redbox1-600x600A homosexual should have the right to get married . . .

(Keep reading)

. . . so long as he understands that marriage is between one man and one woman and that to enjoy that right he must submit himself to that traditional understanding of the institution.

Therefore, it’s not even necessarily that a homosexual should have the right to get married as much as it is that a homosexual currently does have the right to get married.

This is because marriage is a term that means something and to participate in it one must follow the inherent principles of the term’s definition. For example, “walking” is defined as “advancing on foot at a moderate pace,” while “running” is defined as “going quickly by moving the legs rapidly.” Walking is not running and running is not walking. Therefore, to participate in the activity of walking is not the same as participating in the activity of running. Moreover, one can easily differentiate between the two activities based on the inherent principles included in the definitions of the terms.

Marriage is defined as a union between a “husband and wife,” which means a “male and a female.” Therefore, a homosexual male can only participate in marriage so long as he marries a woman, and a homosexual woman can only participate in marriage so long as she marries a male, just as I can only perform heart surgery on a patient if I have credibly earned a medical license or cannot perform heart surgery on a patient if I have not credibly earned a medical license.

Actually, I could perform the surgery, but it wouldn’t make me a heart surgeon. Moreover, it would be dangerous and harmful to society.

This is because functionality, or the right to participate or not participate in certain actions, doesn’t mean inequality. It merely means that there are standards applied to certain rights and these standards are applied for good reasons.

One would never argue that people should be able to perform heart surgery on other people without a license, citing that it is a breach of equality to suggest otherwise.

The current debate on “same-sex marriage,” which is the equivalent of saying “the current debate on square circles,” argues on the platform of “equality,” but there has been a serious misunderstanding as to what “equality” is. Equality has nothing to do with the right for every person to participate in every action. It is the balanced and tested result of multiple, defined integers. Therefore, an unlicensed individual plus a scalpel doesn’t “equal” a heart surgeon anymore than a man plus a man or a woman plus a woman “equals” a marriage.

Certain factors need to be present for a certain summation to take place, and in the case of “same-sex marriage” it is the opposite gender.

In order for homosexuals to participate in “same-sex marriage,” the integers of marriage would have to be redefined. And redefining integers always equals a different summation. But this is not what proponents for “same-sex marriage” want to do. They want to redefine the integers but keep the same result. They want to redefine the number two, but still suggest that, “two plus two equals four.” They want redefine the principles of walking, but still call it walking when they might actually be running.

If the Supreme Court of the United States votes in favor of “same-sex marriage,” then they have essentially voted that “two” can mean “three, five, or one-hundred and ten,” but that adding “two and two” still equals “four.”

Suggested Articles:

Read the Fine Print Before Supporting “Marriage Equality.”

How Not to Have a Debate About Gay Marriage

Picture Credit


  1. sam gonzales says:

    I think your analysis is all and well with your limited view of “God and the Globe,” however, we are not talking about moral or religious issues, or, more specifically, your moral or religious beliefs. This is strictly a matter of the legal ramifications surrounding same-sex couples being afforded the opportuity to register their union and receive the same benefits and rights that opposing-sex couples enjoy. Nothing more, nothing less. I think it is fair that the same constitution that protects your right to worship freely ought to protect the rights of those that choose to live their lives in a manner that does not conform to your belief system.
    You cannot legislate morality, people will do what they want. If you feel that this is a moral issue, then change the beliefs of those that disagree with you.
    Just as a reminder, “morality” seeks to be able to define how man acts, not dictate how man acts. If you find that your beliefs are the ones that are under more or harsher scrutiny, then possibly you should consider that your beliefs are the ones that should be questioned.

    • Thank you for reading and taking the time to respond Sam.

      You are right. We are not talking about “moral or religious issues, or, more specifically, [my] moral or religious beliefs.” The nation certainly hasn’t been arguing over what Jared Wellman believes this past week. Your reading of my subtitle caused you to assume certain things about me and affected your ability to read my post accurately.

      If you reread the post you will see that I argued on the basis of logic, not religion, although I do argue from Christian presuppositions, the way that you argue from your own presuppositions.

      However, I do not agree that this is “strictly a matter of the legal ramifications surrounding same-sex couples being afforded the opportunity to register their union and receive the same benefits and rights that opposing-sex couples enjoy.” If you listen to the arguments, many are arguing for “same-sex ‘marriage,'” not “same-sex unions with legal rights.”

      This is more of what my post is about. “Marriage” and “legal unions” are two very different things. And, I would agree that the democratic governmental system should allow people to vote for the right to experience certain rights regardless of religious beliefs.

      While I disagree with the lifestyle, if same-sex couples want to get “married” and receive certain legal rights, then call it something else, but don’t call it “marriage.” This is because “marriage,” regardless of religious or moral beliefs, is a word that has a meaning, and redefining terms can be a dangerous act.

      I tend to agree with the former President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Richard Land, when he said that having the government endorse a religion would be like “being hugged by a python.”

      Therefore, I do agree with your statement that “it is fair that the same constitution that protects your right to worship freely ought to protect the rights of those that choose to live their lives in a manner that does not conform to your belief system.”

      I think the issue that you and I would disagree with the most is our understanding of “morality.” I would argue that there is a natural moral law and that governments should abide by those laws. For example, part of the very fabric of government is to protect its citizens. Legislating murder as unlawful, for example, is the government abiding by the natural law of morality. But you seem to be arguing that if the people decided that murder was okay, then that becomes the new moral standard. Therefore, morality is based on popular opinion, not natural law. It changes over time as it “seeks to define how man acts.”

      But what if the popular opinion said that rape was okay? Surely you would not stand by and let such an atrocious act take place because popular opinion voted so. Surely morality is not based on seeking to define how this new law functions.

      Because it seems that if morality “seeks to define how man acts” as opposed to “dictating how man acts,” then I could go around punching people in the face and call it morality.

  2. David says:

    Jared, I’m with you on the circles & squares viewpoint. I think it’s fair to say that you and I, as well as many others, admittedly view marriage from within the framework of a biblical worldview. But as you point out, this is more than a “religious issue”. The issue before the supreme court is about redefining marriage – not just allowing certain civil or legal unions. The ability exists to legally address the tax code issues, inheritance issues, etc. that the GLBT community is supposedly “just” clamoring for – without calling it marriage. But let’s not kid ourselves. That would not be good enough.

    The GLBT community will not be happy until they’ve forced the other 93-97% of us to fully accept their homosexual relationships as not just “a right” but as “right”, normal, and dare I say even good. But of course, I say that somewhat tongue in cheek because I don’t believe they would even be happy at that point.

    But for me – and many others, it’s like trying to legalize the right for a circle to be a square. Sure, you can call a circle a square if you want, but that doesn’t make it so. That doesn’t suddenly give it four 90 degree corners. You can call homosexual relationships whatever you want. Two homosexuals can live together in a caring relationship and can be granted every right that two heterosexuals have. But is that marriage? At face value, homosexuality is a perversion of natural design – whether you believe in God or not. Calling a circle a square would be a perversion of natural design as well. Just talk to any engineer. If a design requires something that is square in shape, a circle will not work.

    And that raises another issue. Because homosexual couples have been allowed a back door (no pun intended) into the appearance of being “family” and the legal ability to raise children through adoption and other legalized medical practices, natural design has been further perverted. And now what once seemed ridiculous to even consider is becoming increasingly commonplace. In essence, anybody can be family. And hey, “The Kids are All Right” and this is just “The New Normal” so people should just accept this perversion of the family as normal and acceptable.

    Disclaimer, for what it’s worth: I am sure that anyone who supports the GLBT community really dislikes my use of words like homosexual and especially the word perversion. I am not using them in any derogatory manner, but rather in a strictly factual sense.

    Again, the issue before the Supreme Court is truly about redefining marriage – making homosexual relationships an accepted form of marriage. Turning circles into squares. Even if they rule to strike down Prop 8 and DOMA, they cannot really say that homosexual relationships, even given the name ‘marriage’ are the same thing as heterosexual relationships. They’re not.

  1. […] March 30 an article appeared in the Odessa American entitled, “The Meaning of Equality,” in which I argued for the “traditional” definition of marriage. To this a […]

  2. […] Author’s Note: Many of my thoughts concerning this question can be found in this blog: The Meaning of Equality. […]

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 194 other followers

%d bloggers like this: