Proponents of homosexuality note that society has evolved in its understanding of what is socially acceptable. They argue that the taboo against same-sex marriage is the modern equivalent of America’s former taboo against inter-racial marriages. Is this a valid argument?
Same–sex marriages and inter-racial marriages cannot be equated. This is a clear case of comparing apples to oranges. Although homosexuals have been—and in too many cases are still being—mistreated and abused, their experiences cannot be compared to the history of enslavement, segregation, and abuse of other races. There are no gay–only drinking fountains, bathrooms, or seating. In many ways, the homosexual community has attempted to hijack the black civil rights efforts, but behavior cannot be compared to skin color and ethnicity. Behavior can be voluntarily controlled and altered—even if it were true that some people are born gay—but a person has no ability to voluntarily control or alter his skin color and ethnicity. Furthermore, these are morally neutral characteristics; whereas, behavior is not morally neutral.
The only things that prevented inter–racial marriages was bigotry and bias. The nature and definition of marriage did not have to change in order to facilitate a heterosexual union between members of two races. However, same-sex marriages would require a fundamental change in the nature and definition of marriage as well as a whole series of other civil laws. Moreover, there is nothing irregular about the sexual union and reproductive nature of an inter–racial, heterosexual union. This is not true of homosexual unions. Similarly, there is nothing in Scripture which would preclude inter–racial marriages, but Scripture does forbid the practice of homosexuality.
This article is excerpted from the book Laid Bare: Uncovering the Relationship Between Homosexuality & the Gospel.
NO WORKS CITED AVAILABLE