What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? – Rom. 8:31
(I’m starting this blog with that verse above because I know that I’m no match intellectually to the person I’ll be responding to in this blog. But I know that if I have the truth, and since Christ is the Truth, I know He is with me. If God is for me, that’s all the assurance I need in writing this. Now on to the blog proper.)
About a week ago, blogger and CNN host James Deakin, who has become very popular for his helpful insights and analysis of anything related to transportation and traffic, decided to give his two-cents’ worth about the same-sex ‘marriage/union’ debate.
I used to admire the guy. Even though I only started following his FB page (which has more than half a million followers) a little over a week ago, I had always valued his take on issues relating to cars and transportation in general. He also has a thing or two to say about other issues. He’s a smart guy, and I don’t say that insultingly or sarcastically. He really is — very sharp, quite insightful. But where his views on this issue contradict biblical teaching is where my admiration for him ends, at least on this issue.
He must have thought his take on cars and transportation wasn’t enough, so he decided to have his fingers in other pies. This time, the pie he dipped his finger into is the ever-controversial and contentious same-sex ‘marriage/union’ issue. (The single quotation marks are intentional, by the way, because there’s no such thing as a marriage between people of the same sex. It’s an oxymoron.) I’m not sure if he just wanted to intentionally ruffle some people’s feathers, throw a little spice into the mix, or he was just pandering to the current culture — or all of the above.
In his May 22 FB post, he said (I’m copying here the whole post lest I be accused of taking things out of context):
“So congress just released an official poll on their website asking people their position on the legalization of same sex unions. Now while I would normally commend them for consulting the public before passing laws, am I alone in struggling to understand why they would choose this issue for it?
“I mean, think about it. It is a law that only affects same sex couples. So why even give straight people a chance to vote on it? How does it negatively affect them? They are not stakeholders here. It’s like asking us to vote for the next president of Uganda when we don’t live there.
“Now I don’t mean that straight people can’t help; I’m just saying they shouldn’t hinder. Because look at how it’s framed. “I personally believe that it is wrong” Now imagine being gay in this country and already discriminated against in many ways, only to have the government put your fate in the hands of people who will put their personal feelings and beliefs ahead of your civil rights.
“Damn, I’m a straight guy and this offends me. I can only imagine how our gay brothers and sisters must be feeling. Civil rights should not be based on a popularity contest. Especially when the majority who are asked to vote aren’t the ones marginalized.
“End of the day, all the same sex couples are asking for is the same rights straight couples currently enjoy. That’s it. Why is it even a debate as to whether being gay entitles you to equal treatment?
“And if you want to argue about the moral issue, same sex sex is perfectly legal and is practiced quite rampantly. So if we’re already allowing that, wouldn’t it be more moral to allow them to get married? Or is there a double standard there too? Asking for a friend.”
(Along with his post was a screenshot of the official poll he mentioned.)
Out of my love for the truth of God’s word and my firm conviction that marriage/union is only between a man and a woman, I decided to post a comment in response to his FB post. But before I discuss that, allow me first to break down and refute his arguments above.
He said: ‘It is a law that only affects same sex couples. Why even give straight people a chance to vote on it?’ Let’s take that argument and apply it to something else. What if a bunch of pedophiles decided to ask congress to make having sex with children legal? Using Deakin’s logic, does it mean then that those who believe (and rightly so) that pedophiliac sex is not right and immoral do not have any say on the issue and should therefore not be consulted? What if a group of transgender men or simply men who identify as women decided to ask their legislators to make it perfectly legal for them to enter a women’s bathroom? Does this mean then (again, using Deakin’s argument) that those who are not transgender don’t have to be consulted on the issue as well? Would Deakin allow transgender men or men identifying as women to enter a women’s bathroom if her daughter was in there? I’m absolutely sure he wouldn’t. Therefore, it’s a law that will affect everyone if approved.
He then continues: ‘How does it negatively affect them? They are not stakeholders here. It’s like asking us to vote for the next president of Uganda when we don’t live there.’ Many of us already know the disastrous consequences of same-sex ‘marriages/unions.’ To say it doesn’t negatively affect straight people is just downright absurd and uninformed. When you try to drastically change the natural order of things, in this case the God-ordained/defined marriage, which is only between a man and woman, the whole society suffers. If civil unions are legalized, public officials are then required to perform a civil ceremony even if it contradicts their beliefs. It also becomes part of the norm and its acceptability is promoted, taught, and even forced among children. Given these reasons and many others, everyone then is a stakeholder. His analogy of voting for the next president of another country when we don’t live there was really bad. It’s hard to believe that someone as sharp as Deakin would commit a category error like that. This is what happens when you have a worldview that isn’t grounded on the word of God.
He goes on: ‘Now imagine being gay in this country and already discriminated against in many ways, only to have the government put your fate in the hands of people who will put their personal feelings and beliefs ahead of your civil rights.’ First off, I’m not exactly sure how gays are discriminated in this country. Gays are allowed to do what they want here. They even have their own beauty pageants. There are gay teachers, gay call center agents, gay doctors, gay politicians, even gay priests. They can choose whatever career they want and they are allowed to do so unhindered and unimpeded. So I’m really not sure how they are discriminated against in our country. Sure, we hear of bullying of gays, but that’s not discrimination. Non-gays get bullied, too. Also, what civil rights is Mr. Deakin talking about? Gay people here have access to education, employment, housing and public accommodations. Even their freedom of expression is not curtailed here. They can freely march in our streets without being arrested.
Deakin continues: ‘Damn, I’m a straight guy and this offends me. I can only imagine how our gay brothers and sisters must be feeling.’ He says he is offended. Of course. We all get offended by different things. (People these days seem to be easily offended even by trivial issues. There’s even a word now for these types of people: ‘snowflakes.’) But if he is offended by a poll asking people if they are in favor of same-sex ‘union’ being legalized, shouldn’t he also at least consider the fact that those who oppose it may also be offended by the prospect of this law being approved? Here, Deakin is trying to play his gay-pleasing card right, knowing that many of his followers are members and/or supporters of the LGBTQ…RSTUVWXYZ (not even sure how many letters there are now in the acronym) ‘community’ (again, the single quotes are intentional). He doesn’t want to offend these people, so with that statement, he is obviously just pandering to the LGBTQ segment of his big audience and generally just acquiescing to the demands of this God-hating culture.
He adds: ‘Civil rights should not be based on a popularity contest. Especially when the majority who are asked to vote aren’t the ones marginalized.’ First, let’s define what a ‘civil right’ is. Business Dictionary defines ‘civil rights’ as ‘Personal rights acquired by an individual by being a citizen or resident, or automatic entitlements to certain freedoms conferred by law or custom.’ In a democratic country like the Philippines, civil rights are given to the citizens, as long as those rights are provided for in the country’s constitution and laws. In the same manner that in the Philippines, it’s illegal (and immoral) for adult men to have sexual relations with little children and for transgender men to use a women’s bathroom, same-sex couples also cannot just get into a legal union since by definition, ‘legal’ means established by or founded upon law. Simply put, the law dictates what’s legal and what isn’t. If it’s not in the law, it’s illegal. Therefore, if a certain right is not conferred by law, it’s not legal. Same-sex union is not a right in the Philippines; therefore, it’s illegal. When Deakin says ‘civil rights should not be based on a popularity contest,’ has he heard of referendums? I’m pretty sure he has. A referendum, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is ‘the principle or practice of submitting to popular vote a measure passed on or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative’ (emphasis mine). Need I say more?
Then he says, ‘End of the day, all the same sex couples are asking for is the same rights straight couples currently enjoy. That’s it. Why is it even a debate as to whether being gay entitles you to equal treatment?’ Again, using that logic, we should also then allow pedophiles to have sex with or even marry prepubescent children because sex is a right non-pedophiles enjoy, right? Also, we can’t just provide certain rights to ‘marginalized’ people just because they ask for it, especially if the country as a whole regards those rights being asked for as immoral and destructive to society. And we also have to consider if these marginalized people live lives that are not detrimental to society.
Deakin then concludes his post: ‘“And if you want to argue about the moral issue, same sex sex is perfectly legal and is practiced quite rampantly. So if we’re already allowing that, wouldn’t it be more moral to allow them to get married? Or is there a double standard there too? Asking for a friend.’ This is the section I specifically responded to in my first comment to his post where I said he committed the logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum with that statement. Just because something is ‘practiced quite rampantly’ doesn’t mean it’s right. Cussing is practiced rampantly (with the Philippine president, nonetheless, as the role model for it), but it’s not right. It’s quite apparent here that Deakin is perfectly fine with homosexuals having sex. Also, something legal is not necessarily moral. It’s perfectly legal for a man or a woman to have sex before marriage, but in God’s law (which I’m not sure Deakin obeys) and to people who still (thankfully) believe that sexual intercourse should only be between a married man and woman, it’s immoral and sinful.
But it gets worse.
When Deakin posted a comment linking to a piece he had written about the issue, I responded by saying I didn’t care about his opinion and suggested he just stuck to traffic/transpo issues, which is also what a few other commenters said. What happened next was what you would expect from people when they are ‘triggered.’ Deakin’s followers came to his aid and started lashing out at me. It was a mob rule. They had their pitchforks and torches and attacked me left and right, even screenshot-ing my FB profile so everyone could feast on it and mock it. They started throwing invectives and insults, with some calling me pompous, egotistical, sexist and has toxic masculinity. I kid you not, that last phrase came up. This is what happens when certain people are on the web a lot and are exposed to some SJW jargon they don’t even understand. They just throw those buzzwords out there without even understanding what they mean. Most, if not all, of those who attacked me were relatively young. It’s both sad and alarming that they seemed to have imbibed the dangerous tenets of social justice and identity politics. I didn’t respond to the comments, as I thought it would be a big waste of time. I only focused on answering Deakin.
I completely understood the ad hominems thrown at me by Deakin’s followers. I know that those who support the homosexual agenda are rebel sinners who spit in the face of God and His law. But it was truly amazing when Deakin himself started resorting to ad hominems in response to me. Always thought he was a class act. In this case, though, he was just very generous with the ad homs, throwing all the usual labels to those who oppose same-sex mirage (yes, it’s a mirage, not a marriage). When I said that some people just don’t get it (as an omnibus response to the barrage of nasty comments directed towards me), Deakin said, ‘yes, bigots and zealots always miss the point.’ It’s always fascinating when people call others who don’t agree with them as bigots when they themselves don’t even allow a dissenting voice to be heard. They are the ones who are actually the most intolerant and bigoted. That’s hypocrisy. Sure, I’m a zealot. I’m a zealot in defending my faith and the word of God. I’m zealot and passionate about my belief that marriage is only between a male and a female. Yet Deakin doesn’t realize that by calling me names and allowing his followers to attack me, he was demonstrating his zealousness for what he is defending and promoting. Yet more hypocrisy. A little biblical lesson would apply here: “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” (Matt. 7:3)
But it doesn’t end there.
When one of his followers asked the others to give me some slack as I might be battling with my inner demons and ‘resisting the truth’ (not sure exactly what ‘truth’ he was talking about), Deakin responded to the commenter by saying ‘they actually do say that the most homophobic people are usually only that way because they are struggling with sexuality.’ I wasn’t even sure if I would laugh or just simply dismiss such a ridiculous comment. But, hey, if you can’t argue with them, vilify them, right? No real arguments, so they resort to name-calling and slander. Deakin doesn’t even know me, yet he already calls me a homophobe based only on a few sentences I had posted, nothing of which even hints at me being homophobic. I have friends and relatives who are gay whom I love and care about. I don’t hate them. I love them so much that if given the opportunity, I would share the gospel of Christ to them so that they, too, can experience the grace of God, the same grace that has been bestowed to an undeserving and wretched sinner like me.
One last thing. There was also a comment that Deakin posted somewhere in the thread worth discussing (and refuting). It was a response taken straight out of the liberal/postmodernist playbook. It was the usual argument that even atheists use to defend homosexuality. Ready? Here’s how he responded when a guy said the law of God only allows for a man and a woman to be married: ‘I hope you don’t eat shellfish and wear clothing from different fabrics or work on the sabbath.’ There you go. Almost directly quoting atheistic arguments right there. I was expecting more from the man. The response he gave had been refuted so many times I can’t believe he still used that argument to defend same-sex ‘marriage/union.’ Or maybe he doesn’t read dissenting opinions a lot. That is called confirmation bias (I wrote something about that here).
To those who may not be familiar with or haven’t heard of the argument, there are those who support and promote homosexuality and gay marriage who accuse Christians of picking and choosing Bible verses that say homosexual practices are forbidden by God. They would say that if this is the case, then Christians should also obey all of the other commandments in the Old Testament (OT) such as (and this is what Deakin said as quoted above) not to eat shellfish, not to wear clothes made from mixed fabrics, and not to work on the Sabbath. Some would even add eating pork as another OT prohibition. These commands, specifically about not eating shellfish and pork and not mixing fabrics, are mentioned in Leviticus, the third book of the OT. There are many resources that can be found on the web that explain this in more detail, one of which can be found here.
I’ll try to explain it briefly. The purpose of the commands and ordinances (called the Mosaic Law) given to the Israelites in the OT was to set them apart from other nations back then. With all these regulations, God wanted His people to be different from the rest of the world. The Israelites were then under a theocracy, which means their leader was God, not a human king or elder. Since the people of God now include not only Israelites or Jews but also Gentiles, they are no longer bound by the law that was given to Israel. Therefore, those who have put their faith in Christ have become children of God and are no longer required to follow those specific OT commandments of not eating shellfish, not wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics and not working on the Sabbath, among many others. When Jesus came into the world, He fulfilled those commands. He declared that all foods are clean and can therefore be eaten, which include shellfish and pork (Mark 7:19). However, that doesn’t mean Christians can do whatever they want and not follow certain commandments that are given both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament (NT). Even though Christians can now eat shellfish and pork and wear clothes made of mixed fabrics, the prohibition against same-sex relations and sexual acts is repeated in the NT. For example, Romans 1:26-27 is very explicit about the sin of homosexuality: ‘For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error’ (emphasis mine). 1 Cor. 6:9-10 mentions the penalty for homosexuals: ‘Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.’ In the Greek, the word ‘effeminate’ is ‘malakos,’ which refers to the passive homosexual partner; while the Greek for ‘homosexuals’ in that verse is ‘arsenokoitēs,’ which refers to the dominant homosexual partner in a same-sex sexual intercourse (sodomy). The partners involved in this deviant sexual act are called ‘sodomites’ (derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the book of Genesis). So it’s quite clear, homosexuality is still condemned in the NT. Therefore, Deakin’s borrowed argument about not eating shellfish, not wearing mixed-fabric clothing, etc. if one considers homosexuality a sin is a bad argument and doesn’t stand scrutiny.
There were many other things that Deakin said in the thread worth discussing, but it’s going to make this blog longer as it already is (congratulations for making it this far if you’re still reading). I just observed that whenever Deakin doesn’t have a good response to an argument brought before him, he would either just dismiss it or take cheap shots at the person who offered real arguments based on facts and not feelings. The person who accuses me and the others of bigotry doesn’t even realize that he’s being bigoted when he does those things.
To my fellow Christians, I hope this post was edifying to you. I hope it would at least help you in defending your stand against the legalization of same-sex union in the Philippines.
It is here. It has reached our shores, sadly. The alarming thing is, based on the pattern that has happened in other countries, those who ask for the legalization of same-sex unions don’t stop there. The next thing they’ll be asking for is the legalization of same-sex ‘marriage.’ Then they’ll ask for everyone to use the right pronouns for other imagined ‘genders.’ It’s already happening in Canada and some states in the US. Since the wheels of the discussion of the legalization of same-sex unions have started to roll, you know the other cars of this LGBTQ train are not far behind.
To James Deakin and those who are fervently promoting the legalization of SSU, I hope you’ll reconsider your position. I hope you’ll think about the disastrous consequences if this same-sex union law is passed and how it’s going to severely impact our nation, our children and our grandchildren. It is my prayer that you would all repent of your sins and turn to Christ alone for your salvation. If grace and forgiveness was extended to a rebel sinner like me, God can provide the same to you if you turn away from your sins and put your faith in Christ. You, too, will experience the joy of being in Christ and being set free from the bondage of sin and from the wrath of a holy God. As the apostle Paul says in Romans 8:1, ‘Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.’
God created them ‘male and female’ (Gen. 1:27). He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, not Eve and Eva.
Blessings.
Sources:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/civil-rights.html
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/referendum
http://thecripplegate.com/shellfish-mixed-fabrics-and-homosexuality-picking-and-choosing/
the unapologetic apologist 