Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Opinion|Sun, Oct. 19 2008 04:13 AM EDT

So, What's Really at Stake in the Gay Marriage Debate?

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.|Christian Post Guest Columnist

Human society is a complex reality, but certain constants have framed that reality for human beings. One of those constants has been the institution of marriage. The respected status of the heterosexual pairing, set apart for exclusive rights and respected for its functions for the society, is among the most important of those constants. Even where deviations from this pattern occur, they are of interest merely for the fact that they are deviations from this norm.

The legalization and normalization of same-sex marriage undermine that constant. What had been a clear picture now becomes confusing. Marriage had been universally understood to be heterosexual. Now, it is something else. The picture is further confused by alienating the heterosexual breeding and parenting function from marriage. Not only does marriage appear now to be what it never was before, the essential functions of marriage are up for grabs.

The pictures in the mind change. The pictures in books for children change. Mommy and Daddy give way to Mommy and Mommy, Daddy and Daddy, or any number of variations on the relationship theme. Marriage is dethroned as a cultural constant and even as a predictable reality. The institution of marriage is destabilized and transformed before our eyes - and especially in the eyes of the young.

Keep that in mind when you consider a recent public school field trip for first-graders in San Francisco. Here is the shape of the future - if same-sex marriage is sustained. As the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher - putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.

The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.

Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated.

So a class of six-year-olds was taken on a field trip to join in celebrating a same-sex marriage ceremony. Liz Jaroflow, interim director of the school, defended the field trip as an educational experience. As she explained, "It really is what we call a teachable moment." She went on to explain that the educational value had to do with the legitimization of same sex marriage as a civil rights issue. "I think I am well within the parameters," she insisted.

'As far as I'm concerned, it's not controversial for me," she stated. "It's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for." Well, in San Francisco her job is probably safe. But this "teachable moment" will not be restricted to San Francisco. Not by a long shot.

It turns out that parents had the right to use an "opt out" provision to keep their children at the school, and not at the ceremony at City Hall. According to the paper, two families did just that. Two. Eighteen students participated in the field trip. This, you must understand, is the new normal.

California voters have the opportunity to defend and restore marriage in their state by approving "Proposition 8" on November 4. That proposition would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman - period. At least one of the children at the downtown ceremony wore a "No on 8" button to the event. The charter school used children as campaign fodder.

California is among the states with the most extensive sex education programs. Often known as "comprehensive sex education," these programs go far beyond matters of reproduction. The students are taught about marriage. If "marriage" includes legalized same-sex marriage, then that is the definition presented to students.

The battle over Proposition 8 is a struggle over some of the most fundamental principles of life, society, and meaning. In the eyes of same-sex marriage advocates the battle is for equality, dignity, and respect for homosexual relationships. In the eyes of same-sex marriage opponents, the battle is for the preservation of an institution essential for human happiness and thriving.

Both sides in this debate understand that issues right at the core of human dignity are at stake. Each side understands that the decision on this question will shape the future of our civilization. And, make no mistake, both sides know that the children are watching. Just ask the first-graders from the Creative Arts Charter School.

Adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s weblog at www.albertmohler.com.
___________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And as far as incest goes. A majority of adult incest relationships are hetero, which would protect their right to marry under the constitution.

  • Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So, even if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is a sin, you'd still do it.

  • Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, there is a big difference between talking about one's life experience (my experience being gay) and reading a book (the Bible.) You don't interpret your life experience, you do interpret a book. I have said that my views CONCERNING THE BIBLE could be wrong, but I can tell you, with no doubt whatsoever, that there is no choice to be gay, and that my love for my partner is not something evil. I can tell you that the gay agenda does not make children targets. I am not hypocritical in the least. You throw that word out there because you disagree with my views (such as when you said I was a hypocrite because I did not support incestuous relationships, when in fact the two have nothing to do with each other.) You attempt to build bridges that simply aren't doable (kind of like Sarah Palin) and then act dumbfounded when other people poke holes in your logic.

  • Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If you truly believed that your view of homosexuality was an "interpretation" then whenever you spoke of it, you'd say "I believe..." or "I feel that...."
    But you don't. Whenever you debate with me on that subject, you are very adamant about the the fact that it is the truth. You say "homosexuality is not a sin". Do I hear anything in that comment that shows a belief that you think it's merely your interpretation.
    And why is it that when you've said a couple times that you "could be wrong", that I'm suppose to just accept that. But you say time and time again that I think that I'm better than you, and act like I'm perfect, and yet I've spoken many times of my own sins....and even still you berate me for thinking I'm better than you. Does that not strike you as hypocritical on your part?

    Point: You profess that it's about interpretation, but continue to argue that you're view is right. That's hypocritical.
    I profess that I speak the truth...and I do not waver. There is no hypocrisy.

  • Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Not at all true. It is entirely possible that you have ignored what I said, but if one were to go back through several months of my posts, they would find several times where I said I admit I could be wrong whereas you have not done that once. I never said that the things I say are an indisputable fact. If I have said that, I dare you to go back and find that exact language.

  • Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I have never heard you say that. But I have heard you say time and time again that "lust" in Romans has to mean what you say it does, and that the homosexuality in Romans is a pagan ritual. You never said "I believe that...." or "I think it could mean...."
    You said, as an indisputable fact, that what you said it meant, is what it really meant.

  • Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Oh sure I have, multiple times actually, with you witnessing it through your responses. I have said I am willing to admit I am not right, but it is a gamble. You, on the other hand, refuse such humility, then go so far as to lie about it just now when you know for a fact it is not the case.

  • Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Can anyone say with 100% certainty that their interpretation is correct?"
    Does that include you? You accuse everyone one who calls homosexuality a sin of promoting their "interpretation"...but yet have never (yes..NEVER) admitted that your take on the scriptures is simply your interpretation.

  • Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, there is a huge difference between interpretation and understanding. Several people wrote about Jesus and his teachings. Not one person was around to actually witness and write the events in the old testament, as history did not begin to be written down that early. The OT leaves a tremendous amount to be desired, and the fact of the matter is PEOPLE who are FALLIBLE wrote the bible, and therefore it can be interpreted in terms of historical context. I do believe in the Bible, but there are parts of it that are stories meant to produce faith in God, and there are parts of it that are meant to tell about Jesus, his works, and his power. You decide for yourself, as will I.

  • Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So, we may not even need to be saved to get to heaven, is that correct? There may not be a judgement day where we are judged for our deeds? Jesus' life may not even be real.

  • Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hah, nope, not so much. I am not assuming. Do we all agree on the Bible? No! Can anyone say with 100% certainty that their interpretation is correct? No! The Bible, at its most basic roots, is a book, and all books are interpreted differently.

  • Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And how do you get that idea? Because so far you're assuming....and so far your assuming is 0-2.

  • Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    because I think you realized you do in fact interpret the Bible

  • Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I was talking about your comment "No, you chose to move on because you knew it was an argument you cannot win..."
    What give you that idea?

  • Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Because EVERYONE interprets the Bible. The Bible is a book, everyone gets different messages from books, especially one packed with so much information.

  • Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    You think that's the reason? What gives you that idea?

  • Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No, you chose to move on because you knew it was an argument you cannot win. You interpret the Bible, plain and simple.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Yes, I typed "sin" instead of "interpretation". Thanks for pointing that out.
    But just because I shrugged off your comment doesn't mean it was an admittance. When in reality all I was doing was passing on a chance to argue, in order to just speakd the truth.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    First of all, I said nothing about sin, so you are truly losing it. I said you admitted that you interpret the Bible. I said"No, it talks about what you interpret to be homosexuality, " and you replied "Well, it's still the truth. God created man and woman for a reason. Anything other than that in a marriage is an abomination to God." without making any comment about it being an interpretation. You shrugged off the main point in my post and went on to your next thought.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Can you please state where I said that I admitted it was a sin? Or even implied?

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ha, you basically admitted it was your interpretation, then shrugged and said "whatever, its still the truth." You again speak as if you know the will of God. Yes, God created man and woman, but you truly cannot say that you KNOW he did not create people gay.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well, it's still the truth. God created man and woman for a reason. Anything other than that in a marriage is an abomination to God.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No, it talks about what you interpret to be homosexuality, and neither of those passages talk about it in terms of a committed relationship.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Romans 1 speaks against homosexuality, as does Corinthians. So, yes homosexuality is a sin.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No, actually, homosexual is never mentioned in the Bible because it wasn't a word, hence, you INTERPRET that it is what they must have been talking about, regardless of the fact that nowhere in the Bible does it talk about gays in a committed relationship, and therefore i INTERPRET that while it is wrong for anyone to be in a relationship simply for lust, a true, loving, committed relationship such as my partner's and mine is a beautiful, caring thing that brings us closer to God.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:39 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I'm not. Homosexuality is a sin. It's right there in the Bible.

  • Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I wish you would quit blatantly lying.

  • Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I wish you would quit with the insults.

  • Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Prophet, you quite implied it. You have a horrible knack for lying, it simply doesn't suit you (not to mention, I would think a true Christian like yourself would steer clear of lying, but we've already established you're not quite as Christian as you may think.

  • Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I didn't say you were throwing a fit. The Bible says it's a sin, not me.

  • Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I'm not throwing a fit, but your choice of language is cute. You saying a sin does not make it so, it merely makes it your INTERPRETATION of the bible.

  • Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Just stating that homosexuality is a sin, and that sin keeps you from God. Sin keeps me from God too, but you don't see me throwing a fit about it. I just choose not to sin.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sorry, but I don't think you're in any place to judge where I am with God.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Homosexuality does hurt you. It keeps you from God.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, I for one did not argue because I think lust and fornication are sinful, because both of them hurt you in some way. What my partner and I have, or any committed couple gay or straight have, is love, not lust.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No I'm not vain. I just think it's odd that people who are involved in those sins don't argue the point, but homosexuals do when it comes to their sin. Probably because both those sin (fornication and lust) are already readily acceptable...even among Christians. I wish that Christians didn't accept sin in their life (whatever sins that may be). It keeps us from God.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No, you are not posting it for the "truth" specifically asked why no one commented on it. Either you are vain and think everything you post should be commented on or you were looking for a fight. Your lack of honesty here is apparent.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No, the reason why I post it, and then post it again, is because the truth doesn't change. What? You think I'm going to post one thing one time, and then something different another time?
    Does it upset you that I've pointed out your refusal to admit your sin? Is that why you argue so?

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Once again, you attempt to turn something I say about you back on me. You truly have no original thoughts (not a put down, more of an observation.) You most certainly are looking for an argument or else you wouldn't have posted it, then reposted it. Again, you are trying to bait people, specifically me, into having an argument.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I'm not. But I know the answer. Because those Christians who are fighting the sins of fornication and lust (me for example) admit we are sinners and prone to falling.
    Those who are involved in the sin of homosexuality refuse to admit they are sinner. Makes me wonder who has the real "hubris".

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    How come you are so desperate for an argument?

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    How come no one argued the point I made about lust and fornication being a sin?

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Perhaps not, but you INTERPRET the Bible. It appears you may not understand that word.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The Bible is not wrong.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You interpret that it is sin, then claim to have ultimate truth. How very wrong you are my friend.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The Bible says it's a sin, so it is.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, you do not know that homosexuality is a sin, you believe it to be. As I have said over and over, the Bible is a book to be interpreted and there are millions who believe the Bible says nothing about a committed gay relationship, so no, you DO NOT know it to be sin.

  • Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Well, I do know that homosexuality is a sin. And God's will is that people are delivered from their sin. That's not a interpretation. Ask any Christian and they'll tell you that God doesn't want us living in sin.

  • Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, you interpret God's word as the Word is written in a book. To assume you have the ultimate translation and therefore know God's plan for me is absolutely nuts. You do not know how God uses people, regardless of his word.

  • Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Because any Christian knows that it is God's will that His people do not live in sin. Please show me scripture that says otherwise.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links