Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Gay Marriage In California - Validating the Dark Ages

Gay marriage has begun in California. Homosexuals are flocking here from around the country to be wed. This troubles me greatly.

In a conversation on my radio show a couple weeks ago one of my listeners called in when I was discussing Homosexuality and says to me, "I know a lot of gay people, and they are actually nice people."

I have never pulled out such a broad stroke brush and said, "Gays are not nice," or that I "Hate Gays." But see, that is how the agenda functions. If you say that you believe homosexuality is a sin, or not normal, or that the homosexual agenda is a dangerous political engine, you are automatically stamped on the forehead as someone who "hates" gays, a person who thinks all gay people are mean, a homo-phobe, and whatever other label they desire to slap on you.

Is homosexuality normal behavior? Is it conduct that should be allowed to be given validation in our society? Should we bend and sway to the homosexual agenda's every wish?

Validation through marriage, personal respect from the "state," seems to be the drive at the moment.

Honestly, I don't care what homosexuals do behind closed doors. And though I think it is a compromise that places our society in a dangerous position, I am even willing to give them "Civil Unions" for the legal perks of marriage - from a "legal" point of view, I don't think we as a society have any choice but to give them at least "Civil Unions" because of the question, "Shouldn't anyone who is in love and willing to commit have the full rights awarded married couples (i.e. insurance, joint ownership, etc.)?"

But the homosexual agenda is not satisfied with Civil Unions. To justify their abnormal conduct, they seem to feel that sticking a knife in the heart of Christianity is the best way to gain respect.

Do they think that just because the "state" has decided that gay marriage is valid that suddenly that gains them personal respect and now they must be respected across the board?

Respect is not something that can be mandated or required or legislated. It is something earned. In fact, this agenda driven march to lessen the religious significance of marriage will earn the homosexual community disrespect. Why? They are trying to gain an unfair advantage, or preferential treatment, through using the Supreme Court by insisting the courts impose their will on the majority of the people, specifically, in this case, the people in California who voted down gay marriage.

If a group imposes its will upon another group, resentment is fostered in the group that is being imposed upon. Imposition such as this garners bad feelings, and the result will be that people who feel marriage is a Christian Institution and shouldn't be used in a manner that is in opposition to God's Teachings will rise up and respond.

I don't respect or accept as a form of justification of their lifestyle the invasion of marriage by the Gay Agenda. I resent it. As a Christian parent, if my children were younger, I would now have to be explaining to my children, who's innocence has been lost by this public display of sexual immorality, what homosexuality is, and why a bunch of people who are, in my opinion, in opposition of Biblical Scripture, are being given preferential treatment and are being allowed to essentially tell me that the Christian Institution of Marriage is not Christian, and can be stomped on by anyone who wants to shuffle their feet across it.

Not that we have been good stewards of marriage ourselves. The divorce rate is through the roof, the percentage of married people that commit adultery is at astronomically high numbers, and a large portion of the people driving up the rate of divorce and adultery claim to be of the Christian Faith.

The astonishing failure rate of marriage is at about 50%. "Till Death Do Us Part" seems to lost its importance. I understand that good marriages don't just happen, they require attention, thought, and serious effort. In this society, where everything must be fast, and warning labels must advise of all possible pitfalls (including that the coffee is probably hot and can burn your lap), marriage has become an easy thing to just throw away and is being regarded as just something to do, not a committment or contract entered into in the presence of God.

So if we have screwed up marriage so much, why aren't conservatives and Christians just willing to allow the gays to have a stab at it? Heck, they can't mess it up much more than we have in the sense of the importance of a lifelong marriage.

This is where people get confused about the defense of Christian marriage. It isn't just a simple matter of "Homosexual conduct is a sin, so you can't have marriage."

In fact, to help illustrate this, a friend of mine put it quite well on one of my Political Pistachio Radio Show.

Josh Allem said, "What business is it of ours if two consenting adults want to believe that three plus three equals forty? It's none of my business, and it doesn't hurt me whatsoever what they believe and what they do. If they want to build their house using that twisted math, it doesn't hurt me. But when they start teaching it in the text books at the schools that I might send my kids to that 3+3=40, I'm gonna have a problem with it. When a liberal, or whoever, comes to me and says homosexuality is normal, I'm going to say it isn't. It doesn't matter who's saying it, and comparing it to being a member of a race is an insult to race. To think that comparing it to race, to compare that to a lifestyle, if I was black, that would piss me off to no end."

Honestly, I really don't care if gays want to be gay - that is between them and God. Homosexuals are free to be gay. You will receive no argument from me. I would have a big problem if the Thought Police was breaking into bedrooms and hauling people off for having unapproved relations. It is a free country, and if they wish to do the things they do, that is their business. But when does freedom become oppression? When does ones freedom become detrimental to a free society, and the freedoms of others?

When I have to be careful of what I say. . . in other words, if by verbalizing my own religious and political opinion it puts me at risk of being slammed for being a bigot, or found guilty of a hate crime because I dare call a spade a spade, or in this case, dare call a perversion a perversion, something is seriously wrong in America.

In an orderly, natural world, be it one that has evolved from the primordial goo of the Earth's scientific beginnings, or one that sprang from the intelligent design of a loving God, is hardly a world that in the natural order of things would recognize homosexuality as a normal behavior.

I have argued with people that even though I am a Creationist, I recognize that certain aspects of evolution is true. And if certain aspects of natural selection is true, then only those individuals who are able to reproduce will contribute offspring to the next generation. That being the case, homosexuals, who do not produce offspring, should not be able to pass their genes on to the next generation (if you were to consider that the behavior was somehow influenced by genetics). This being the case, once again considering that there may be some genetic or biological reason for homosexuality, evolution should have removed it a long time ago.

The main question, of course, that pops up, is, regardless of genetic influence, is homosexuality simply a chosen human behavior?

Choice. Is homosexuality a choice of perversion. From a Biblical standpoint, the answer is, "Yes."

But is it a biological behavior that is chosen?

I don't believe someone wakes up one morning and says to themselves, "Hey, I think I would rather be gay." Some use the example of alcoholism to explain the choice. One does not choose to be an alcoholic necessarily, because the sickness is a damaging lifestyle that destroys relationships, and one's self, be it medically, mentally, or emotionally. But, the alcoholic may choose not to drink, and choose not to pursue the downward spiral into the self-destruction of alcoholism. So though they don't consciously wake up one morning and choose to be an alcoholic, the behavior is chosen when you take a look at the grand scheme.

When it comes to homosexuality, though, the question is mired by the fact that there are some other species which share the tendency (though in small percentages, and the conduct of nature doesn't necessarily make the animal in question "gay") to practice homosexual conduct. In fact, science claims there are close to 500 known species that have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior, many of which are mammals, though the behavior can be present in birds, fish, reptiles, and even insects. Just because my male dog jumps on the other male dog and tries to hump it doesn't automatically make the dog gay and validate homosexuality. It's an animal, for God's sake. When a dog tries to hump a leg, do you automatically believe the dog is in love with legs, and has a genetic mechanism making it find legs preferential over other dogs?

And of course there is the argument that homosexuality has been with us since the beginning of time. Even Biblical text says so. However, homosexuality is not really all that common, be it in nature, or throughout history, though its presence in unmistakable.

Murder has been around since the beginning of time, too, and that doesn't make it normal, or acceptable.

Now, remember that the aspects of evolution that promotes changes in species (though I believe those changes are much more subtle than the Darwinists will claim, takes place in populations, not individuals? Well, consider the social benefits of a population in which the members of the society shares the close bonds of a sexual relationship as couples, and reproduce as a result. A stable society of heterosexual tenants is much more likely to promote successful reproduction of young. Thus, homosexuality would not be an evolutionarily beneficial behavior.

And finally, biologically, homosexuality is not normal. The body parts don't match, and in the male form of homosexuality, the medical consequences are great, including AIDS.

So, to complete the cycle, marriage is, and has always been, designed for a man and a woman.

But the ultimate question is why. Why do gays feel the need to be married? Why isn't the comparable legal benefits of Civil Unions not adequate? Why do they see the need for some kind of legal validation and justification of their actions?

Christianity is the faith of the one and only true God, and His condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle will always leave with gays the stigma that their lifestyle is a perversion. To validate their perversion, they need to eliminate the source of the opposition. The source is Christianity, and one of the most revered institutions of Christianity is marriage - therefore, Marriage, according to homosexuals, must be stripped down to a secular activity, one with no Christian influence. Tradition must be destroyed, and the Christian nature of morality must be eliminated.

And now, as the homosexual agenda advances, the attacks on the Church are on the rise. Is that any surprise?

World Net Daily - - - A new Colorado law is helping homosexual activists achieve their goal of forcing Christians to teach biblical condemnation of homosexuality only behind the closed doors of their sanctuaries.

OneNewsNow - -- - The two openly homosexual members of the U.S. House of Representatives have recruited 50 of their colleagues to officially join them in promoting the homosexual agenda in Congress.

One News One - Homosexual activists are trying to stop the residents of one Maryland county from voting on a controversial "gender identity" bill.

Decoding the California Supreme Court's gay-marriage decision - - - The court ruled that sexual orientation was a "suspect classification," a term typically used by the U.S. Supreme Court to refer to historic bases for discrimination, such as race or national origin. By labeling sexual orientation "suspect," the California court indicated that any law based on sexual orientation would be presumed discriminatory.

I don't validate what gays do, and they should not be forcing the majority to do so through activist judges and unsavory political actions. Regardless of the moral implications, a group insisting on preferential treatment, and the ability to bastardize another group's most sacred instituions, is wrong, and not good for a civilized society.

Listen to my verbal reading of this post, and the callers responses to it on Political Pistachio Radio.

No comments: