The Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) is the old mainline Presbyterian Church within the United States. It has roots in the early history of American Christianity and came to its present form through various mergers and developments over the past three centuries. After a division in the Civil War the denomination underwent other divisions in the fundamentalist/modernist debates of the twentieth century. Now the PCUSA is being torn apart by the debate over homosexual marriage. The debate is said, by friend and foe alike, to be over “gay marriage.” In reading the press reports about this debate in recent news it strikes me that everyone involved in this debate would be better served if we called this by the right name—the LGBT Marriage Agenda. (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders).
Why do I say it this way? Because the real debate here is not being conducted honestly. This is true in the wider culture but it is even more imperative that we see this inside the church. Let me explain.
LGBT’s consistently argue that marriage is a right. They then argue that they are being discriminated against by state and church laws that limit marriage to one man and one woman. So far considerable numbers of people seem to agree, though this is still a distinct minority in the culture and the church. But here is the problem—if marriage is a right, and not simply a privilege, then all LGBT’s should be allowed to marry. This is not simply a homosexual debate. We should be clear about this in our discussion. If L’s and G’s can marry then what about B’s and T’s?
The transgender issue may not be a real issue but the bisexual one already is in countries where L’s and G’s get married in the state and the church. This is the argument of the “slippery slope,” which should not be quickly discarded in this particular case. In a bisexual relationship there are at least three people involved and there could be more. (No one places a limit here.) LGBT advocates seem unified in claiming that there is no inherent difference between each of them. Proponents of Gay and Lesbian marriage generally recognize that there should be no discrimination against B’s and T’s. To say otherwise is a form of obvious discrimination if you follow the original argument.
Based on this thinking bisexuals have as much right to marriage as others. Conclusion—acceptance of gay and lesbian marriage leads to the acceptance of polygamy.
For those who argue otherwise I have one answer: the Netherlands. In 2005 the first trio got legally married there. The Brussels Journal said “the union of three partners was registered and polygamy has been legalized in all but name.” The first case consisted of a man and two bisexual women. The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full legal rights for marriage to gays and lesbians. The facts are clear—they are clearly moving toward polygamy. This is not a straw man!
There is actually a name for this kind of relationship if you Google it: triad marriage. You can find, by a Web search, that there are sites openly advocating this practice and promoting it around the world. There is even another (new) word for those who intimately love more than one person: polyamory. Though not yet in Webster’s it is only a matter of time. A Web search will reveal that loving more than one person at a time is polyamory. These relationships vary from those who just love more than one person in a relationship and accept infidelity and those who reject infidelity. Polyamorists follow the LGBT agenda and see the acceptance of it as normative and desirable.
Tomorrow: Isn’t this debate really about the definition of marriage?
Comments are closed.
My Latest Book!
Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!
I think this debate is also about how a Christian views the Law in Scripture. I have heard people say, “I am under grace not law,” as an excuse for behaviors that are clearly prohibited. Within the church, this debate will touch the very nature of godliness and righteousness. I would love to read your thoughts on the right use of the OT Law as it realates to this debate.