Donald Hank
Deconstructing same-sex "marriage"
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Donald Hank
June 25, 2014

The same sex marriage issue can be viewed from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint and from a secular viewpoint. If you are a Christian, then the first part of this discussion below is especially for you. If you are an Orthodox Jew or other non-Christian, or if you want to learn how to debate from the secular standpoint, the second part applies.

1. Christian response to the same-sex marriage issue:

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA has just given its blessing to "pastors" who perform same sex marriage.

Here is the part that Christians must focus on:
    According to the denomination's statement, on Thursday, June 19, "the 221st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a recommendation from its Civil Union and Marriage Issues Committee allowing for pastoral discretion to perform 'any such marriage they believe the Holy Spirit calls then to perform,' where legal by state law." [my highlighting]
Jesus said that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin.
    "I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever." – Mark 3:28-29 (CEV)
Jesus was addressing a crowd containing some Pharisees, who had attributed his healing powers to Satan, when in fact the Holy Spirit had performed the miracles.

Now, if a Presbyterian "pastor" performs a "gay" wedding, then under the above-cited rule, he is tacitly averring that the Holy Spirit called him to perform it. Since the definition of marriage throughout the Bible refers only to a union between a man and a woman, this pastor is actually averring that the Holy Spirit called him to perform a "marriage" that is counter to Biblical principles. This can clearly be construed as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

I have heard pastors saying "the Holy Spirit told me..." [to do this or that] when it would appear this was highly questionable. There are famous TV preachers who make predictions and claim that these are revelations from the Holy Spirit. Some are foolish enough to name a date, so confident are they of the anticipated outcome. But that date comes and the prediction fails to materialize. Any Christian who feels he was called to so something by the Holy Spirit would best not mention this to anyone except their spouse. To attribute anything to the Holy Spirit is to step into a booby trap.

2. Secular response to the same sex marriage issue:

We constantly hear the mantra "Homosexuals must be given an equal right to marry."

This is America, and that statement is technically correct. However, no one has the right to change the definition of words at their whims. There are over 600 languages and dialects in the world, and none of these has an equivalent for our word marriage that can apply to both same sex and heterosexual unions. The advocates of same sex marriage always pretend that same sex marriage meets the definition of marriage. This is the sticking point (the "equal rights" point is a red herring). Obviously, this is not true. The first step anyone would have to take is to prove that the term marriage can apply to same-sex couples. However, everyone with a pulse knows what marriage really means, and instead of using legal channels to change that definition, they slyly pretend the word "marriage" always, since time immemorial, has applied both to same-sex couples and to heterosexual couples.

The only reason people bend over and grab their ankles for these activists is fear. They use raw power of intimidation to force the legal system to apply a definition that does not exist. So-called same sex "marriage" has been legally accepted in several countries and states and yet, the main requisite for this change in law was never met, namely, a legal change in the definition of marriage. And changing this definition after millennia is like saying a dog is a cat. Homosexual activists can – and do – force the hands of crooked judges and lawyers and politicians all they want to go along with this pretense that marriage has always applied to both heterosexual and homosexual unions.

However, deep down inside people resent being told that, for example, a cat is a dog. Deep down they'd be saying "if it barks it's not a damn cat!" And they'd be mad, rightfully so! And let's stop pretending this is only about religion. For Christians and Orthodox Jews (and also for Muslims), it may be mostly about religion. But for everyone, religious or not, it is about language: words and their definitions. The only way you could legitimately change the definition of marriage so as to include same sex unions would be to prove that human physiology changed recently to something that it never was in those thousands of years when only people of opposite sexes could marry each other. But you can't prove that because nothing like that happened. Granted, there were crazies like Roman Emperor Elagabulus, who are said to have "married" another man, but their actions of this kind were condemned by the grassroots. In Elagabulus' case, he was eventually assassinated. The people's will was done.

Thus, human nature did not change to usher in the "gay" marriage craze. Something else changed, and that is, a revolution that overturned all traditions and common sense through social engineering. And this brings us to the issue of sovereignty. A sovereign country has a right to defend its traditions and be what it always has been. In this point, Russia is actually superior to the West. Westerners have let down their guard, allowing the far left, posing in civil rights garb, to sell out our culture. We pretend it is an individual rights issue but it is a sovereignty issue. By inventing a right to "marry" someone of the same sex we have allowed our culture and hence our sovereignty to be destroyed. And yet sovereignty is in many ways more important than individual rights, because nowadays, rights are faddish and redefined regularly by activists antagonistic to culture, so they can no longer be defined. Yet sovereignty is something we all sense, as in my analogy with the cat-dog confusion. We sense it inherently but are afraid to say so. This is social Marxism and we are slaves to it in the US.

Isn't it time to throw off the chains? It's all up to the people. We define – and redefine – words through the way we use them. Language is power. We must stop giving away our power.

© Donald Hank

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Donald Hank

Until July of 2009, Don Hank was operating a technical translation agency out of his home in Wrightsville, PA. He is now retired and residing in Panama with his wife and daughter.

A former language teacher, he holds an undergraduate degree in French and German from Millersville State University (PA), a Master's degree in Russian language and literature from Kutztown State College (also in PA), has studied Chinese for 3 years in Taiwan at the Mandarin Training Center, and is self-taught in other languages, having logged a total of 8 years abroad in total immersion situations.

He is also the founder of Lancaster-York Non-Custodial Parents, a volunteer organization that provides Christian counseling for non-custodial parents.

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Donald Hank: Click here

More by this author