Every day, there are multiplied thousands of comments posted on our social media sites, our websites, and in response to new articles, videos, and audio files. In the last week, there were more than 84,700 comments posted to the AskDrBrown Facebook page alone, so please understand that it really is not possible to interact with everyone or even to read most of the comments and post.
Sometimes a colleague will send me a comment or post that got their attention, and as much as I want to respond to it, especially if it’s filled with errors, misconceptions, or false accusations, for the most part, I simply need to let it go, allowing others to respond as they’re able.
But for the benefit of those who have actually challenged or questioned or mocked my position, here’s a response to a typical comment by a gay critic, responding to my recent article, “Gays Are 1 in 10, Not 1 in 4.”
The writer goes by the name AndrewWA, and he begins his lengthy comment by quoting a central point of my article, namely, that while it is wrong to mistreat or bully people, regardless of how small a minority of the population they might be, “you don’t overhaul the legal system to the point of attacking freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion based on the sexual and romantic desires of a tiny percentage of the population, nor do you engage in a massive social experiment, like redefining marriage, because of a statistically tiny group of people.”
Andrew then writes: “Micheal, honey, it is unconstitutional to deny gay couples access to marriage. It is really that simple. Courts all over this country are coming to this conclusion and I am sure you have read their findings. You don’t like their conclusions, but your doctorate is not in constitutional law. Judges even appointed by conservative Republican Presidents have ruled in favor of marriage equality.”
Putting aside the misspelling of my name (it happens all the time) and the “honey” reference, the fact is that there is nothing in the Constitution that states that a man has the “right” to “marry” another man (or a woman a woman), as dissenting justices and other legal scholars have pointed out.
Nowhere did the Constitution, let alone the Founding Fathers, countenance the idea that “marriage” would include the idea of two men or two women coming together, especially since the writers of the Constitution considered homosexual practice to be a “crime against nature.”
As for “marriage equality,” that is a term you freely use, Andrew, but I doubt you actually mean it, unless you agree with the Marriage Equality Blog Spot which argues that, “Advocating for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence, and marriage without limits on the gender, number, or relation of participants. Full marriage equality is a basic human right.”
If you say, “No, marriage is the union of two people,” then my simple question to you is this: Based on what standard? Throughout American history (and most of human history), marriage has never been the union of two people but rather the union of a man and a woman. In fact, if marriage is not defined as the union of a man and a woman, why should it be limited to two people?
You seem like a literate, thoughtful person, so I’d love to hear your response to these questions.
Of course I’m aware of the spate of recent court decisions, but those decisions do not have the power to fundamentally alter the nature of marriage, and while you and many others (including conservatives) think this legal and cultural battle is over and the complete triumph of same-sex “marriage” is inevitable, the legal and cultural battle has only just begun.
On a side note, you mention that my “doctorate is not in constitutional law.” Does that imply that where I do have a doctorate, namely in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, directly related to biblical studies, that you trust my expertise and acknowledge that homosexual practice and following Jesus are completely incompatible?
You wrote, “The state does not have just cause to deny gay citizens access to marriage.”
But the state does have the right to uphold the meaning of marriage, and, to repeat, it is foolhardy to engage in a massive social experiment because of the sexual desires and romantic attractions of a tiny minority of the population.
That being said, based on your understanding, does the state have the right to deny two adult gay brothers “access to marriage”?
You wrote, “It has nothing to do with your chosen faith. It has nothing to do with how you wish to worship your god.”
Andrew, I don’t remember mentioning faith or God in the article. I simply pointed out how gay activists were complicit in deceiving the American people about the percentage of gays and lesbians.
You wrote, “No legal system has been overhauled. No freedom of speech has been attacked. You can speak as much or little as you wish. Even WBC is still picketing away whatever event or cause that gives them joy.”
Actually, the implications of redefining marriage are massive, as legal scholars and others have pointed out. This book is a good place to start, while this video makes the point simply and clearly. I’d love to hear your thoughts once you have had an opportunity to read and watch.
As for attacking freedoms of speech – actually, I said freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion – surely you jest. Please work your way through this compilation of “300 Articles You Have to Read to Understand the Term ‘Homofascism.’” Then come back and repeat your claim. You will not be able to do so with integrity.
You wrote, “What has changed is the responsibility that comes with free speech. People are holding you accountable for the words you choose to attack others.
“Gone are the days when you can stand on your soapbox and call people vile things while hiding behind your religion. Gone are the days when you can use your religion to beat people over the head. Gone are the days when you can misrepresent, defame, and dehumanize gays.”
Andrew, I relish being held accountable for my words, for what I write and speak is truthful and accurate, recognizing that one day I will stand before God and give account for my words and deeds. He is the Judge both of us will face on that day.
The reality is that, despite constant misrepresentations and selective, misleading quotations of my words, I have never said a vile thing about LGBT people, I have never been guilty of “hiding behind [my] religion” (to the contrary, I joyfully and without shame proclaim my faith, not to mention that many of my articles are simply based on sociology and history and the like), I have never used my religion “to beat people over the head,” nor have I ever been guilty of misrepresenting, defaming, or dehumanizing gays.
I know that it helps your cause to represent things as such, since it’s easier to defeat what you verse vilify, but I have always stated my differences with respect, I have actively spoken against mistreatment of those who identify as LGBT, and saying that men are designed for women (and vice versa) and that marriage is the union of a man and woman is hardly defaming or dehumanizing gays.
In stark contrast, not a day goes by without gays defaming and misrepresenting and dehumanizing conservative believers in Jesus like me, with this one quote, posted on my Facebook page by a gay man named Logan, being quite representative: “You are quite possibly one of the stupidest men on the face of Earth, you are no less dangerous than Hitler, and you are a threat to society.” (For every quote like this, I could send you 100 more.)
You wrote, “What your lamenting is the freedom to give others a ‘scarlet letter’ and persecute them publicly while being protected legally. You are upset because now there is responsibility for the words you use against another human being in public. I too have freedom of speech and I will use each and every word to highlight and expose religious bigotry and hypocrisy each and every time I get the chance.”
Andrew, I’m glad you have freedom to speak, and I have no desire to take that from you. God forbid. Speak on and write on!
But your constant accusations of “religious bigotry and hypocrisy” simply expose the bankruptcy of your argument – why all the pejoratives if your position is sound? – especially in response to an article pointing out demographic realities and gay activist duplicity.
You wrote, “So flame on, Dr. Brown. Get as vile and nasty as you wish. But don’t think it does not come with a cost, because it does. Each article. Each speech. Each presentation has a price tag attached.
“What is the price? Your credibility.
“THAT is why people are not coming to Christ. Jesus didn’t put the hate on any sinner. He chastised those whom use religion as a weapon against others – the Pharisees.
“Sound familiar, Dr. Brown?”
Andrew, please do take a moment to do some serious soul searching, and just as a case in point, re-read the article you were attacking and then re-read your response, and ask yourself, “Who here is getting vile and nasty?”
As for the alleged price tag, I’m not sure what world you’re living in, but it surely isn’t my world. By God’s grace, we have a larger and larger audience by the day, we have more credibility with leaders by the day (both religious and secular), and we are having a greater and greater impact by the day. (Again, this is all by God’s grace.)
As for people coming to Christ, again, I can only say, “Surely you jest!” It is primarily the liberal churches which are experiencing a serious exodus (just look at stats worldwide on the growth of a Bible-based, conservative Christianity), and my friends and colleagues are seeing unprecedented numbers of new people coming to faith in Jesus.
This past Sunday, in Toronto, a young man came up to me after I preached about being a friend of Jesus, and he told me with a big smile that he was homosexual and a new believer and that he was deeply impacted when he heard me speak about these issues on TV. In fact, he was one of four gay-identified men in the church who had recently come to faith in Jesus.
As for Jesus Himself, of course He didn’t “put the hate on any sinner.” To the contrary, He died for all of our sins, yours and mine alike.
He also said this: Marriage, from the beginning, by God’s intent, is the lifelong union of one man and one woman (see Matthew 19:1-6); all sexual acts outside of this male-female marital union defile us and make us unclean (see Matthew 15:17-20, and note the Greek word porneia in the plural, speaking of all sexual acts committed outside of marriage, which, to repeat, is only the union of a man and a woman); and unless we repent of our sins, which means to acknowledge them and turn away from them, we will perish (see Luke 13:1-5, along with many other teachings of Jesus).
So, let’s end things here for now: Jesus died to save you from your sins, Andrew, and if you will repent and believe, you can experience a brand new life in Him.