Keep sharing good news without ads.
Continuation
Here's where I think the key to the subject is, and we have so little time. Marriage involves encountering the other. Compatibility, not sameness. It is the union of male and female that not only is life producing, but the male and the female are fulfilled in that union.
In biblical language, the two become one flesh, a union simply impossible for two men, two women, one man with many women in the situation of polygamous situations, one woman and many men, one human and any kind of non-human creature, etc.
The uniqueness of this lifelong commitment can be easily seen by the fact that even today, in our decadent culture, being faithful or unfaithful is still completely understandable to everybody in this room.
Deep down inside, we know what marriage is. As a result, to speak of granting the protections of marriage to a same-sex arrangement is, in its fullest sense, I believe, an oxymoron. Two men or two women cannot be, in the proper sense, one flesh.
Mirror images cannot produce life. Indeed, to use the same kind of language we use to describe the lifelong commitment of a man and a woman in marriage that lasts 40, 50 and 60 years is to strain the limits of the meaning of language itself.
I had the wonderful opportunity just a few years ago to take my children and to celebrate with my parents their 50th wedding anniversary. I am so glad they had that opportunity. And then, only a month ago, my son married a beautiful young lady and I know that that means in the not-too-distant future, unless something goes wrong, I'm going to have the joy of being a grandfather and I'm very much looking forward to that.
What does this show us? What do we see in this? I want to point out that the deprivation of a role model, whether it's the mother or the father, on purpose, I believe is a complete violation of what marriage is.
That's why I asked the clarifying question, because we didn't get a chance to hear it in the opening statement. If we are going to redefine marriage so that we can force children to not have a father or not have a mother by the definition of the institution, I suggest to you this is greatly degrading to the children and to the society as a whole.
Certainly, from the Christian perspective, it cannot possibly be seen as having any biblical foundation whatsoever. You may know, in my last few moments here, the story of Rosie O'Donnell, who has been very upfront in promoting the concept of gay marriage and these things related to that.
And she tells the story of the son that she is raising asking, where is my daddy? Now, that's a tragic question for a child to have to ask. And I know that heterosexual marriage, a man and a woman, does not always solve that problem.
Because, as I said, you can have death, you can have disease, you can have war, you can have situations where a person is unnaturally deprived of that person. But Rosie O'Donnell's answer to her son, I think, is a good reason for us to not embrace the concept of gay marriage.
Because her answer to her son is, the reason you have a daddy is because your mommy likes other mommies. That is a definition of marriage that is focused upon one person. Not upon, A, the fulfillment of the male-female relationship, the giving of life, the self-sacrificing of my own desires, the betterment of others.
And when a society sees the orphan and the widow, biblically we are to stand with them, we are to come to their assistance. But the society should never be specifically producing those situations where a child says, where is my mommy, where is my daddy, you don't have one because of my personal sexual desires.
From a Christian worldview, and I believe from any compassionate worldview, we have to look at that and say no, it is not possible to redefine marriage in that fashion.
My first observation is exactly what I thought, which is that Professor Reverend White and I agree on so many things. We agree on the importance of marriage, the power of the marital bond, and the sadness of the loss of it.
But I'll get to that in my concluding remarks. I guess the most important question that I have for Reverend White is, he used several times the expression, the Christian worldview. I have no disrespect for that statement, none at all.
Because I think many of us benefit from having a religious element, if not the central focus of our worldview, a religious element in it. I think that is a powerful thing for us to have. But I do have to go back to the First Amendment, which said, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
So here I guess to me is the single most important question that I've got to ask Reverend White.
We're both Christians, we see things differently.
Isn't it true, in a sense, that there can be more than one Christian view of the world?
That nobody has a monopoly on that.
I don't have a monopoly on that, I'd never say I would. I'm a leader of a Christian organization called the Cursillo Movement. He is the leader of an organization called the Alpha and Omega Ministries.
We probably agree on some things, disagree on other things, whatever. The point of it is, I don't have a monopoly on the Christian worldview. Neither does Reverend White, neither does anybody. We could say so many different religions in the world.
I mean, the Roman Catholics have this view, that traditionally, that most Catholics only say,.
That the Pope is infallible.
Most Catholics, let alone everybody else, would say,.
Give me a break.
I would apply the same point to any religion that says,.
We're infallible. Heck with the Pope, we're infallible.
And I guess my question to you is,.
Wouldn't you have to agree that no one group has a monopoly over the definition of the Christian worldview?
How much time do I have?
Sorry.
In a minute and a half, I do not believe that there is any question that the Bible as the foundation of the Christian worldview is very clear in its definition of marriage and its definition of human sexuality.
I cannot go into this today, but this is not the first time I've encountered that kind of a challenge. Just a few years ago, I debated John Shelby Spong on the subject of homosexuality in the Bible. A few years before that, Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation, Church and State.
And I would encourage people to look at those debates and to examine the evidence that is brought forth to find out who can present a consistent, all across the scriptures, and historically steady presentation on what is and what is not the Christian worldview in regards to the subject of marriage.
I don't believe anyone is going to argue that the Bible does not teach that God created for a purpose. I don't believe anyone is going to argue that he did not in fact establish marriage and that the Lord Jesus himself did not bless that institution of marriage and to define very clearly that that was an abiding institution that in fact is so special that it is used to describe the relationship of Christ to his church in Ephesians chapter 5.
And so while I would agree that there are differences amongst Christians on various issues, I don't believe that the issue of human sexuality and marriage is a place where the Bible is unclear at all.
Vernon White, Professor White, in so many ways, the value of the family bond is huge,.
Which is precisely why.
I think it could be the most beneficial thing.
To the gay community.
And to those people who are living this life who are, and we'll talk about that in a second,.
To have this in their lives.
But I want to go back to the question.
Of what we mean by a Christian worldview.
Well, I have brought one of my many Bibles.
And I'd like to read you one thing.
From the book of Leviticus.
This is Leviticus chapters 13 and 14. It begins like this. The Lord said to Moses, This shall be the law of the leper. The leper who has disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head hang loose and he shall cover his upper lip.
And cry unclean, unclean.
He shall remain unclean as long as he has disease. He is unclean, he shall dwell alone in a habitation outside the camp.