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 have historically 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 it.

But why do so many heterosexuals support same-sex marriage? It seems apparent that most are misled by 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]

1. 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]

2. 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.

3. 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 mitzvot. 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.

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 is 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 of 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… In Torah-loyalty, he sees superstition, backwardness, and at the same time a calamity… He sees in liberation from the yoke of the Law a goal so high and humanitarian that every means… 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.