the argument to present a well reasoned, Biblically informed case for traditional marriage. He also gives some valuable advice on how to speak the truth in love, using terms and language that effectively communicate the Christian point of view without causing unintended or unnecessary offense.

In this discussion, Alan presents many solid secular arguments (that are also in harmony with the Christian message) for traditional marriage, and answers some common arguments that Christians often face in this debate.

Alan's first appearance on the podcast was in January, 2012 to discuss Islam.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:22:11 — 23.6MB)

Subscribe: RSS | Subscribe to Echo Zoe Radio

Outline of the Discussion

Same-Sex Marriage is a big deal that Christians should understand. The way this issue is handled will affect our culture at large.
- The family is the building block of society. When you change the family, you change the culture.
- The issue of homosexuality in general, and Same-Sex Marriage in particular, will be a vector for persecution against the church.
- Alan prefers to approach the issue of Same-Sex Marriage from a public policy perspective because most of the people that we, as Christians, engage in discussion over this issue with will not be Christian and will not see the Bible as authoritative (and I agree). Also, as a public policy issue, we must raise public policy concerns.
  - Our public policy concerns are consistent with our Biblical concerns.
  - Christians, and Churches, need to broaden their thinking in order to engage the culture on this important issue.
It's often said that traditional marriage discriminates against Same-Sex couples. The word “Discriminate” simply means “to make a distinction.” We make distinctions all the time, and most of the time people don't have a problem with it. The question is whether the discrimination is just or unjust.
- Our diving laws discriminate on the basis of age and disability. Children are not granted drivers licenses, nor are blind people.
- We discriminate in regard to the issuance of US Passports. Non-citizens are not granted passports.
- In marriage law, there are restrictions placed on who can marry based on age, number of people being married, blood relationships, etc.
- Marriage laws based on the sex of those getting married is not unjustly discriminatory because the laws apply equally to all people. Regardless of desire, no man can marry another man, and no woman can marry another woman. The orientation of the men and women in question is irrelevant.
- Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights under US marriage law. They can marry, and receive all of the same privileges and resstrictions.
  - They cannot marry close blood relatives.
  - They cannot marry a child.
  - They cannot marry a person who is already married.
  - They cannot marry someone of the same sex.
- Alan likes to ask the question of Same-Sex Marriage proponents “Give me the name of a person whom I can marry, but you cannot also marry.”
Some Libertarians want the government to get out of marriage, leave it up to the church and religious institutions. Some Conservatives want the state to have Civil Unions (for all couples, regardless of sex or orientation) and leave the word ‘Marriage' to the church and religious institutions. Alan explains that the government has a vested interest in maintaining the status-quo of endorsing traditional, opposite-sex marriages.
- It serves the public interest.
- Opposite-sex unions provide a moral good to the culture because, as a group, as a rule, by nature, they produce the next generation of society.
- Two brothers, as a group, as a rule, don't produce the next generation. Same with two sisters, two male friends, tennis partners, a mother and a son, etc.
- The reason government got involved in marriage in the first place was because they recognized the unique and beneficial role that committed opposite-sex couples play in producing the next generation.
- Marriage exists logically prior to the State. The government comes along and recognizes what already exists, and then protects and privileges it for the benefit of society as a whole.
- Since the government didn't create marriage in the first place, they don't have a right to come along and redefine it.
- We stand against Civil Unions for the same reason we stand against Same-Sex Marriages. We aren't defending the word, we defend the concept and the institution.
If same-sex marriage is legalized, then same-sex parenting is automatically legitimized, yet same-sex couples don't generally provide the most advantageous environment to raise children.
- Decades of research shows that children do best when raised by their biological mother and father in a long-term relationship (marriage).
- Same-Sex Marriage, by design, will always deny a child either his/her mother or father, if not both.
  - A just society comes to the aid of motherless/fatherless children, they don't design families that deliberately deny a child access to his mother or father.
- Our culture puts the wants of adults above the needs of children, and this issue is a consequence of this selfish development of Western culture.
Responding to the charge that “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” (implying that it either He was fine with it, or it was unimportant to Him):
- We don't actually know that He never said anything about it, because not everything He ever said was recorded.
- Jesus was an observant Jew, living under the Mosaic Law. Had He been asked about it, He would have probably responded in accordance to the requirements of the Mosaic Law.
- There were many things He didn't address, and surely didn't condone, such as: child sacrifice, spousal abuse, neglecting the elderly, or drunkenness.
- Looking to the words of Jesus presumes that those words are more authoritative than the rest of Scripture, yet Christian theology holds that the entirety of Scripture is God-breathed, inspired by the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. Orthodox Christianity leaves no room for disagreement between Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
- Not mentioned in our discussion: In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus did address marriage, and left no provision for homosexual couples; he did address the issue in an indirect way.
Addressing the argument that the Bible not only forbids homosexuality, but also forbids eating shellfish, or weaving linens from multiple kinds of fibers, implying that Christians “pick and choose” what prohibitions we adhere to and which we'll ignore”
- This comes from a lack of understanding of Christian theology (understandable when dealing with non-Christians).
- While the Mosaic Law forbids many things, including homosexuality, and we as Christians don't live under Mosaic Law, there are several New Testament passages that also forbid homosexuality, whereas they do not forbid things like shellfish or multi-fibered linens.
- The Mosaic Law was intended for ancient Israel, not New Testament Christians. Jesus fulfilled the terms of the Mosaic Law, and instituted the New Covenant.
- Alan suggests that we not use Leviticus or the Mosaic Law when discussing homosexuality, simply to sidestep the nuances of theology that non-Christians aren't going to understand. Instead, use Romans 1.
  - It's a New Testament text, eliminating the confusion over the theological distinctions between the Covenants.
  - It's the only passage that deals with both male and female homosexuality in one passage.
  - It clearly explains the behavior that is prohibited.
  - It not only forbids homosexual behavior, but also forbids the approval of such behavior.
Addressing the claim that we can't “legislate the Bible”, and the similar claim that we can't “legislate morality:”
- In regard to legislating morality, that's the only thing that can be legislated. Every law has a basis in some form of moral belief.
  - Stealing is immoral, thus we make laws against it and force it down everyone's throats.
  - Murder is immoral, thus we make laws against it and force it down everyone's throats.
- Christians have the right to advance Biblical values through legislation.
  - A religious motivation doesn't disqualify someone from having a moral point of view.
  - Stealing shouldn't be legal just because Ephesians 4:28 forbids it, and banning stealing may be seen as legislating Biblically-based moral viewpoints.
  - The words “Separation of Church and State” don't appear anywhere in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. Most of the Founders were observant Christians, and wouldn't have disenfranchised themselves with such a prohibition as understood by modern, secular American society.
We finished by addressing a question by listener James from Indiana, a former homosexual that wanted to know how to engage others on the issue of homosexuality when it is a sin that he has struggled with in the past himself.
- In James' question, he used the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin.” This is a phrase that sounds Biblical and compassionate, but Alan warns against using it. The primary reason is that the only word that people hear when that phrase is used is “hate.” In particular, homosexuals typically see no distinction between the conduct they engage in and their identity as people, to attack their conduct is to attack them as people, at least in their eyes.
- In regard to interactions with others: know the truth, and speak it with compassion.
  - Reach individuals with the Gospel message.
  - Don't focus on a person's homosexualty, focus on the Gospel.
  - Address it if it comes up, but don't focus on it as the primary issue.
  - “Shoehorning” homosexuality into a conversation often comes across as “this is the most egregious sin, and you want to condemn me for it,” even if that is not our intent.