Recently, in the February issue of Scientific American there was an article entitled “New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You.” Polyamory is defined as “consensually nonmonogamous relationships.” So anything short of an all-inclusive tent of sexual orientation where anyone can marry anyone could be construed as discriminatory, arbitrary, and far from “equality.”
• To the issue of homosexuals being “born that way” and thus should be entitled the same consideration of heterosexuals. Even if this were true, it doesn’t matter to those who deem homosexual acts as wrong. As mentioned before, others may have different “sexual orientations.” Shouldn’t they be included because, after all, they were “born that way?”
Where does society draw the line? Why even draw one? Just because someone is born with natural inclinations does not mean we have to act on those inclinations.
• To the issue of “consenting adults as long as they love each other.” Does this argument apply to family members who romantically love each other? If not, why not? The age of consent has been lowered in many countries. China, for instance, is age 14; Sweden, 15. So suppose a niece who is 15 falls in love with her 50-year-old uncle, why can they not marry?
• To the issue of “comparing the Gay Rights Movement to the Civil Rights Movement.” Do not minority groups find this comparison insulting? The civil rights struggle had to do with the color of one’s skin; the other has to do with lifestyle. Also, the difference was that pastors and priests were engaged in support of civil rights for minorities, but many pastors, including many African-American pastors, oppose same-sex marriage.
• To the issue of “Jesus never spoke against homosexuality.” This is a true statement, but here’s the truth — Jesus clearly defined the parameters of marriage. While on the subject on whether couples can divorce for any reason, he referred back to the book of Genesis and cited God’s creation ordinance that marriage is solely between a male and a female (Matthew 19).