Braun 1

Daniel Braun
April 12, 2015
English 138T
This essay is to be spoken as a speech to convince Christians to be less passive in
defending their faith by showing them why their faith is good. The setting is in present day
hosted at a Christian Church or a meeting held to reinforce religious beliefs or actions in the
community. The target audience is any religious person who, as outlined in their faith, opposes
homosexuality but chooses to abstain from any action about it due to societal pressures and
pressures against conservative and religious beings.
Today, now more than ever, there is a push to legalize non-traditional marriages. I am not
talking about the kind where you run away to a beach and skip the formalities; I mean the kind
that defies the very foundation of marriage itself. This dangerous trend aims to promote the
union between two men or two women under the banner of marriage.
This push relies heavily on the thought of equality and the perception that marriage is a
right that everyone is entitled to. Traditionally, marriage has been defined as the holy union
between a man and a woman as recognized by the state and in front of God. Certain groups find
this a negotiable definition that can be changed at will based on changing times and calling it
equality. Let us start with the basics: the definition of marriage itself. Marriage has been
defined the way it has been for as long as time has been recorded for both practical and religious
reasons. Religiously speaking, it is not in our power to redefine who can or cannot get married. It
is in the book of Genesis that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman presented to
God, not just to us as people. To extend the banner of marriage to encompass homosexual unions
is to redefine His limitations on us for our own selfish desires.

Braun 2

To go against Gods design and intention is a deliberate sin, and sins are generally
accepted as immoral in society. Who is to say that there is any one religion that should dictate
how our society runs and functions? In todays world, it is common for people to put religion
down as a nonviable argument since God has been separated from the law to a sickeningly
degree. People say that it is not fair to have religion play a
part in laws and daily life since not everyone has the same
religion and we have religious freedom here in the United
States, but is this really the case? People often think that
America was founded out of the pursuit of religious
freedom, but this is a common misperception. The States
were founded out of the need for a sanctuary for the
Christian denomination that was being persecuted over in
England at the time. Since the denominations share so
much in common with each other, the laws and identity
Image taken from
http://genealogyreligion.net/tag/fo
unding-fathers

of the United States were based to mirror Christianity as a

whole. It just so happened that Christianity teaches the

acceptance of others despite our differences, including those of other religions. What has
happened is that the people have misconstrued this concept into thinking that tolerance means the
obligation to absorb the new cultures and religions into our society. We as people dont have to
change our views in order to live peacefully together. In changing our identity, we lose our rigid
definitions and our identity as a nation under God. People are now forced to accept others
beliefs as truth or intentions to be considered when taking action.

Braun 3

By perpetuating this idea, we lose our moral code and no one knows the difference
between right and wrong. The fact of it is that laws were based off of religious ideals and codes.
This isnt just in America; it spans across nations and through time. Most every society that has
developed and thrived was based off of a religious based code of moral standards. Religion has
set a defining guide of what is right and what is wrong. To take away our connection to God, to
wall off Jesus from our rules and standards in life, we take away our code of ethics. As we stray
away from this religious definition, we begin to see blurred lines in what is right and wrong and
sacrifice what we should be doing for what we can be doing. Just because we can allow
homosexual unions to be accepted as right doesnt mean that we should. Pro or con, all can
agree that the gay campaign is aimed to change peoples views of homosexuality to be accepted
as a norm. If we start to bend the rules of what marriage is, where is the line and logical
argument stopping us from saying polygamy, bestiality, incest, or pedophilia should be allowed?
People refrain from acting out against this movement because they are afraid of being
labeled as ignorant or attacked by those claiming to speak for equality. Are these really people
for equality or for promoting a damaging behavior? Let us think of it from a historical stand
point. People are claiming that this movement is just like the black civil rights movement of the
60s. As defined by Civil Rights Act of 1964, there are three features that a demographic of
people must meet to be considered under the banner of Civil Rights: having a history of
widespread discrimination, economic disadvantage, and immutable characteristics (ProCon).
Homosexual rights do not constitute under any of these definitions. Race is not changeable or
controllable, so it should not be taken into account in judging ones character or in defining their
abilities in society. Homosexual tendencies and actions, however, are completely controllable in
the sense that they are a choice to execute and peruse. If we start to say that any actions are

Braun 4

defendable and justifiable just because it is in someones personal interest, we take away all of
what makes society work with civility and ethics; everything would be allowed with the right
excuse.
Speaking in every sense, this type of union has no place in law or the State and
Government. This isnt just about religion; it has factual evidence to it. To be honest, the
government has no interest in your love life or who you choose to have relations with. What the
government has a stake in is in ensuring the perpetuation of its glory. The state supports true
marriages because they can result in procreation. The government needs to make sure that there
is a future generation to participate in benefiting it. The truth of it is that, no matter what path is
chosen, gay unions can never result in procreation. In every instance, a man and a woman is
needed in the process of creating children. The counter argument to this is that, by this definition,
marriage serves no purpose to the elderly or those barren women or sterile men since they cannot
bear children. As political activist and known author Alan Keyes beautifully states: it is not in a
particular instance such as being old or barren, it is in the principle that they are man and woman
that gives this union justification. In principle, they can become one body through bearing
children, a principle that, no matter the circumstances, a homosexual union can never have (Alan
Keyes). It is as simple as comparing apples and oranges. No matter the condition of the apple, it
is still an apple, be it infested with worms or rotten. Similarly, no matter the condition or state of
an orange, it will never be an apple. The same goes for traditional marriage and the mock
marriage that is homosexual union (10 Reasons).
No matter your religious beliefs, you cannot deny that men and women were designed to
be together, either by Gods intent or by natures design. By going against nature, nothing good
can ever happen. The other reason the state is interested in maintaining the status of procreative

Braun 5

marriage is to ensure the success of the children being raised. Having a mother and a father
figure in a family naturally provides a stable and enriching environment for children to grow up
in. This leads to successful men and women of the future, which in turn helps the nation grow as
a whole. Supporters of the homosexual movement will question you, asking you if you think that
same sex couples cannot be proper parents. When it comes to parenting, the deciding factor is in
how the child turns out. As recently as in early January, there have been testimonies from these
said children that are now full grown asking the courts to ban same sex marriages in their
communities. All of these testimonies share a common theme: the children being forced to accept
their parent and parents partners views despite their own natural feelings towards
homosexuality. As Dawn Stefanowicz, a victim of this household growing up, put it, As
children, we are not allowed to express our disagreement, pain and confusion. Most adult
children from gay households do not feel safe or free to publicly express their stories and
life-long challenges (Adults Raised). The truth of it is that, in most cases, traditional parents

have a child to raise it in the goal of giving him or her a better life and future than the parents
had. In this, the union in the best interest for children is one between man and woman. Since gay
unions serve no procreative purpose and cannot serve as proper parents, there is but one purpose
to these unions: the personal gratification of two individuals being united. Again, this leads us
back to the idea that we have laws and guiding rules for a reason: to keep people from doing
harm to others in their own self-interests. People who advocate for this cause call others ignorant
and insensitive of the beliefs and happiness of gays, but it is these people who show true
ignorance. Just because they lack a faith and dont follow the conventions of the nation, they
expect the nation to change to accommodate them. By asking everyone to accept homosexuality,
they are asking the majority to go against their religions and beliefs. If the state allows this kind

Braun 6

of behavior, it becomes its official sponsor and supporter. In every case, it has been detrimental
to those sticking to their religious beliefs because they dont accept homosexuality. In April of
2005, Massachusetts father, David Parker, was arrested for disagreeing with this view. After
discovering that his son was being taught to accept this way of life as normal in schools, David
asked to exempt his son from this part of the curriculum. After being denied this request and
denied an explanation, he was arrested overnight and cannot step food on any school grounds in
Lexington (Parker Incident). This is a father who did not want the homosexual
agenda taught to his son. This is a father who peacefully wanted to defend
his religion in his family. This is a father whose son was forced a teaching
against his religion in a school. People think that by giving gays
this privilege and keeping it out of the faces of true marriages that
it wont hurt anyone, but with all of the benefits of a marriage from
the state, it would come out of tax paying dollars. People
shouldnt be forced to pay for something that goes against their
religions.
Does mean you should be hateful and wage war on our gay
brothers and sisters? No. As Phil Robertson, prominent

David Parker being

jailed

businessman and avid Christian father, made clear: the Bible never promotes violence, only love.
We should love each other as people but help each other through our sins. We need not support
homosexuality to support our families. I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because
they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of
humanity (12 Quotes).

Braun 7

In the end, allowing this to happen would be detrimental not only to society, it would be a
snowball sin that unravels society. Stop being passive and tackle this problem by supporting your
religious rights and defending your faith as Christians.

Braun 8

Works Cited
"Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay 'Marriage' in Federal Court." CNS
News. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.
"Alan Keyes Refuted on Gay Marriage." YouTube. YouTube, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1suNCOgecM>.
"David Parker Incident." David Parker Incident. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.
"Gay Marriage ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.
"10 Reasons Why Homosexual." TFP Student Action. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.
"12 Quotes: Phil Robertson's Homosexuality Comments and Defenses." IPost. N.p., n.d. Web. 10
Apr. 2015.