SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE GAY: A GUIDE TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE—BY SAMUEL SILVER

Some of My Best Friends are Gay

A Guide to Same-Sex Marriage

From the Manufacturer’s Instruction Manual

March 2004

By Samuel Silver

The debate about legal recognition of same-sex marriage is ultimately grounded in our understanding of human nature, values, and the role of human relationships in creating and defining the type society we desire. For the vast majority of Americans, these issues are understood in the context of the Bible and religious traditions, the Instruction Manual provided by our manufacturer. [1]

This critical debate is not truly between homosexuals and heterosexuals; it is between two opposing worldviews, one secular and the other religious. [2] Approximately 80% of Americans hold a religious worldview, [3] but the secular left has done an excellent, yet nefarious, job of dividing those with a religious worldview through false stereotyping. Their manipulative divide & conquer strategy has led many religious people to erroneously fear other religious people more than they fear the secular fundamentalists set on destroying religion and Judeo-Christian values. Thus, many Americans are understandably confused about the same-sex marriage issue and its ultimate driving force, secular fundamentalism.

Everyone does not fit neatly into the purely religious or purely secular worldviews, but sitting this one out is not a viable alternative. The stakes for our families and free society are too great. We have to join one team or the other, so we must each choose which team is closer to our own personal values, or which team is further from our values. To avoid a choice is still a choice — one for the other team.

THE RELIGIOUS POSITION

Everyone knows the secular and radical gay rights side of the argument; the public schools, universities, and mass media faithfully present it to us. Fewer understand the religious side of the argument, which is falsely portrayed as ignorant, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, and homophobic. A proper understanding of the religious position is necessary if a real debate is to take place prior to the destruction of a 5,000-year-old institution by a minority of citizens, against the will of the majority.

To discuss the religious view of human nature is not to ignore science, which also informs the opinions of Americans. Many people may not be aware that modern science is belatedly learning that the Biblical view of human nature is more accurate than the views that have been the foundation for most of secular liberalism. In his courageous new book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, MIT professor Steven Pinker, himself a secular liberal, concludes the theory of human nature coming out of the cognitive revolution has more in common with the Judeo-Christian theory of human nature than with behaviorism, social constructionism, and other versions of the Blank Slate. Those that think religion is just ancient superstition should take a second, or in many cases, a first look.

To discuss the religious view in dealing with matters of public policy is also not to ignore Separation of Church and State, a 19th century metaphor mistakenly assumed to be in the U.S. Constitution. Unlike humans who are born morally tabula rasa with a blank slate, the United States was not created morally tabula rasa as a secular nation. The unifying moral principle of this country’s founding was a religious faith in a divine Creator and the freedom of each individual to practice his or her religion (or no religion) without interference from the government.

The Founders believed that religious faith, particularly the Judeo-Christian tradition, provided the objective ethical basis needed for a free society to properly function. To this very day, the majority of Americans share this belief, so to ban religion from the public square is to radically redefine America into a secular nation in opposition to both the principles upon which it was created and the wishes of the majority of its citizens.

The government, as defined in the First Amendment and explained by its author James Madison, must remain neutral between various sects of religion, but is not required to remain neutral between religion and irreligion. [4] In the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, so frequently and erroneously presented as an atheist:

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?”

A review of traditional Judaism’s opposition to homosexuality—and most importantly its public sanction with the legal recognition of same-sex marriage—will highlight the fallacies many well-meaning people, Jew and non-Jew, have apparently accepted. [5] (Judaism will guide this discussion, although the general ideas should be in agreement with traditional Christianity.)

To have compassion and tolerance for all of God’s children is admirable and a mitzvah (commandment) under Jewish law, but there is no way Jewish law and tradition can be perverted to endorse and publicly sanction same-sex marriage.

The Instruction Manual is clear and unequivocal: “You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.” [6] The ultimate punishment for homosexuality—along with the other sexual sins listed in this section, such as bestiality and incest—is kares: God’s cutting off their souls (spiritually) from the midst of their people. Kares is generally understood to be exacted after death, and is considered one of the most severe punishments for a sin. In Judaism, the harshness of the punishment assigned to a sin, whether or not meant to be carried out by humans, helps us understand the relative seriousness of the sin.

Obviously, sexual immorality is a very serious matter for Jews, but Judaism also teaches that sexual immorality, including homosexuality, is universally prohibited to all humans as one of the seven Noahide Laws—God’s natural law for all mankind. [7]

The very first commandment in the Bible comes immediately following God’s creation of human beings, male and female together and equally in His image: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” [8] The great 19th century sage, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, describes this fourfold mission as a guide to the whole free-willed moral development of the human race: Fruitful is marriage, multiply is the family, fill the earth is society, and subdue it is property—i.e., the mastering, appropriating and transforming the earth and its products for human purposes. [9]

Rabbi Hirsch further points out the critical nature of heterosexual relationships, based on the Commandment for “man to leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and they will be one flesh.” [10] Man is not unique among living beings in having a sexual life. But other creatures require mating only for the purpose of breeding; because male and female were created simultaneously, they can function independent of one another. Man is different: woman was created from man to show that only in a partnership do the two of them form a complete human being. [11]

While a small percentage of humans may subconsciously desire a same-sex relationship because it is less complex and challenging, God warns us to consciously overcome that desire and understand that He created the female to be a helper corresponding to the male. As the sages explain: “A wife is neither man’s shadow nor his servant, but his other self, a helper in a dimension beyond the capability of any other creature.” [12]

Interestingly, the Hebrew word kinegdo, here translated as corresponding to him, may also be translated as against him or opposite him—reflecting the built-in complexity and difficulty of the complementary relationship between man and woman.

So humans, originally created as male and female, then separated, must rejoin not just physically, but spiritually to create a civil and prosperous society. Our Creator did not design us to achieve this necessary spiritual unity with same-sex relationships.

But humans do not like rules defining and inhibiting our behavior, so we use our God-given ability to rationalize almost anything and accept erroneous ideas in order to ignore those rules.

FALLACY #1: NATURAL INCLINATION EQUALS ACCEPTABLE PUBLIC BEHAVIOR

Whether a homosexual inclination is caused by genetics, hormonal changes in the womb, psychological development, or mere whim is completely irrelevant. The Creator of human nature would not have prohibited homosexual activity if He did not design this inclination to be controllable by human free will. He gave us free will to control the multitude of inclinations that we all possess to varying degrees. Some are extremely difficult to control, but we are discussing human behavior, not a passive trait such as skin color.

God also gave we mortal and physical humans commandments to guide us in the choices we make, in order to elevate ourselves spiritually—not to live as instinctual animals, but as rational human beings created in His image. And our volitional efforts are necessary so the spirituality we attain will have a distinct human involvement.

As Maimonides (1135–1204), one of Judaism’s greatest philosophers and legal codifiers, taught:

“It is possible for a person to be born with a tendency to one of the virtues or one of the shortcomings—i.e., conduct [representative of this trait] will come easier to him than other types of conduct. He should not say that these shortcomings are already ingrained in his character and cannot be removed. For in every situation a person has the choice of changing from good to bad, and from bad to good. The choice is in his hands.” [13]

Without free will, there is no basis for morality—or for that matter Judaism or Christianity—so to argue that homosexuality or any prohibited behavior is OK because it is a natural inclination is an oxymoron. [14] After all, some scientists believe that people are born with inclinations to be violent or criminal or even pedophiles. Do we then condone and sanction these anti-social actions because they were born that way?

Those who believe modern science has proven homosexual activity is impossible to control, resist, or even change—and believe that people who disagree are ignorant and homophobic—should be more open-minded and check their premises. [15] Regardless of propaganda in the mass media, there is no scientific evidence demonstrating that homosexuality is either innate or immutable. [16]

FALLACY #2: OPPOSITION TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS HATEFUL HOMOPHOBIA

Many view the legalization of same-sex marriage as eliminating discrimination in a desire not to make anyone feel uncomfortable—as if there is a Constitutional right not to feel uncomfortable. They even tie-in discussions of same-sex marriage with hate crimes legislation. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between hating the sin and hating the sinner.

The idea that opposition to homosexual activity and its public sanction is equivalent to or leads to hatred of individual homosexuals is a big lie created to demonize, intimidate, and silence opponents of the gay rights agenda. And the data confirms the big lie. Every crime of violence against another human being is reprehensible, but according to the latest FBI Hate Crimes statistics, it is estimated that less than 0.0001% of homosexuals were victims of violent assaults—not exactly an epidemic of homophobic rage spreading across America. [17]

In one of the founding documents of the gay liberation movement, published in the mid-1980s, the National Gay Task Force laid out their plan to create this big lie. [18]

The first order of business is the desensitization of the American people concerning gays and gay rights.

Almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to it enough.

The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful imagemakers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of television daily. Those hours open a gate: the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message of normalcy.

Portray gays as victims. In any campaign to win over the public we must be cast as victims in need of protection, so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of the protector.

We can undercut the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters badly out of step with the times.

At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights, it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. The public must be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust Middle America… These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burnt alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged. These images should be combined by a method propagandists call the bracket technique.

The propagandists have been extremely successful! We let their Trojan horse enter our homes unabated, and we let them infect the minds of our children. But it is still a lie, built on anti-religious bigotry.

Judaism and Christianity both abhor the sin of homosexual behavior, but only teach love, respect, and toleration for individual fellow humans—all created in the image of God. Religious people who believe homosexual behavior is a sin and oppose same-sex marriage can sincerely say: “Some of my best friends are gay!”

The fact is that a person practicing homosexuality has committed a religious sin—a very serious one in God’s eyes—but so has a Jew that doesn’t keep Kosher, observe the Sabbath, or violates any of the Commandments. They are no less Jewish, and society lives and deals with these sinners in a variety of amicable, tolerant, and neighborly ways without creating special legal rights. This same tolerance applies to homosexuals. [19]

Truly religious people are tolerant of others with whom they disagree and can live peaceably and neighborly with them in a free society. [20] This is especially true in America where the political environment has always been one based on respect for and protection of individual rights. But the gay rights movement does not want tolerance; they want nothing less than forced acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, healthy, and moral—a position most religious people must reject for themselves and their children. And this is where the problems arise.

This undemocratic use of government force by a minority of citizens is at its most despicable when public schools are used to impose these ideas on children of religious families. [21] And as if this use of public schools for ideological indoctrination were not enough, they then use judicial activism to control private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, which are only remotely connected to the government.

Are there intolerant religious people? Of course—but they represent only a small minority not fully observing a basic tenet of both Judaism and Christianity: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” [22] Their religious practice, however flawed, at least constrains their behavior, and in the long run it is an effective tool for improving their humanity.

On the other side, without religion as the basis for the public moral culture, what will constrain behavior and lead to an improvement of humanity? What will restrain secular intolerance from infecting not a small minority, but a large majority? History’s grand experiment with a secular society, Communism, was an evil and dismal failure that killed approximately 100 million innocent people in the 20th Century. [23] Add to that the Holocaust perpetrated by the socialist, neo-pagan Nazis. All of the (Judeo-Christian) religious wars in the history of the world pale by comparison. [24]

Could a secular society result in a nation as great as the United States? Anything is possible in a perfect world—but in our imperfect world, no such society has yet approached the freedom and the spiritual and material prosperity of the United States.

Those who wish to ban religion from the public square and impose secularism on the majority of Americans would do well to rethink their position—the grass is not always greener on the other side. As Benjamin Franklin wrote to Thomas Paine in an attempt to persuade Paine to abandon his anti-religion essays: “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it.” [25]

FALLACY #3: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS A PRIVATE ACT BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS

“The hidden [sins] are for Hashem, our God, but the revealed [sins] are for us and our children forever, to carry out all the words of this Torah.” (Deuteronomy 29:28)

The sages explain that Moses is teaching: hidden sins are the province of God alone, and He holds no one responsible but the sinners themselves. But everyone is obligated to safeguard against openly committed sins. [26] Thus, homosexual activity between consenting adults practiced in privacy is primarily a sin against God, and He will deal with it. It is not a matter for government regulation. The same cannot be said about same-sex marriage.

Most people may be surprised to know that the debate over same-sex marriage is not new. As the wise King Solomon taught us: “There is nothing new under the sun.” The Bible teaches that God brought on the Flood in Noah’s time because “all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.” [27] A fascinating Midrash (ancient rabbinic commentary on the Bible) teaches: “The generation of the Flood was only blotted out from the world because they wrote marriage contracts for males and for females.” [28]

Later, the Talmud teaches that Noahides (monotheistic non-Jews) who did not observe all of the Noahide laws at least did not write a marriage contract for males. [29] In explaining this discussion, Rashi, the great 11th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, points out the vital distinction between private actions and public policy:

“Even though they are suspected of homosexuality and sequester themselves with males for intercourse, nevertheless, they are not so irresponsible about this commandment that they would write a marriage contract for them.”

There are serious consequences to a society that officially sanctions activities the vast majority of its citizens accept as immoral. We ignore, at our own peril, the infinite difference between acceptable private and public behavior—especially for families raising children with a focus on future generations, a challenge very few homosexuals share.

To publicly sanction same-sex marriage is to implicitly sanction the short-term outlook on life inherent to homosexuality. A perfect example of the disastrous public policy effects of this short-sighted viewpoint was the father of FDR’s New Deal, economist John Maynard Keynes. A major flaw in Keynes’ thinking was his concentration on the short-term. He thought that focus on the long run was utterly futile and one of the great mistakes in economics. He abhorred “savings,” thought the “abstinence” of people impedes the growth of wealth, and believed savings are always a potential threat to economic progress.

One of the leading economists of the 20th Century, Joseph Schumpeter, noted the connection between Keynes’ flawed ideas and his “childless and essentially short run philosophy of life” when he said: “For a person committed to homosexuality, who is without descendants, there is little for them to focus the future on.” [30] It is not a coincidence that the Hebrew word in the Bible for children is linguistically the same as builders.

As economist and political philosopher Thomas Sowell explains: [31]

“Marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three or four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes, and species? Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that.”

If society elects not to say anything about it and abandons the primacy of the traditional family—with its focus on children and future generations—we also abandon our connections to past generations, traditions, and history. All we will be left with is a present filled with hedonistic irresponsibility. And we don’t have to wait too long—just look around! This current attempt at a perpetual age of adolescence, if not halted soon, will lead at an increasingly rapid rate to the uncontrollable destruction of civil society.

The Emperor Nero reportedly went so far as to write a marriage contract for one of his favorite male lovers. [32] Do we really want to follow the Roman Empire into decline and ruin? It is critical to recognize the essential difference between a society where homosexuality is practiced privately and one that actually gives it official sanction and recognition.

FALLACY #4: ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR HOMOSEXUALS CAN ONLY BE OBTAINED BY GOVERNMENT FORCE

Proponents of same-sex marriage claim all they really want are equal rights for homosexuals who live together as couples. This is very appealing to Americans who historically have been tolerant and fair—but it is a false argument.

Before new rights are created, it is only logical to ask: what is their source? The revolutionary achievement of the Founders of the United States was their recognition that neither they nor any government could create rights. This was in complete contrast to the historic Divine Rights of Kings or the modern systems of man-made collective rights, such as in the former Soviet Union.

The individual rights of man were from God, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

President John F. Kennedy confirmed the divine source of these rights in his Inaugural Address:

“…the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.”

Same-sex marriage, by any stretch of the imagination, is in complete contradiction to God’s Instruction Manual—so if the rights of man come from the hand of God, it is inconceivable that God would view same-sex marriage as a right.

If proponents of same-sex marriage truly want just the economic benefits (not rights) that heterosexual couples have, those benefits can easily be provided in the free market on a voluntary basis, without the use of government force. Many corporations such as Disney, General Electric, and Wal-Mart accommodate their employee benefit programs for homosexuals—and many already include insurance coverage for domestic partners. Just as voluntary sexual activity should be a private matter, economic benefits for private sexual relationships should be voluntary.

This may entail modifications in some State laws concerning contracts and benefits—but it does not require laws destroying the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman that has been the cornerstone of civilization for over 5,000 years.

A FINAL FALLACY: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE HURTS NO ONE

In America, we believe in Live and Let Live—so who is hurt if two boys or two girls want to marry each other?

Live & Let Live is a great hallmark of American political life—but it is only effective in matters between fully developed adults. The introduction of children and a concern for future generations change the equation.

This is especially true when it comes to public sanctions and forced indoctrination of children in the public school system. Parents should not be forced to teach their children that a fundamental religious and moral prohibition—one that has been a standard of Judeo-Christian morality for thousands of years—is not only condoned, but is publicly sanctioned by their government.

Many homosexuals, such as those with a religious worldview and especially those with children or strong family ties, understand and accept the position that same-sex marriage will be harmful to society—yet it is understandable that many other homosexuals might not see the harm in same-sex marriage.

But why do so many heterosexuals support same-sex marriage? It seems apparent that most are misled with the nice-sounding, but intentionally false idea that government force is necessary to eliminate hatred, uncomfortable feelings, and differences in economic benefits.

What about those leading this battle and intentionally misleading the public? Why are they so vociferously demanding the right to impose this potentially disastrous policy on the majority of Americans?

The answer lies in the fundamental difference between the secular and the religious worldviews—therefore, it is not unimportant that the vast majority of Americans hold a religious outlook on life.

The third chapter of the Talmud, Pirkei Avos (Chapters of the Fathers), asks three of the most critical questions humans grapple with. [33] As Rabbi Daniel Lapin explains, each of these transcendental questions can be answered in two primary ways—defining the difference between the two worldviews. [34]

HOW DID HUMAN BEINGS COME TO BE ON THIS PLANET?

Religious: God created us in His image and placed us here.

Secular: By a lengthy, random process of unaided materialistic evolution, primitive protoplasm became Bach and Beethoven. [35]

WHERE IS THE HUMAN RACE HEADED?

Religious: To an ultimate day of God’s choosing when a grand Messianic redemption will take place—resulting in the whole world recognizing God and His truth.

Secular: To an ultimate day of destruction and oblivion that will wipe us out through overcrowding, poverty, global warming, acid rain, nuclear explosion, off-course meteorites, or any combination of the above.

WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING HERE?

Religious: We are supposed to be developing our relationship with God and becoming closer to Him through studying and following His Torah and obeying His mitzvoth. In other words, we have a set of objective ethics to live by.

Secular: There are no objective ethics—so everything is subjective and relative. Anything goes is good enough as far as our personal lives go! Our primary focus on the future is to head off the threats to humanity in the Secular answer to question #2. If they are too formidable for us to solve alone, we should urge our government to solve them. If they are too much for one government to solve, we should urge governments to cooperate through the United Nations in order to solve them.

Monotheists, such as Jews and Christians, would be in basic agreement with the religious answers—albeit with variations in the details. Secularists eschew objective values and ethics [36] and look at the future as extremely tenuous and limited to only this world. The ultimate day of destruction and oblivion are rapidly approaching—and there is nothing after that! Thus both homosexual and heterosexual secularists, based on their secular worldview, can very easily fall into the trap of supporting same-sex marriage.

To do so, they intentionally ignore the serious problems they are imposing on parents with a religious worldview—parents trying to teach their children Judeo-Christian values.

Secularists truly believe religious people are ignorant, intolerant, homophobic, racist, and generally dangerous; so they believe it is only social justice to destroy any public acceptance of the religious worldview—even by undemocratic means. The leaders of the secular movement are strident atheists who cannot tolerate religious people—a constant reminder of everything they reject. Instead of being religious fundamentalists, they became secular fundamentalists. Through propaganda and ridicule, these fundamentalists have also convinced a minority of Americans, who believe in God, to fear religion more than secularism—in complete disregard to the barbaric reality of the 20th century.

After the fall of Nazism and Communism, the secular fundamentalists focused primarily on post-Christian Europe and American academia—turning both into hotbeds of anti-religious bigotry and virulent anti-Semitism. These self-proclaimed progressives espouse diversity, but are in fact very close-minded and hostile to all political, cultural, and especially religious opinions with which they disagree.

Over a century ago, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch anticipated modern secular fundamentalism with prophetic precision: [37]

“It is now no longer enough for the apostate to be able to live undisturbed according to his convictions, as he calls them; to him there is no well-being and no peace as long as his convictions have not become the only ones recognized as right and valid.

He sees in the Law an intellectual slavery from which it is the Godly task of a second Moses to redeem his unfortunate brothers. In Torah-loyalty, he sees superstition, backwardness, and at the same time a calamity which is to blame for all the miseries of the past.

He sees in liberation from the yoke of the Law a goal so high and so humanitarian that every means which seems capable of bringing about progress toward this great goal must be employed.

He has reached the stage of waging fanatical campaigns of persecution against those loyal to the Law.”

Extremists on either side can be dangerous if initiation of force is not limited by a strong Constitutional defense of individual rights and religious freedom. [38] The secular side, however, offers the greatest risk to society. It contains no internalized mechanism for an objective moral code of human cooperation and must rely solely on the collectivized, legalistic force of government for citizens to defend themselves. It also contains no effective, common moral foundation for raising children—especially in a vacuum without an existent moral culture passed down from previous generations of religious tradition.