What I Said to my Buddy…

A long-time buddy of mine, whom I haven’t seen in many years, came out on his blog supporting the idea of “gay marriage” in the state of Iowa (where he lives). He listed a number of reasons; I’ve decided to simply give my responses to him (and if those responses spark discussion/disagreement here, so be it). Suffice it to say that the in-the-hip-pocket-of-the-homosexual-lobby media won’t raise these aspects of the debate, instead mindlessly trumpeting the shallow “reasoning” of the “intellectual elites”. Without further ado, I wrote:


This is an involved subject with many issues to consider. I’m going to give you a few things to think about, without going into much detail, and then come back and elaborate on them. Basically, you’ve given the standard media rationale for permitting “gay marriage”; I’ve heard this reasoning time and again. Dare I suggest that it is fundamentally flawed at a number of points? So let me suggest a few, ask you to “think outside the (media-constructed) box”, and think about why the following things I submit are true (and if you can’t figure it out, think deeper, dude!). At any rate, I’ll be back when time permits to elaborate. Ready?

1. The issue of “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “equal rights”. Nothing. Zilch. Zip. Zero. Nada. This is because

2. Homosexual Americans have always had equal rights with other Americans when it comes to marriage, no more, and no less (you don’t hear that from the media, do ya?). 🙂 The truth is that for every American, there are some people who a given individual can be married to, and some they cannot, and it’s equal for everybody. Currently. Without “gay marriage”. In fact, “gay marriage” extends a special right to homosexuals. And I can prove it. Easily.

3. To reduce the concept of marriage to a matter of gaining extra “rights”, anyway, is to badly misconstrue the meaning of marriage in the first place. This is what I hear from a lot of folks: “homosexuals” need “gay marriage” in order to have certain rights. But that’s not what marriage is all about…people who go into marriage primarily to obtain “rights” are seriously misguided.

4. Some of what you say you were taught is indeed incorrect–but it is not the Bible that is to blame at all, but rather the (perhaps well-meaning) misrepresentations/extensions of Scripture. The Bible doesn’t teach, for instance, that all temptations come from the same source; i.e., I fully believe (along with you), that there are some people who are, for lack of a better term, “born” with homosexual tendencies/temptations.

5. The logical leap you’ve made, though, is that having a certain desire (in this case, homosexual temptation) justifies behavior in keeping with those desires. This is true neither for homosexuals nor for heterosexuals. Having homosexual attraction, I agree, is not a “choice” with some people (and the Bible doesn’t indicate that it is). Engaging in homosexual behavior, on the other hand, is ALWAYS a choice.

6. The evidence you cite to support your belief that “homosexuals were born that way” isn’t nearly as strong as you believe it to be; rather, that’s a useful fallacy that has been repeated so long that it has become “accepted truth” (repeat a lie long enough, and people will start to believe it). A close friend of mine is a researcher on this very subject, and the results of studies that have been done do not paint NEARLY so black-and-white a picture as the media presents and as you have come to believe.

7. For the Christian, it’s one thing–and perfectly valid–to say, “some of what I was taught was wrong” (because that’s true for all of us, I daresay; I can point to things I was taught that aren’t true either). It’s a different thing–and I hope you aren’t saying this–to say, “the Bible is wrong”. I submit that a Christian is on shaky ground to take that position.

8. The old adage is, “before you knock down a fence, you ought to take care to find out why it was put there in the first place.” Our current rush to legitimize “gay marriage” demonstrates essentially zero concern to ask, “why was the ‘fence’ put there in the first place?” And there are plenty of good reasons.

9. I do hope that all supporters of “gay marriage” understand that

A. The redefinition of marriage (and that’s the issue, not “rights”) cheapens the marriages of every heterosexual couple (and that’s not hard to prove, either).

B. In states where “gay marriage” becomes legal, there is now no logical impediment to polygamy (which has a fuller historical pedigree than “gay marriage”), group marriage, even incestuous marriage (I could be wrong on that last point, but not the first two). Iowa can find no rational, logical, consistent reason to deny a marriage license to a man wanting to marry three wives now.

I hope my comments aren’t “un-pretty”; I make them with a smile on my face and love in my heart. But I think that on this subject, a lot of folks aren’t thinking NEARLY deeply-enough. At any rate, that’s an opening salvo; I can back up every statement I make with logic and cogent reasoning. Might I suggest that any readers consider how/why those arguments, many of which aren’t even being heard in this critical national debate, are true. More later!!!


  1. Harold Martin on April 25, 2009 at 12:17 pm

    I appreciate the comments. I’m taking them all in. My views are still the same but I do listen to what everyone has to say. Unlike alof of supporters I do keep an open mind to both sides. 🙂

    • Byron on April 25, 2009 at 12:34 pm

      Good, dude, ’cause I have not yet begun to argue! 🙂

  2. Harold Martin on April 25, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    LOL! Not looking to argue old friend. Could have at least linked to said article LOL!

    • Byron on April 25, 2009 at 10:52 pm

      I didn’t necessarily want to put you on the spot, but since you mentioned it, here ’tis, y’all:

      Gay Marriage

  3. Harold Martin on April 26, 2009 at 9:57 am

    You wouldn’t be putting me on the spot. I welcome the debate. It’s a welcome change 🙂

  4. Hefe on April 26, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    My problem with the argument as put forth by Harold (hello by the way), is the assumption that there are only two choices when it comes to nature. Either it is a choice – akin to choosing my breakfast cereal, or people are born that way, much like people are born with a particular skin color. Is there no other way to understand human nature, say that an introductory course in Psychology could inform us about?

  5. Laurie on April 26, 2009 at 6:48 pm

    As I read thru the article, the first thing I thought was how glad I am that I don’t have any dear close friends or relatives that are gay, because for some people that becomes a temptation to be so sympathetic to their situations that it can influence the way they think. I don’t want to close my eyes to sin because the dear friends or relatives that have fallen into it are so nice.


    I’m quite a bit older than 30, and I realized a long time ago that not everything I was taught about the Bible is true, but I do believe the Bible itself is true. I could base my belief about this on my personal observations, as you seem to be doing, but we don’t need the Bible for that, do we? I could talk about situations I’ve seen, and you can talk about the ones you’ve seen, and we could talk about our opinions based on those observations, but – what about what the Bible says? If we leave that out then let’s be honest and say we’re not arguing from a biblical standpoint.

    People aren’t “close minded” just because they don’t share your point of view. You could say they’re close minded if they won’t let you express your view, or if they disregard it without addressing the points you bring up, or if they just want to argue with or insult you without engaging in a reasonable discussion, but not just because they don’t agree with you.


    I agree with all the points you made so I’m seconding you with an amen!

    • Byron on April 26, 2009 at 11:29 pm


      Have you EVER disagreed with me? You’re a wise woman…oh, and I was in Alabama today, at Talladega (left right after church, made it there 5 minutes before they dropped the green flag).

  6. Harold Martin on April 27, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    What other ways are there? I guess the only other “possible” way would maybe dbe due to mloestation at a young age by someone of the same sex? That’s about the only other way I can even think of sorry.

  7. Laurie on April 27, 2009 at 7:33 pm


    I’m always thinking you’re a wise guy, I mean a wise man, too!

    How’s the weather in AL? I’m in St. Louis right now, but I’ll be headed back that way next week.

    Race fan, huh? That’s where we disagree…

    • Byron on April 27, 2009 at 10:39 pm

      Keep reading my blog, and I’ll straighten you out on that as well. It was about 90 yesterday, but for whatever reason, it was quite comfortable in the grandstands. A decent breeze blew to help cool us off.

  8. Hefe on April 28, 2009 at 9:45 am


    If you ever come visit, you could pay me a lot of money to watch me drive around in circles too…. I’ll even maks sure you have shade.

  9. Laurie on April 28, 2009 at 9:54 pm

    LOL! And if you’re worried about missing a race on TV, can’t you just record the first lap and play it over and over? Well, I guess you’d need the finish too, not sure how you’d work that out.

    • Byron on April 30, 2009 at 11:47 am

      You guys are just a LOAD of laughs…

Leave a Comment