Two days have passed since my hometown newspaper ran a page one story of a young man’s “marriage” to another young man. If the headline, “Mr. & Mr,” didn’t capture people’s attention, the photos of the men kissing and signing their “marriage” license did.
Today, several members of my congregation made a request and a promise. If I would write a letter-to-the-editor, they would gladly sign it. As members of our community, we agree that every home, classroom and newspaper mentors children and encourages them in one direction… or another. As Christians, we agree that we are compelled on behalf of our neighbors (young or old) and for the benefit of society to speak whatever the Word of God speaks.
Pondering appropriate words, I’m aware that some of my neighbors will claim that it’s the personal right of those men to marry (especially in light of Iowa’s same sex “marriage” law) and that everyone should just leave them alone. But…
- Do we all have the right to do whatever we want?
- When does my perceived “right” place my neighbor in harm’s way?
- Does a newspaper have the right to print any photo or article that gets attention, even that of a curious child?
- When two people do whatever “feels right” to them and one or both contracts an STD or HIV, do I have the right to insist that my personal tax dollars not fund their medical bills?
My hometown newspaper chose to highlight the “marriage” of two young men, ages 19 and 21. What was the message of the lead-in paragraph: “There wasn’t any music. No flowers or photographer. But something else was there Wednesday that’s present at most weddings — the look in the couple’s eyes.” Why was the reporter at the “wedding”? Obviously, photos were taken, but for what purpose?
I am concerned for these two young men. I am concerned about their spiritual welfare. Are they (like so many young people today) confused about their “sexuality?” Were they enticed by momentary feelings, flattered by attention, or empowered by a trendy social experiment? Did the newspaper paint a bulls-eye on these young men? If either of the young men experience emotional stress or depression, will the newspaper and community offer themselves as care-givers? What happens if these men want to be fathers?
What lesson… what value… what hope for the future of families and children is being taught when behavior is celebrated that flies in the face of the Creator of man, woman, and marriage?
Jesus said,
Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin” (Luke 17:1-2).
Ezerwoman's Blog 
“Do we all have the right to do whatever we want?”
As long as you cause no harm, then yes.
“When does my perceived “right” place my neighbor in harm’s way?”
When harm can be demonstrably shown.
“Does a newspaper have the right to print any photo or article that gets attention, even that of a curious child?”
Pretty much.
“When two people do whatever “feels right” to them and one or both contracts an STD or HIV, do I have the right to insist that my personal tax dollars not fund their medical bills?”
No. Although I am curious how you think two men who are devoted enough to each other to be married will sudden develop STDs, any more than any other married couple would.
“Why was the reporter at the “wedding”? Obviously, photos were taken, but for what purpose?”
Because gay weddings are still rare enough to be newsworthy. And apparently it is interesting, as you are posting about it. If it wasn’t interesting in some way, wouldn’t you just ignore it?
“What happens if these men want to be fathers?”
Then they can be through numerous ways. And they might make even better fathers than average, as they can’t be parents by accident.
“What lesson… what value… what hope for the future of families and children is being taught”
That two people who love each other are allowed to spend their lives together. Quite a good lesson, I think.
Clearly the above poster is not a scientist. I’m sure the blogger could produce plenty of statistics that demonstrably prove that homosexual union is harmful not only to the young men physically and mentally (not to mention spiritually) but also harmful to society.
These answers that were provided are obviously “shooting from the hip” and not well thought out. I would discourage any other readers from taking them very seriously.
Rev. Paul L. Beisel
Dear “Not a Scientist,”
For the moment, I’m going to address only two of your points. Statistics from both sides of the fence show that “committed” homosexual relationships differ greatly from heterosexual marriages in key respects including relationship duration, monogamy vs. promiscuity, and health risks. Depression, substance abuse, and suicide are significantly higher among homosexuals, both in the U.S. and Denmark (where no discrimination of the homosexual lifestyle exists). Social experiments are never good for individuals, families, or society. They go against nature itself. But, before they fail, people are hurt.
Your observation that same-sex “marriage” is a “good lesson” because it is an example of “two people who love each other” being “allowed to spend their lives together,” compels me to ask: Can I marry my brother? I certainly love him. Can I marry my son whom I love? For that matter, I love a lot of people in my life. Can I marry them all? Can’t we be just one big happy family who share the parenting of the little boys and girls who, when we want them, suddenly (somehow) appear?
As for “gay weddings being newsworthy,” I say this: It is not newsworthy. It saddens me that some are so giddy with excitement over a politically correct “marriage” that they would take advantage of two young men raised in a “my rights” world. Before displaying this “couple” on the front page of my hometown newspaper, did anyone stop to think about the future of two valuable human souls?
We cannot fly in the face of the Holy God who created men, women, and marriage without suffering consequences. On the other hand, once we are sorry about our behavior and ask for forgiveness, there is no lack of mercy and hope from God in Jesus Christ: “I do not condemn you; go, and sin no more.”
“Statistics from both sides of the fence”
Then why have you not posted or linked to any? I don’t respond to claims. I respond to facts. If you have the facts that back up your claims, then by all means, I would love to look at them.
That goes for all the claims in your first paragraph.
“Can I marry my brother?”
Do you want to? Does he want to marry you?
There’s certainly an ‘ick’ factor involved, but provided you both wanted to I see no good reason to deny it. And if you wanted to have kids, there are plenty of ways other than incest to make that happen that would insure the health of the child.
“Can I marry my son whom I love?”
Again, do you want to? And does he want to? And more importantly, is he an adult who can make that decision?
Besides, we’re not talking about incest. We’re talking about homosexuals. And again, if your only concern is children, I’d like to know how you think they will suddenly appear for lesbian and gay couples. They have to go through a lot more work to have children than you or I do, which to me makes it much more likely that they’ll be responsible about it.
“over a politically correct “marriage””
I don’t think you know what ‘politically correct’ means. Or else you are substituting a definition for it that does not fit its original intent.
“Before displaying this “couple” on the front page of my hometown newspaper, did anyone stop to think about the future of two valuable human souls?”
I imagine they wanted their pictures in the paper or else they would not have allowed it.
Probably plenty of people are concerned about souls. I don’t believe in souls, so I happen not to be one of them. But plenty out there do.
“We cannot fly in the face of the Holy God who created men, women, and marriage without suffering consequences.”
And yet people do all the time. I know many couples that wouldn’t fit what you think of as ‘god’s way’ that live long, happy and healthy lives. So apparently your deity, if he exists, isn’t too good about exacting those consequences. Or else has horrible aim.
NotAScientist, if I may, I would like to ask some questions. I am curious about your comments and the thoughts behind them.
You say that “we have the right to do whatever we want as long as no demonstrable harm is done to other people.” What do you mean by “harm,” and what would qualify as “demonstrable?” Does it have to be physical…..or would mental, financial, or cultural count, as well? And a side question to that is, “Why is it wrong to harm other people?”
You also state that “pretty much” a newspaper has the right to publish any photo or article that gets people’s attention. What do you mean by “pretty much?” Would there be limitations to what they can do……or by “pretty much” do you really man “yes, anything is okay.”?
Thirdly, you state that “two people who love eachother should be allowed to spend their lives together,” but then you also say there is an “ick” factor involved in that type of relationship if it is incestual. What do you mean by “ick factor?” It seems to me that EzerWoman is saying that there is an “ick factor” involved for her (for spiritual and cultural reasons) when she sees a photo of two men kissing, but yet you think she is wrong for having that opinion. How do you claim to be able to say that something is “icky,” then….if she cannnot?
Lastly, there are several places where you say the words “want to.” (“Do you want to marry your brother?” “Do they want their picture in the paper?” “Do you want to spend your life with eachother?”) Again, I must ask a question…..”Is WANTING to do something (or not do something) the factor that we should make our decisions by?” I know from my own life that there are a lot of things I want to do, but I don’t do them. I also know there are lots of things I DON’T want to do, but I do them anyway. It seems rather short-sighted to apply the “want” concept to most things….especially when it comes to issues of this nature.
Interested in what you have to say-
Jon
NotAScientist-
There is another question that I forgot to ask in my previous response.
In regard to your statement that “people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn’t demonstrably harm anyone else” (paraphrase) I must ask you, “Upon what basis is the determination of ‘demonstrable harm’ made?” Does the person being harmed decide if it is harmful….or does the person doing the harming decide if it is harmful? And what if they don’t agree in their decision of what is harmful or not?
Again, I look forward to your response.
Jon