Wednesday, January 28, 2004

Gay unions: Ellis erred on facts, meaning of ‘rights’

Jeff Ellis engaged in typical misrepresentation of religion, facts, and the meaning of rights in his response to Dr. Throckmorton.

First of all, just because a Christian points out that homosexual sex is wrong does not mean he or she necessarily excludes homosexuals from their church, as Mr. Ellis affirms.

Christians who think homosexuality to be wrong probably just wish to continue to affirm that long-held truth than to accommodate our current cultural attitudes (which also hold that abortion and euthanasia are just dandy ways to get rid of certain uncomfortable problems).

Indeed, it is not “un-Christian behavior” to uphold Christian truth, but Christian duty. Now, if that duty leads someone to be uncharitable and cruel to a gay person, well, then that is wrong.

Second, neither I nor anyone I know would deny homosexuals “legal rights.” Activists use this logic to make us all feel guilty and cave to their demands to transform the most fundamental institution of humanity, marriage.

But what is really at stake is a concerted effort to redefine the most fundamental human institution, one that existed before any government or religion.

Further, this change is not being done democratically. Rather, gay activists circumvent legislatures and use liberal judges to accomplish their ends and force homosexual marriage on the public. This I am against.

Third, please don’t compare the terrible struggle of blacks in this country to that of homosexuals.

African-Americans were brought here under the worst of circumstances, completely denied their rights, and subjected to cruel treatment because of their race, not their behavior.

Homosexuality is primarily about behavior in that what defines a person as gay is whether he or she engages in homosexual sex.

The two are completely different and, as Mr. Ellis even acknowledges, science has not proved that homosexuality is genetic (there are actually many studies which show how homosexuality is a product of environment).

Fourth, are we ever going to get beyond Galileo? His most virulent critics were other scientists, who rightly objected to his lack of evidence for his theories (which were eventually proven, but not by him).

The church of the time was actually his main patron, since both he and his predecessor, Copernicus, taught in Catholic universities.

It wasn’t his theory which caused the church court to confine Galileo to his home (not prison); it was his betrayal of an agreement he made to refrain from publishing his theory as being definitively true with no alternative.

In any case, the definition of marriage is a quite different issue than the explanation of the cosmos. The church, along with almost all of human culture has universally, at all times and all places, defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Now Mr. Ellis seeks to simply toss that aside as so much Bible prejudice.

If he succeeds, and I fear he and his cohorts will, our society will continue the long, slow slide to moral barbarism which began in earnest in the 1960s.

Trey Hoffman

Peachtree City, Ga.