Friday, Ireland granted “rights” to homosexual couples for the first time in their history. This isn’t surprising as this legislation was going to be forced through the Dail eventually anyway with or without the consent of the people. There is already widespread tolerance and support for homosexuals in Ireland and those who disagree have all but abandoned any reason for doing so. Europe as a whole has for the most part followed the same line as Ireland. Even Poland now has an openly practicing homosexual Rabbi. This type of “tolerance” is sweeping through Western Europe as the last vestiges of moral absolutes ebb away. Opposing these changes brands you an intolerant person as every viewpoint is welcome except one that opposes homosexuality. Ironically, their tolerance only goes so far. The fact that homosexuality has been so readily adopted in Europe only reiterates to me the importance of why we’re moving back to Europe and the desperate need that Europeans have for the good news of Jesus Christ.

In addition to the spiritual refreshment that Europe needs from the preaching of Jesus they’re also desperate for some clear thinking. One reason why Christians fail to make their case against homosexuality persuasive is that they often quote biblical scripture as their argument in opposition. The Bible is correct, true, and the inerrant word of God, clear in its opposition of homosexuality but those who don’t accept God’s take on the matter won’t listen to our quotations of scripture. To open a dialogue we need to be thoughtful of our initial approach and demonstrate from logic why homosexuality is not in the state’s best interest. Greg Koukl writes:

“What is marriage? Marriage is defined according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Hallahan like this: "Marriage was a custom long before the state commenced to issue licenses for that purpose. In all cases, marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman, and we have been presented with no authority to the contrary." If you look in Black's Law Dictionary it says this: "Marriage is defined as the civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex." Webster says this: "Marriage is a state of being married or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband and wife. Also the mutual relation of husband and wife abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social, legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

Here's the point that I'm making, my friends. As a category, by definition, culturally and linguistically and legally, marriage involves not a man and a pet, not a woman and a machine, but a man and a woman. Restricting it as such is not inappropriate discrimination. As a matter of fact, the word doesn't even apply because there is no such thing legally, culturally, socially or linguistically as a marriage that is not between a man and a woman.”

This unique approach (one Christians would be wise to employ) is tactically brilliant because it and others Koukl uses removes the conversation from the realm of opinion and into the realm of societal Truth (the way the world actually is). Society needs strong, healthy families that naturally produce healthy children for the good of and future of the state. In other words, it is in the state’s best interest (for future tax revenue, military protection, job creation, education, etc.) to protect the institution of marriage. Homosexual couples by natural process do not produce future generations, therefore they should not be privy to the special protections guaranteed to stable heterosexual marriages that do. These protections ought to be denied to them because in this important distinction, they are not equal. This is not intolerance, it is simply stating what is.

You can see this reasoning at work in other situations that do not produce healthy, stable, future generations. The state outlaws incestual unions between siblings, parents and children, 1st cousins, and relationships between humans and animals not only on moral grounds (although it is right to do so) but on its commission to protect the future stability of the state. It is not in Ireland’s, Portugal’s, or any other EU country’s best interest to legitimize any relationship that undermines the stability of future populations and yet without protecting, upholding, and celebrating healthy, stable heterosexual marriages the existence of the EU as we know it may disappear forever. As Christians we have the obligation to help people think clearly about truth and offering the coherence of the Christian worldview regarding homosexual “rights” in a clear, attractive manner is one way of getting the job done.

(See Greg answer the question “Did Jesus condemn homosexuality?” in this video.)

Tags: Why Europe