A positive, yet unintended consequence of the marriage wars is growing Christian epistemological self-consciousness. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. The endgame is that only Christians and the Christian faith have certain and solid foundations for knowing anything. Only Christian epistemology is rational and coherent and true. Everything else is sinking sand. As the marriage wars play out in our secular society, Christians see what pagans do and how they actually think. Pagan epistemology is now about as bankrupt as it can be. In principle it has always been that way. But what is different now is pagan epistemologies are now showing true-to-type fruit.
If one rejects or never acknowledges the God revealed in the Scriptures--the all conditioning Conditioner, the One in whom every sentient creature lives, moves and has its being--Man alone is left on the field. Human desires, lusts, passions, blindness have no intellectual or lawful bounds; they become the only alternative. But some will say, what about Reason? Surely, even non-Christians have that faculty; it is part of the Imago Dei within man. Therefore, in an issue like whether society should recognise such a thing as "homosexual marriage" can be rationally debated, and even non-Christians can be persuaded in the truth.
Maybe. But only if non-Christians still incorporate into their rational furniture much biblical truth. In other words, one's broader culture provides the precepts and beliefs which inform our premises which, in turn, make up our syllogisms, which in turn shape completely our reasoned outputs. Non-Christians in the West have long since shuffled off their (unconscious) Christian assumptions. Paganism is becoming more self-consistent. Assertions once thought to be self-evident in the general community have long since ceased to be believed. Attempting to reason together with non-Christians increasingly produces little more than ships passing in the night. When that happens, Christians become epistemologically self-conscious--which is a very good thing.
Romans 1: 18ff is a locus classicus about Unbelief's epistemology. Truth is not objectively conditioned, but subjectively and spiritually. Unbelieving men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Whereas the knowledge of God's existence is evident to all men, Unbelievers suppress that truth in particular. Unbelievers may be rational, but not neutrally nor objectively. Their Unbelief informs their premises.
As a result, God, in His wrath, gives them up to an even greater darkness and blindness. He darkens their foolish hearts still further, we are told. He permits their evil to wax. One of the final indications that man has run about to the limits of stygian darkness is the cultural embrace of homosexuality. "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity." As Paganism matures and grows strong in a culture, Unbelief's premises and sub-premises become more constructed around speculation, foolishness, impurity, and animal lusts. Note how homosexuality is described as an end point of rebellion against God.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Romans 1: 26, 27)Consider the following debate over "homosexual marriage" where even weak Christians have been led astray. The Pagans assert their homosexual passions and lusts are natural. They merely reflect the way they are, they tell us. Moreover, they assert their passions are expressions of love, not lust. These assertions shape the premises of their syllogisms. In order to debate successfully, the premises need to be challenged along the lines of, "what you call love is contrary to unnatural, contrary to the natural order. It is lust. It is indecent". And the Unbeliever--whether homosexual or not--replies, "Says who. I know Betty Sue and Charlie Champs. They are gay. They are the most natural people I know. They are not indecent. They are caring, loving, kind people. They are honest and decent".
Concepts such as "natural", "decency", "caring", "kindness", "honesty" etc are all being informed by pagan assumptions and seen through pagan glasses--perverted to be sure, darkened to be sure--but rational, if founded upon pagan premises. But it is all a lie. It is all an illusion.
If we were to reason, "Everything green is cheese; the moon is green: therefore the moon is made of cheese," we would be thinking rationally, but we could not be more wrong. The premises are false, even though the conclusion derived from them is rational. But all of it remains a delusion, nonetheless. So with "homosexual marriage". It is a delusion. Why? Because the Living God has declared the premises to be perverted. Thus, the premises are false. What the pagans say about themselves is as untrue and as benighted as the conclusion that the moon is made of cheese.
"But", the pagan replies, "I don't believe in your God." Of course he doesn't. If he did, he would not think nor act in such a benighted manner. But that tells us more about the darkened state of his understanding and his heart than it does about God.
Officially sanctioned and recognised homosexuality is an apex of cultural rebellion against the Living God. It is a cultural death wish. It reflects the judgment of God upon us all. It takes some time for the death-wish to spiral down and integrate into the void. But, in the end, it can come quite rapidly. Take, for example, the latest iteration, as documented in the Huffington Post:
Mary Gonzalez broke barriers when she became her state's only openly lesbian lawmaker when she was elected to the Texas House of Representatives.As homosexuality integrates into the void, it will become more and more publicly evident that it is not love, but lust. Pure, unbridled licentiousness. "God gave them over to the lusts of their hearts to impurity. . . " (Romans 1: 24) Paganism is showing its true-to-type fruit.
Now, however, Gonzalez is going even further, telling the Dallas Voice that she instead identifies herself as "pansexual." As ThinkProgress notes, Gonzalez's admission makes her perhaps the only openly pansexual elected U.S. official.
Though many might describe Gonzalez's orientation as bisexual, pansexuals don’t believe in a "gender binary," and hence can be attracted to all gender identities.
Gonzalez specified to the Voice that she doesn’t believe in a gender binary because “gender identity isn’t the defining part of my attraction," and that she never fully embraced the term "lesbian." Although she came out as bisexual at age 21, Gonzalez said she has also dated transgender and "gender-queer" people, in addition to women.
"During the campaign if I had identified as pansexual, I would have overwhelmed everyone," she said. "Now that I’m out of the campaign, I’m completely much more able to define it."
Gonzalez, who reportedly beat two opponents in the Democrat primary and has no opponent in the fall, continued: "As I started to recognize the gender spectrum and dated along the gender spectrum, I was searching for words that connected to that reality, for words that embraced the spectrum. At the time I didn’t feel as if the term bisexual was encompassing of a gender spectrum that I was dating and attracted to."
Gonzalez's election in May drew praise from a number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights advocates. "This is a big victory for Mary, for El Paso and for Texas," said Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Victory Fund, is quoted by Gay Politics as saying. "The people of El Paso will be represented by a talented and committed fighter who knows how to get things done in Austin. And LGBT Texans will be represented by an authentic voice in the Capitol, standing up and speaking out for fairness and freedom for all."
This helps Christians to mature, to become more epistemologically self-conscious. It forces us all back to the only certain epistemological ground. Meanwhile pagan epistemology gnaws upon its own bones; it cannibalises itself. The demand for homosexual marriage will progress to the demand for bi-sexual marriage and then on to pan-sexual marriage. In the world of Unbelief, "marriage" will have become nothing more than a pseudonym for licentiousness and lust. Then we Christians will come to speak more about Christian marriage as contrasted with pagan "marriage". The latter will have lost its meaning entirely. It would have come to include two pan-sexuals and a canary. Sinking sand. Integration into the void. Rising Christian epistemological self-consciousness. An unintended consequence of homosexual "marriage".