Marriage is between a man and a woman? Shocking!

“Shocked”?  Really?  “Shocked”?

I can’t help this brief follow up on the whole Miss California news item. had some discussion with other contestants in the Miss USA competition concerning their reaction to the answer given by Miss California — that is, Miss Carrie Prejean — and among the many eye-roll inducing comments was this one:

Miss Massachusetts Alison Cronin told she was “shocked” when Carrie Prejean, 21, told Miss USA judge and celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton that she believes marriage should be “between a man and a woman.”

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen!  We now live in a country where someone can seemingly sensibly call the act of describing marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman as shocking.  How sad.

At first, I wanted to give the “shocked” young woman some credit and assume that she was simply surprised that Miss Prejean would answer honestly and not in “PC mode”.  However, later in the article she explains, “It’s really hard to think that people still think that way.”

The American people truly are losing the ability to distinguish between the clean and the unclean (cf. Ezekiel 22:26).  And the consequence will be as Hosea 4:6 describes: a people destroyed for lack of knowledge.  (And I note that the two verses I have referenced point to religious leaders of the land as deserving special condemnation for this state of affairs.)

Also noteworthy in the article is the comment that equates simply answering a question honestly with wearing your “religion on [your] sleeve.”  And another that says the only right thing to do in such a situation as Miss Prejean’s must be “conscious of the national audience” (OK), “be politically correct about it” (not OK), and “accomodating of all beliefs” (also, not OK).  Again, hypocrisy is held up as a virtue in public figures.  Amazing.

19 thoughts on “Marriage is between a man and a woman? Shocking!

  1. Gee, I’m so glad that someone made you god’s spokeperson, so that you can deem what is good and not good for all of humanity, and whom should be condemned and for what. If Adam and Steve want to get married, how is that any of your business? The only “clean and unclean” I see are the homophobic people who are filled with fear and hatred, and the gay people who just wanna live like their straight neighbors.

  2. Thanks for the note, Minds Erased. I don’t happen to personally know any “homophobic people” filled with “fear and hatred”, but maybe you’re looking someplace else. However, yes, it is worth noting how blase the nation has become about sin over the years. Of course, homosexuality isn’t the only example out there (by far), but this news cycle it seems to be the “Sin of the Day.”

    And by the way: As someone speaking against being judgmental in such a, well, judgmental manner, you must agree that you set an interesting if irrational and contradictory example.

  3. Notice Miss Prejean defined her answer by her upbringing rather than the Bible. Commendable that she’d honor her parents by standing by those beliefs rather than capitulating to peer pressure.

  4. Pingback: An actual request for hypocrisy? « Thoughts En Route

  5. Hey Wallace – Thanks for the critique of my character. I know I sound judgmental – and, hey, let’s face it, aren’t we all? How else can we discern what we believe and what we don’t? – but the only irrationality that I see in regards to homosexuality is the morbid fixation of the religious devout on the sexual goings-on of consenting adults.

  6. Greetings, again, Minds Erased.

    First, you’re welcome. Happy to return your favor and to see that we agree on something.

    Second, while I wouldn’t agree with the “morbid fixation” characterization (at least not generally), I do sympathize with what you are saying. We simply disagree as to where the consequences of nationally and publicly condoned homosexuality will stop. You believe that the consequences don’t go beyond the bedroom, and I disagree. And it is entirely rational for the “religiously devout” to care about their God’s opinion concerning our nation, its character, and its general attitude toward sin. (Though you may feel that it is not rational to be “religiously devout” at all, and I understand that.)

    If you are willing to write one more time, let me ask you a question that may better specify the point of our disagreement. Do you believe that anything done between two consenting adults should be allowed and ignored by society? For specific examples, consider, say, mutual suicide pacts or, perhaps even better, massive intravenous drug use.

    I don’t know that we would agree on our answers to this question, but how we answer it may help add some specificity to our point of departure.

    Thanks, again, for writing.

  7. Frank Zappa once sang: “Do what you wanna, do what you will, just don’t mess up your neighbor’s thrill” and I would have to agree 100% with the sentiment of that lyric. Free will, so long as the force of that will is not harming anyone outside of itself, is a hard thing to argue against, at least in my mind. Of course, I think all drugs should be legalized, so your drug use example is out the window. And mutual suicide pacts, however gruesome and unfortunate, are hard to prevent if those entering into the pact don’t let on what they’re up to.

    I probably didn’t answer your question to your satisfaction, but I’m happy to elaborate if need be.

  8. Greetings, again, Minds Erased, and thanks for writing again. Actually, you did answer my question, and I appreciate your taking the time to do so.

    From that, I would say that it seems we have at least two points of departure. One would be in our religious points of view — or, say, our points of view on religion, or our views on religious points, even! The other would be in our belief about where the effects of allowed immorality stop. Or, borrowing the words of Mr. Zappa, we would disagree on how easy it is for one person’s thrill to affect his neighbor’s.

    And I suspect we would agree that our differences won’t be reconciled here! Still, thanks again for writing, Minds Erased.

  9. Deano

    Legalizing all drugs and drug use? Well . . . that makes about as much sense as legalizing . . . well . . . same sex marriage.

    Did I miss something here?

  10. Deano – you legalize drugs, then they can be regulated and taxed, pumping lots of dough into the economy. Alcohol and tobacco are already legal, and no amount of education about the dangers of these known deadly substances will ever stem their usage – or their pivotal role in our infrastructure (and other) budgets. Legalizing drugs would also empty out the prisons and free up the police to fill those prisons with people who deserve to be there, like priests who molest young boys. Same sex marriage should be legal because gay adults should be afforded the same life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that have been extended to their heterosexual counterparts. Who cares what people do with their genitalia? And don’t tell me the bible has the answer to this question, because the bible also says, to site an equally ridiculous example, that we aren’t allowed to speak to women who are menstruating.

  11. Greetings, again, Minds Erased —

    Sorry, but you take for a given that which is very theoretical. Legalizing drugs can result in many consequences, and to say one can humanly predict those consequences with certainty is a fool’s errand. Even looking at the oft touted (and often cherry-picked) experience of other countries is a dubious practice, given unknowns in the long term — and there is enough in the short term that makes many a reasonable person shudder.

    Besides, the legal/political considerations are — in my mind and, I believe, Deano’s — to a certain extent irrelevant. Whether drugs/homosexual behavior/prostitution/etc. is legal or not is not, at the core, my concern. God’s judgment is my concern, and that judgment comes not only on those who sin but on those who approve of sin. Now, in the sense that the political and legal atmosphere reflects societal and governmental approval of sin, that does interest me.

    I understand the arguments (such as those you have proffered), I just disagree with the assumptions behind them.

    [Also, for purposes of accuracy you might want to edit your last sentence by removing the phrase “an equally ridiculous example” and replacing it with the more accurate “my hideous & irrational misunderstanding of scripture”.]

    Thanks for stopping by!

  12. I suppose this is where I finally give up and realize I’m banging my head against a wall. The fundamental and overriding difference between us is that you are, as you have stated, concerned about god’s judgment, whereas I have no such concern. And as to your thought that I have hideously and irrationally misunderstood the bible, well, in my estimation, it’s just a book, Wallace – written by a group of political hustlers and an equal number of unspectacular, barely-literate nomadic scribes many centuries ago. Not the best one to live by, that’s for sure.

    I wish you well.

  13. It appears that Minds Erased has stumbled upon a fundamentalist religious blog here which of course has complete self-assurance, sure knowledge of what it calls sin, and no doubt takes the bible literally. It’s useless to have any reasoned discussion here, that is, outside the bounds of the belief system. Minds Erased (an ironic name it appears) has presented some good and well thought out arguments, in my view, but again, it’s useless to discuss them here. I wish you people the best as long as you don’t trample on the liberties and freedoms of the many others who may not share your beliefs.

  14. Minds Erased: Nice to see that we can agree, again! I, too, was beginning to feel as if my forehead were getting a bit flatter, as well.

    One note: Your blog may be “just a blog” but I hope those who quote you don’t “hideously and irrationally misunderstand” it, regardless of whether or not they agree with you. Whatever you may (inaccurately) believe about the Bible, you ironically do your argument a disservice by interpreting it so oddly. (So, of course, by all means feel free to continue!) 🙂

    Thanks for your well wishes — I really do appreciate it, Minds Erased. Thanks, again, for stopping by.

    Mardé: Thanks for stopping by, as well! “Complete” and “sure” are a bit much, but I certainly do take the Bible literally in many of the places I am sure you believe it should not be so taken. And seeing how all reasoned discussions must share a certain amount of common assumptions to make mutual progress, you might be on to something. I know that my attempts to enjoy reasoned discussions with those who believe as it seems you do have been, to me, similarly useless and frustrating.

    By the way, I never meant to imply that Minds Erased’s arguments, themselves, were not well reasoned and thought out. It’s just that when we start with inaccurate assumptions, our good arguments still produce wrong conclusions — like Hardy’s “good and well thought out argument” that he is the pope.

    I wish you the best in return, Mardé, along with my hopes that you will come to understand what true freedom and liberty is, and that it will be sooner rather than later.

  15. Deano

    I know this discussion has ran its course, however, just an after thought on the legalizing drug use. Just to be sure, drug use IS ALREADY legalized. Many drugs, such as pain killers like hydrocodone, morphine, codeine, oxycotton or oxycodone, and depressants like xanax, valium, etc, etc . . . are mind, or mood altering substances.

    These drugs are legal and they’re handed out like candy, daily in our nation. The people that become addicted to these “legalized drugs” (almost every single person who takes them for any length of time) experience changes in perception and behavior. Changes that are often conducive to criminal activity.

    The problem is that many drugs, such as some of those list above, are made from the same properites that illicit drugs are made from. For example, morphine, codeine, and oxycotton are pretty much a legalized form of heroin or opium; hydrocodone a synthetic version of heroin. Just do a google search on any one of those drugs, and it doesn’t take long to see the fallacy in the approach of legalizing drugs.

    And we won’t even go into the suffering (sometimes death) one endures from the withdrawl from these “legalized drugs”.

    Nos-sir, legalizing drugs won’t work!

    Homozexuality? Well, I won’t even mention AIDS as a concequence (really that is EXACTLY what I’m doing) because generally homosexuals, and those who approve of their lifestyle, have already manufactured their series of self-deceiving lies to combat that fact of Truth. So I will ask: Is willful ignorance truly bliss? I’d bet dollars to donuts the statistics don’t say that. Moreover, I certainly know it to be false. What you don’t know can kill you!

    Time for work! Good day to all.


  16. Reviewing the repeal of Prohibition in American’s history will give us a good idea on what will happen if drugs are legalized. When was the last time you heard gang violence involving the sale and transportation of alcohol? There are programs for dealing with alcohol, tabacco, and even drug additions.

  17. Actually, I think America’s historic repeal of Prohibition is not a trustworthy model for the legalization of drugs and that it is a bad match for a variety of reasons and on a variety of levels, but, frankly, I’d rather not go into detail here and I do not want this post to turn into a discussion group about that topic.

    If you’d like, we can discuss that sin another time. 🙂

  18. Alison T.

    While, I pause before I even contemplate this submission because I can only assume that this will end in a “flattened” forehead for me as well, I find that I am unable to help myself.

    The argument that many religious people use to support their belief that homosexuals should not be afforded the right of marriage is simply that it is a religious union. However, if that is the case then we should attempt to bar atheists from marrying as well, isn’t that so? After all, if it is simply about the religious matter and not the union itself, I feel that is only fair. Furthermore, up until the 1800s marriage was little more than an economic contract used to solidify land and finances.

    That leads me into my next point, in which many people argue that homosexuals should not marry because marriage exists to procreate. Again, I suppose that we should revoke the rights of the elderly and the sterile to marry as well.

    I could continue for some time, but I will save myself the effort and, no doubt the trip to the store for the Tums I will need if, and when I receive a response from you. I will close in simply saying this. I am not a Christian. However, as much as some conservative religious people would love to dispute, I do respect your right to an opinion.

    It is your opinion that marriage is sanctioned by YOUR God. However, many people who do not respect YOUR God marry every day. Finally, MY Constitution protects me from YOUR religious beliefs in that lovely little portion which is referred to as “Separation of Church and State”

    OUR forefathers left England to escape the very same thing many religious citizens are attempting to do – shove their beliefs down my throat. Again, I respect your right to your beliefs. Just respect mine, and don’t attempt to pass a law limiting my freedoms. After all, we don’t have to like one another or even agree. But we should attempt to live in harmony. Believe I am going to Hell if you would like, but remember that is your belief.

    Stop trying to limit the world based on your code of morals and ethics, after all there is nothing more personal than morals. I won’t force you to live by mine, if you don’t attempt the same.

    I really hope what I have said has made some impression here. I think too many people get caught up in arguing this debate and ignore the facts.

  19. Greetings, Alice T., and thanks for stopping by.

    Let me avoid going through your statements point-by-point and go to the heart of what I believe you are saying.

    First, though, let me make one thing clear that may be of help for context. I do not, in any way, participate in politics. I do not vote. I do not campaign or participate in campaigning. I do not try to influence, encourage, or defeat legislation. My non-participation is a fundamental part of my religious beliefs and are unlikely to change anytime soon.

    So whether or not “marriage” between homosexuals or among polyamorous relationships or what have you is ever made legal, I do not plan on being a part of the political process, for or against. Perhaps you will find this a comfort, but I feel it is important so that you understand where I stand in that regard.

    As for your arguments, I appreciate your stating them respectfully, and you would be surprised how much I agree with you to a certain point. I agree, for instance, that the “religious” angle is a tough one for godless politicians to defend while at the same time claiming that religion has nothing to do with policy. On the other side of things, homosexuals who argue that no standard of morality — religious or otherwise — should be allowed to influence legislation and rights are on equally shaky ground, since the foundation of all legislation is an assumption of the existence of right and wrong and these ideas of “right” and “wrong” must be developed according to some standard.

    While I’m sure you would agree with the former assertion, but you may not the latter. Let me make it clearer. “Marriage” between homosexuals is currently considered by many, though not all, to be wrong. You would argue, I believe, that it is wrong to deny homosexuals the opportunity to “marry.” It’s all about right and wrong, and, therefore, it all comes down to the ultimate question:

    “Who says?”

    Some say, “God says, that’s who,” meaning that they believe God is the arbiter of right and wrong. Of course, they then argue amongst each other (Rev. 12:9 helps to explain why, but that’s for another time). And many say that we aren’t allowed to say that in crafting public policy, so let’s ignore it for the moment.

    Others say, “The Constitution says, that’s who.” Of course, they argue, too, because some would argue that denying homosexuals the “right” to “marry” is unconstitutional, while others would say that it is completely within the scope of the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution is not the final arbiter, either, because it is amendable by the people. What if a Supreme Court decides that it is Unconstitutional to prevent homosexuals from “marrying”? Does it then become right to allow it? What if subsequently the people pass an amendment to the Constitution to establish “in writing” within the ultimate Law of the Land that the traditional American view of marriage is the only legal form: one man and one woman. That would make banning homosexual “marriage” right, again, and not wrong. Clearly, homosexuals would believe this is not right, though. So the Constitution can;t be the ultimate “says who” either.

    Well, there’s the laws of nature… Maybe the answer to “Who says?” is “Nature says, that’s who.” Of course, then, defenders of marriage would argue that unions of the same sex are not natural and, thus, not wrong. But, of course, homosexuals would answer with cases in the animal kingdom where pairings of the same gender in the animal kingdom do exist (most likely Bonobos would be mentioned somewhere in there), as a demonstration that homosexual “marriage” cannot be considered wrong and, thus, must be considered right. yet, neither side would wish to take that argument — that Nature is the ultimate “says who” — to its logical conclusion, else we would have to confer “right” status on murder, infanticide, incest, et al. No, clearly the laws of nature cannot be the answer.

    And now, we’re in a pickle. With the will of the people, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence’s “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” being rejected by us as arbiters of right and wrong, what are we left with? What is the answer to “Who says?”

    The answer is sadly what we see today: Who says? Whoever can wrangle up enough votes or court decisions by whatever means necessary. Judges 21:25, enshrined as a national as a way of life. Law of the Jungle: life by tooth and claw.

    If this is acceptible, then one such as you or I cannot cry “foul” against those who vote or who seek to achieve their desired political ends, regardless of the basis of their desires, whether religious or not. They are just as within their “rights” — even within the currently framed Constitution — to vote and to attempt to craft society to their liking as much as you are within your “rights” to do so. Right and wrong is irrelevant in such a world. Again, life by tooth and claw.

    You say to others (not to me, as I do not act in politics), “[s]top trying to limit the world based on your code of morals and ethics, after all there is nothing more personal than morals.” Of course, they could just as legitimately say, “Stop trying to expand the world based on your code of morals and ethics.” After all, you say: The morality that says marriage should not be limited to a pair of differently gendered people should be ignored and the world should be expanded according to my morality that says ‘marriage’ between two people of the same gender is just fine.” Well, what about the fellow or gal who says, “Your morality is too limiting in the world, and it should be expanded according to my moral code which says that polygamous marriages are legal and a right of all citizens.” Then the next fellow says, “Well, that morality is too limiting, as well: I believe I should be able to have a sexual relationship with anyone of any gender and any age, young children included.” Now, while this last statement is morally abhorrent to most, that’s just the point: it isn’t morally abhorrent to all. This leaves us with a quandary that your reasoning fails to answer: Who decides which morality is the one that limits us? If no code of morality whatsoever be allowed to limit the world in any way at all, then we will find ourselves in a world that only the insane would view such a world as desirable, regardless of one’s sexual preference, religion, etc.

    I know that the above discussion is often decried as a “senseless slippery slope” argument. However you would have to agree, Alice T., that the point I am making is true. Your “don’t define the borders of the world based on your moral code” argument is simply an argument to define the borders of the world according to your moral code. And if one is an invalid approach, so is the other.

    And if that is the case, all that’s left us is the very moral-free, ethics-free, godless, political, win-at-all-costs societal free-for-all we see forming before our very eyes. May the dirtiest fighter win. Survival of the fittest.

    (FYI: All of this is related to why I do not vote or participate in politics, by the way. God has not called me to make humanity in my own image — or in yours. Rather, God has called me to announce that Christ is coming to finish making humanity in His image, and He will certainly not use the politics and pathetic governmental systems of today to do it.)

    As great as the men and women who founded our country were — and I do believe this country was begun by some of the most incredible human beings to have ever lived — we are beginning to see now the ultimate folly of the noble experiment they began.

    Morality is at the heart of all governance. And there can be no sensible system of governance — secular or otherwise — without a mutually agreed upon answer to the question of “Says who?”

    Thanks for writing, Alice T. I know I have been excessively verbose — probably because I am in a rush (it’s a Blaise Pascal thing). These are thoughts I have wanted to put to words for some time, and your comment has given me the opportunity to do so, however disorganized they may be at the moment. I hope you are somewhat surprised that I agree with some of what you have said. At the same time, I hope I have helped you to see that apart from a system of Absolute Right and Wrong, your stance and reasoning is just as faulty as that of those whom you oppose — and, interestingly, for the very same reasons.

    Thanks, again.

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.