Apples and oranges

I read David Bross’ letter in which he equates the turmoil over same-sex marriages as equivalent to the mixed-race marriage issue of a distant past. His conclusion was that the Supreme Court will find prohibition of same-sex marriages unconstitutional as they did prohibition against mixed-race marriages. That may be so; that is, the Court will make such a decision.

However, his implication is that the two issues are of the same kind and seemingly deserve the same conclusion. Therein lies the error.

Take the sylligism which says: Dogs have four legs. Cats have four legs. Therefore: Dogs and cats are the same! The error is in assuming the answer prior to your beginning argument. Some facts may be right; eg. four legs, but the conclusion is faulted.

Apply Mr. Bross’ assumptions the same way. Mixed-marriage prohibition is judged acceptable (by the Court). Same-sex marriage is (to be) judged acceptable. (by the Court). Therefore, mixed-marriage and same-sex marriage is the same! Some right facts, but a faulty conclusion.

Anti mixed-marriage argument was an issue which revolved around bigoted attitudes against non-white races. Some persons, using faulty bigoted attitudes used “religious” quotes to argue against mix-marriages. (Actually, in the Bible there several examples of acceptable mixed-marriages.)

On the other hand, he suggests those against same-sex marriages want to draw on importation gleaned from the Bible to say it is unacceptable. By implication Mr. Bross implies the Bible is wrongly quoted as a defense agamist same-sex marriage. Herein is the error in the conclusion.

Scripture is clear that such marriages, regardless of how a society like ours changes ITS values, will be deemed acceptable. The base issue is of course the marriage contract which not only has its own bond, “the two shall become one,” but also has its spiritual aspect in that they “do become one.” In addition, the resultant sodomy is a Biblical abomination and contrary to the physical union of male and female.

The sad thing is that Mr. Bross is probably right that the Supreme Court will reflect the changing morals of the nation and bend to the 2-3% of our nation who want to enter into such a marriage. But to infer that the general public should prepare to just “roll over” and accept one decision because of a dis-similar previous decision is just faulty thinking.

Yet, indeed beware! As a society we generally have already normalized adultery, pre-marital sex, fornification, and an unmarried living status. Don’t look to the Bible to support these sociological maladjustments! I have to fearfully wonder that if enough people wanted it so, that even adult-child sex relations could be approved as legal. Never! Careful! Such a perversion might become “legal” in man’s law depending on how far we degrade. Other issues have!

But clearly remember that the expectations of the Bible on how we live with each other at minimum provides for a safe and stable society. Destroy those guides and society is no longer safe, nor stable. The handwriting is on the wall for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Rev. David A. Keller

Pastor, Heshbon Park UM Church

Submitted by E-Mail