Close this search box.

Defining Marriage, Part IV: Are You A Bigot?

This is a four-part series on Defining Marriage, a new booklet from FPIW. 
Here is the series: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV.

Knowing what you believe and why you believe it is absolutely fundamental for Christians in a world trying to question and undermine our principals at every turn. In addition to knowing Holy Scripture, we also have to know how to respond logically and historically to the many questions that will be thrown our way by a culture so far from God. Below we offer two common arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, and how you can respond.

Argument #1: “Sexual discrimination is like racism; discriminating against homosexuals is just like the racist Jim Crow laws that prohibited inter-racial marriages between Blacks and Whites. Those people who oppose same-sex marriages are the new racists of our day. They are hateful bigots, as an article states: “Here Is All You Need To Prove Bigots Wrong About ‘Traditional Marriage’.”

  1. First, this is a false analogy. People who supported such Jim Crow bans on inter-racial marriage were not driven by a desire to redefine marriage. It was an issue of eugenics: they wanted racial purity because they believed that “one drop of black blood” would make a person black. They wanted to stop the creation of inter-racial or mixed-race children; they wanted to ban such procreation. They knew that one purpose of marriage was to procreate, and procreation outside of marriage was relatively rare during this time. Thus, the concern of those opposed to inter-racial marriage argument does not in any way apply to same-sex marriages, as children are obviously still procreated through one man and one woman and the marriage of two men or two women does not change that biological fact. These instances cannot be logically compared.
  2. Gender is not race. Race is a less central feature to our identity than is gender.
  3. Using hateful names, scoffing, or sneering says more about you than it does about many of the people who want to defend marriage. Basic respect is called for toward people who are sharing a heartfelt, sincerely-held idea they believe to be good and true.

Argument #2: “If you don’t want a same-sex marriage, then don’t get one. No one is forcing you to marry a homosexual. Same-sex marriage is no threat against you. No one is taking anything away.”

  1. Everyone knows that culture impacts us; it shapes our actions, our character — for example, pop culture, TV shows, the internet, the media, and the laws of government. Culture is like the air our souls breath. An endorsement or stamp of approval from the government that says same-sex unions are morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage will confuse young, impressionable children about their sexual identity. There’s no need to ask children questions like: “When you grow up, do you want to marry a man or a woman?” or “When you grow up, do you want to be a man or a woman?” These are not choices to be made, but biological facts to be accepted. Infusing this disdain for traditional marriage and gender roles into society is harmful to children and puts the perverted desires of the LGBT agenda above the long-term happiness of children – we know these lifestyles are not fulfilling as they are lived wholly separated from God. 
  2. We impact one another. Consider what happened when marriage was profoundly harmed by a change in the laws to make divorce easy: it did impact other people. It spread. A person who has a friend who is divorced is exponentially more likely — in fact, 147% more — to become divorced. “Attitudes flow across social ties” and “divorce can spread among friends,” explains Rose McDermott in their study Breaking Up Is Hard to Do, Unless Everyone Else Is Doing It Too.”  If a new easy-divorce law impacted those who were not divorced, then a new same-sex marriage law that redefines the very essence of marriage will certainly impact marriage in society.
  3. Government agencies will use genderless, neutered language such as “partner,” and therefore no longer refer to husbands as husbands, or wives as wives. As every politician and every great thinker knows (e.g., Confucius, Heidegger, Orwell, etc.), those who control language control the culture.
  4. Finally, those who stand for natural marriage may be punished for not accepting this man-made invention. “If support for one-man and one-woman marriage becomes the social equivalent of racism, people who believe all children need and deserve a mother and father will face persecution in the public square,” writes Katherine Kersten. “The state’s massive civil-rights enforcement regime will bear down upon them, effectively silencing them and sometimes even putting their employment at risk.”
  5. In addition, churches may be forced to host or perform same-sex ceremonies; teachers may be forced to teach homosexual behavior as morally acceptable; and employees, employers, and landlords may be forced to accept homosexual behavior. If they do not, they may be punished by the government. Fines, unemployment, bullying intimidation, mandatory Orwellian “diversity training,” social rejection, name-calling, and perhaps jail may be coming. If so, from which side of the debate does the hate and intolerance originate? 

We hope these common-sense responses to today’s most pressing social questions helps you feel more established in your beliefs and able to converse with those who may disagree with you in a healthy and productive manner. For more questions and responses, download our free booklet below:

Defining Marriage: Why Only One Man and One Woman? 

Additional Resources


Essays & Articles


Read More