What Will Happen If America Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage? - Program 2

How Have We Arrived at the Point of Affirming Same-Sex Marriage?

Introduction

Ankerberg: Welcome to our program. We have a great program. We’re talking about the truth about same-sex marriages . As we start this program, again, I know we have a diverse audience that is watching and some of you may be living homosexually, you may be opposed to homosexual marriages, you may not have made up your mind on this. And I think we’ve got something for each one of you. We want you to listen and we do care in terms of the truth about this topic.

We are looking at it with two guests that have done a lot of work and have actually written two books. And first of all, we’ve got Glenn Stanton, who is the Senior Analyst for Marriage and Sexuality at Focus on the Family. He has written a new book, Marriage on Trial.

And then, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, who is the pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago, The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage—Six Things You Need To Know About What’s Really At Stake. These are great books. I highly recommend them.

Today we want to talk about, as we face this whole issue of, should we legalize same-sex marriages, the thing is, how did this all of a sudden just happen, how did we get to this point? Some people are just amazed that we are at this point, other folks say, “Hey, I understand why we’re at this point.” We’re going to talk about, the thing is that over the last thirty years, there have been those in the gay community that have set down an agenda of how to change the thinking of America. And less than 2 percent of the population is influencing the majority of Americans in a big time way. And we’d like to unscramble for you what they set forth, and then ask if there are illustrations that you can understand that shows that this is happening, which is changing the way we think about homosexually.

Erwin, in your book, start us off. You talk about that fact of two different homosexual writers, quite a few years ago, that put in print their principles of how to talk about homosexuality. Tell me about the first principle.

Lutzer: First of all John, I think we really do have to go back to the sixties. You know, there was a real shift, because previously it was believed that couples should be committed to each other. But with the onslaught of pornography and so forth, there was a center of gravity that began to shift to personal happiness. So a person says, “You know, if I don’t like my wife, I run off and find someone who is more pleasant or more fulfilling to be with.” What happened is, with the breakup of the family,… homosexuality, by the way, grows best in the soil of ruptured relationships. So we have a redefinition of the family already happening in the sixties. You get to the ‘70s, 1973, when homosexual activists persuaded the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality and to make it something “normal.”

But getting to the two authors that you refer to, it is awesome, and the thing that our listeners have to understand, is that that which they laid out has come to pass in a way that is almost chilling. For example, one of the things they say is that what we should do is to portray homosexuals in such a way that people will be accepting of them. They write that “ all behavior appears as normal if people see it often enough and at close range.” So they say, talk about gays and gayness as often and as loudly as possible.

Well, just look at the media. The media has been doing this. All of the portrayals of homosexuality on the media are positive. These people are funny, they’re “with it,” they may instruct straights as to how to live and so forth. The goal is normalcy. And the underbelly, if I could put that, of the homosexual movement, that’s not visible, that is hidden and there are many illustrations of that.

Secondly, what these authors say is that it is important to portray the gays as victims. They said that this would appeal to Americans’ sense of fairness.

And so, you have all of this and of course, when Matthew Shepard was murdered, we saw this; I mean he’s killed by two thugs and of course, those who are not pro-gay…

Ankerberg: And they have no religious background.

Lutzer: No religious background. And all the rest of us who are opposed to the radical homosexual agenda, we are tarred with that brush, that we helped kill Matthew Shepard.

Ankerberg: Okay, let’s stop there, because we’ve got a person that worked at Focus on the Family during this time, and let’s back up. When Matthew Shepard was killed, okay, there were some writers in the media that simply said, if you go back to the reason why these non-religious people killed him, was because there were Christians that have opposed living homosexually. And they picked out Jim Dobson, as one of them, so your boss. Tell us about that whole incident.

Stanton: Well, it’s a very unfortunate thing and it shows you how easily the media facilitates myths. And it this idea, that yes, Dr. Dobson is a very vocal opponent of homosexuality, but he’s a loving and compassionate opponent of homosexuality. We have ministries, and he has supported and encouraged ministries at Focus, that reach out to people living homosexually, to help them overcome that, and who are dealing with unwanted feelings of homosexuality.

But the media just makes this accusation that this horrible thing happens in Wyoming to Matthew Shepard, and therefore, it is immediately the fault of some of the most vocal people who oppose homosexuality, making this grand leap. And nobody ever examines the right or the wrong, the up or the down of it! And the media is very lazy, and it’s dangerous. I mean, a very good man, Dr. Dobson, and many other ministers, and many other caring people, have been tarred and feathered with that brush. And it’s just not fair.

Ankerberg: Yeah, so anybody who is opposed homosexuality is therefore, somehow connected and somehow responsible for what these other people do to that homosexual fellow.

Stanton: Exactly. They can’t appreciate the understanding that you can be against homosexuality, but still care deeply for people and the dignity of all people. There’s no room in their mind for those two positions. But it is a quite reasonable position, and I think it’s where most Americans exist.

Ankerberg: Let’s just stop right there, because there are probably some people that are watching and saying, “I can tell you guys are against same-sex marriages. You must be just homophobic.”

Stanton: Well, what we have to understand is that not all homosexuals themselves accept same-sex marriage. There are many homosexuals who say, “You know what, marriage is an important, critical, social institution.” And it is, because it brings men and women together and provides mothers and fathers for children. And we tamper at that with our own peril.

There is a very wonderful gay man, he’s a professor McGill University in Canada, and he has written and spoken wonderfully on that issue. He does not think that same-sex marriage is a good idea socially. But he is an avowed homosexual, living that way, you know, makes no apologies for it, and he does not think homosexual marriage is a good idea. Why? Is he homophobic? Is he hateful? Is he bigoted? No, he just simply thinks that marriage ought to be what it is, a relationship between a man and woman, which is what most of us believe.

Ankerberg: Now let’s even stop there and back up one. In your book you talk about there are basically three kinds of homosexuals in terms of answering the question, “Do homosexuals want to get married?” And you’re saying there are three ways to answer that question.

Stanton: There are three approaches to that in the homosexual community. One is, those who support the idea of same-sex marriage. And actually, that’s not a large population, but they’re very vocal, very persuasive, and have made great gains in getting their idea pushed forth.

The middle ground is where I think most homosexuals live and exist, and that is either of two points: they either have no interest in marriage whatsoever—“You know what, we want to live the way we want to live and have the relationships that we want to have, and marriage really doesn’t figure into it”; and then you have the other group, in that group, that says, “No, family/marriage is a very important social institution and it has to exist between men and women, and we can’t change it accommodate homosexuality.” That’s the second group.

The third group, we call them deconstructionists, [are] those people who see same-sex marriage as a way to dismantle and deconstruct all family categories, to where any grouping of people who present themselves in sincerity—we call it close, personal relationship theory—any grouping of people in close, personal relationships is just as valid, just as good, just as normal, as any other group. And that’s a very dangerous place to be.

So it’s important to understand that there are these three groups. And this group in the middle who is not interested in same-sex marriage for various reasons,… they’re not mean, they’re not hateful, they’re not homophobic, they just don’t think it’s a good idea. And again, that’s exactly what I believe and, I think, what most of the viewers believe.

Ankerberg: Let’s take out one more objection, and it’s those people who say, “Hey, you’re not tolerant, Glenn.”

Stanton: Well, nature is not tolerant. You know, nature demands that we continue this thing called “the human project” that has to take place from generation to generation to generation. It happens one way; and it happens with the union of a male and a female. And that’s true for procreation, you need a sperm and an egg to make that happen. And you need the continued contribution of a mother and a father to bring that new human life to full human development. So it’s nature that is not very open; it’s nature that is very narrow in how we do this. And we tinker with nature, we tinker with that idea, at our own peril.

Ankerberg: Alright, we’ve got to take a break, but when we come back, we going to have Erwin finish up this thing, we’ve got two on the board now, summarize what those two are and where we’re going in terms of the gay agenda.

Lutzer: Well, first of all, what they say is that they want to speak about gayness as loudly and as often as possible, we covered that point. Secondly, what they say is, “we want to be portrayed as victims, to appeal to the American sense of fairness;” and then we’ll give you the third as soon as we come back from the break.

Ankerberg: So, stick with us, we’ll be right back.

Ankerberg: Alright, we’re back, we’re talking about the truth about same-sex marriage . Our guests are Pastor Erwin Lutzer from Moody Memorial Church in Chicago, and Glenn Stanton who is Senior Analyst for Marriage and Sexuality at Focus on the Family. And we’re talking about, how did we get to this point in America where we’re actually talking about legalizing homosexual marriages?

And, Erwin, we’ve talked about the fact that, in the last thirty years, there’s been a gay agenda. There have been principles that they have set out to follow, and in doing this, it would persuade the American mind, our culture, that homosexual marriage is alright. We’ve already done two; let’s get to number three. What’s point three?

Lutzer: Number three is simply this, that you always portray homosexuals as loving, and then those who are anti same-sex marriage or anti homosexual agenda, always portray them as nasty. In fact, what the writers say is, “We want to make the anti-gays look so nasty, that no one will be able to associate with them.”

And you know, I have to say that there are some anti-gays, who look nasty. You know, I think, for example of that man who goes around with signs, you know, “God Hates Gays,” and sending them to Hell. Unfortunately, the press often paints us as a part of that.

John, I’ve known hundreds of Christians, and I don’t know any Christians who are really angry people at homosexuals. They may be concerned, but as I like to emphasize, it’s not a matter of hate, it’s a matter of debate. In fact, let’s talk about what is known as “ hate speech.” One book that I read gave this awesome illustration. Let’s suppose that you are at the bottom of a cliff and somebody is walking backwards and in a few steps, they’re going to go over the cliff, and so you shout to them to stop! Suddenly you’re surrounded by people who are taking your picture; they are writing placards against you, and they are saying, “How can you be filled with so much hate? Who are you to tell people where they can or can’t walk? If some people want to walk backwards, who are you to say that they don’t have a constitutional right to do so?” And you’re totally stunned!

And so somebody asked me, they said, “Wouldn’t it be more loving if you would be pro homosexual marriage?” And I had to tell them that, as a pastor, with all of my heart, I simply say that the most loving thing that we can do is to speak against same-sex marriages. And we should be doing this for the benefit of our children and the benefit of our grandchildren. Because the dominoes as to what is going to happen afterwards are absolutely frightening.

Ankerberg: Glenn, I’ll tell you what, there are a lot of illustrations in the media of what Erwin’s talking about.

Stanton: Well, there are. You look at all the gay characters—outwardly, visually gay characters on television—and all of them are wonderful people, people that you would like to have as your friend. And they are portrayed, not just as normal regular people, some are good, some are bad, like we see in homosexuality and heterosexuality; they’re all engaging, they’re always heroic, they’re always overcoming great prejudice and they’re the leaders. And it’s just not fair, it’s just not true to reality. And so, yes, you see that agenda very clearly. I mean, on ER, there is this doctor who’s struggling with lesbianism and it’s this proud thing that she’s dealing with. And your heart goes out to her and you’re cheering for her to overcome the bigotry and homophobia of those around her. And its just all laid out like a story set and they just have you eating right out of the palm of their hands. But it’s manipulation is what it is, it’s propaganda.

Ankerberg: And Will and Grace continues to win Emmys and just are stories where the characters are people that you’d really like to know.

Stanton: Yes, Yes. Well, and religious people, conversely. You know what? Do you ever see a funny, engaging, intelligent, winsome, religious person on television? They’re usually portrayed in the negative light. So it’s all controlled, it’s all manipulated, and it’s mani-pulated to manipulate us. And we shouldn’t fall for it.

Ankerberg: For the purpose of?

Stanton: For the purpose of pushing an agenda: this is good—homosexuality, tolerance, open-mindedness; and this is bad—religious dogma, doctrine, biblical thinking, those things are wrong. And you know what? It just doesn’t work out that way, it’s just not true to the way the world works, and we shouldn’t fall for it.

Ankerberg: We’re going to talk, full programs up ahead yet, about why the social sciences are showing that this does not work in real life. Touch on it: it’s not good for the children, number one.

Stanton: Yeah, we have to understand that if you accept the same-sex marriage proposition, then you have to accept the proposition that male and female do not matter; husband and wife do not matter; and that children do not need mothers and fathers; that fathers could be replaced by a woman; and that mothers could be replaced by a father.

Ankerberg: Yeah, let me slow that down. What you’re saying is that if you have two gay men, what they’re saying is that look, “We don’t need a mother, we don’t need a woman; women are unnecessary.”

Stanton: Every gay family is a statement to the community that women do not matter. And every lesbian family is a statement to the community that men do not matter. And every heterosexual family—mother and father coming together—is a statement to the community that male and female matter. And I would bet that most viewers want that kind of message. The declaration that women matter, that men matter, and that both are necessary for the family. But again, the same-sex family proposition says that either are replaceable and neither are necessary.

Ankerberg: Add to that, the fact is that the social sciences are showing that children really, really, really, big time need both a mother and a father in their life.

Stanton: Yes. We have had a whole lot of experimentation with the family over the past thirty years, and it’s not just a couple of studies, it’s literally thousands of studies showing, not from conservatives, not from Christians, but from main stream academics, telling us that mother and father matter dramatically for children, and that children are deprived significantly and suffer in every single important measure of well-being when they are denied either their mother or father.

Ankerberg: Okay. So in spite of that, which we are going to get to, okay, we have this propaganda, if you want, these principles, that are trying to persuade us that stuff doesn’t matter. And right along that line, let’s jump to point number five in the gay agenda, because it’s right in line with what Glenn’s been talking about. Tell us.

Lutzer: And that has to do with the use of propaganda. You know, John, in the early eighties, I saw a documentary made on homosexuality, on the topic of homosexuality. It was excellent; it was very balanced. It actually told what homosexuals did. But nobody who is watching this program saw it on television. Why? Because it was deemed not being pro-gay enough. So you have networks that absolutely bow to the homosexual agenda. It always has to be positive; it always has to be pro homosexual.

But listen to this, Eric Pollard, who was the founder of ACT UP, it’s a militant homosexual group, he says “By a clever and persevering use of propaganda, even heaven can be represented as hell to the people; and conversely, the most wretched life as paradise.” And we could underline the fact that the media has certainly played into that agenda, because as was mentioned, as Glenn pointed out, everything on television, everything in the media, always positive pro-gay. And it’s time that people begin to understand the other side. And it’s not a matter of us being hateful. We’re just saying, “What we need to do is to lay the evidence out there, and we need to give people an opportunity to make up their minds.”

Ankerberg: Alright, before we go on, Glenn, talk about the fact though, what we do not tell young men, young women who are confused about their gender? They look at the homosexual lifestyle, and they say, “Hey, that’s suppose to be really great, practicing homosexuality.” What we don’t tell them is what? What will they be in store for in terms of their health and so on?

Stanton: Well, we’re not honest that way. We don’t tell an honest story about the health risks of homosexuality. I mean, first of all are the obvious sexually transmitted diseases, and a greater likelihood of succumbing to those diseases that debilitate human well-being, and also could cause death. The other is higher risks of suicide, higher risks of substance abuse, depression, all these sorts of things. These stories are not told to young people.

Most school counselors, when they have a young person struggling with homosexuality—and they’re actually even uncomfortable with these feelings—most often times they’re driven in the direction of feeling comfortable with those feelings, rather than getting the help that the child wants in really overcoming those feelings. So it’s a one-way road, conveyor belt, that moves very efficiently into homosexuality rather that helping people to overcome that. And that’s really not a very humanitarian position to take.

Ankerberg: Okay. The fourth principal that we left out, that we won’t have time to talk about, is to “solicit money from corporations to promote homosexuality and neutralize all opposition.” And boy, that’s going on big time.

We’ve got to close this program. We need some hope here, because some people that are listening, that may be confused about who they are, maybe they’ve slipped and they’ve tried homosexuality, they’re feeling guilty, they don’t think the church has anything to say to them, they don’t think Jesus loves them, there’s no use talking about this, because this is who they are. We need to have a word of hope for them.

Lutzer: And you know, I think that the church has failed the gay community on this point, because we have often times emphasized homosexuality as being a sin, and it is, but all of us are sinners. And what we need to be able to say to this community is that when it comes to the cross, we all stand together on very level ground. And to those who have been marginalized by the church, or those who have been rejected by parents, I want to say to parents, if you have a gay child, love that child, because remember, that child is yours! And what we need to do is to stress love.

But the good news is the love of God! Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6, when he’s talking about those who have struggled with various sins, including alcoholics, and those who are into such things as greed, he also speaks of homosexuality. And he says, “such were some of you; but you are sanctified….” And he says, “you have been justified in the name of Jesus” [1 Cor. 6:11].

So, God has a great embrace through His grace. And to all who are listening today, you come to Jesus Christ, first of all, to be forgiven, but in the process of forgiving you, He also gives us a new nature with different desires. I can’t promise you that instantly your desires are going to be changed from homosexuality into heterosexuality. What I can promise you is the cleansing and the forgiveness of Jesus, so that your conscience can be purified, and you can begin to live a new life, hopefully a life that is celibate to the honor and the glory of God.

God offers that hope to all people. And all that we can do is to encourage you to come to the One who can actually make a difference.

Ankerberg: Yeah, and there’s even more. There are some folks that have changed, and God has given that as well. And we’re going to talk about the difference when we come up to a program up ahead.

Next week we’re going to talk about how legalizing same-sex marriages will hurt our children. And then we’re going to talk about the Christian view of marriage, “What has God put in the Marriage Manual—Scripture, and does that jibe with what the social sciences are talking about? All of this is coming up, I hope that you’ll stick with us.