[Faith-talk] More about homosexuality.

[Alan Wheeler]

I went to www.biblegateway.com to see what I could find about homosexuality and the bible.  This was among the resources.  So, again I say, and this is my last comment on the subject, if you disagree that marriage is only for men and women, then your argument is with God.  It's in His book.

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#marriage




 Sanctity of Marriage
In recent years, the homosexual movement has centered on giving marriage-like benefits to gay couples. Many in the culture have mistakenly concluded that marriage is merely an institution for the convenience of adults. In actuality, marriage is the bedrock institution for culture to sustain itself through having and nurturing children. There are complementary aspects to a man and woman that are important to the instutution of marriage which go beyond the obvious physical attributes. There are things that a man needs that can only be provided by a woman, and vice versa. 

These complementary aspects are important to the relationship of the couple itself, as well as to the children. One does not have to appeal to religion to instinctively understand this. Yet statistics verify the structure of the traditional family as the approach to raising children that gives the best measurable results. The overwhelming body of social science research agrees that children do best when raised in homes with married, opposite-sex parents. Every child has the right to both a mom and a dad. 

Yet we cannot divorce the institution of marriage from its theological roots. We acknowledge that marriage is an institution given by God (Genesis 2:24). The Creator of the Universe established the relationship between a man and a woman, thus it is a divine institution, not a human one. To confer marriage-like rights to gays is not the prerogative of people (Matthew 19:6). (This includes civil unions or domestic partnerships, as they are merely marriage by other names.) Defining marriage is the prerogative of God. Whatever may tend to undermine the institution of marriage would also undermine the authority of God, as well as hurt society. 

Liberals may argue, "Why should we arbitrarily select only heterosexual couples for marriage? What can it hurt if two homosexuals want to marry?" The answer is surprisingly simple. The institution of marriage between and man a woman is not, in fact, arbitrary. It's purpose is clear and of utmost importance to society. 

David Orland in an article entitled "The Deceit of Gay Marriage" puts it very well. He says: 

  To justify giving privileges or exemptions or subsidies to some particular group in society, the benefit of doing so for society at large must first be shown. With heterosexual marriage, the case is clear enough. Heterosexual marriage is a matter of genuine social interest because the family is essential to society's reproduction. The crux of my argument, in other words, was that married couples receive the benefits they do, not because the state is interested in promoting romantic love, or because the Bible says so or because of the influence of special interest groups but rather because the next generation is something that is and should be of interest to all of us. And, by definition, this is not a case that can be made for homosexual unions. To that degree, the attempt to turn the question of domestic partnership into a debate about fairness falls flat. 

  The more persistent supporters of domestic partnership will of course respond to this argument by pointing to the case in which homosexual partners adopt children or, in the case of lesbians, undergo artificial insemination. The intention here is to show that the nuclear family is found even among homosexual couples and that, to that extent, homosexual unions do indeed meet the same criterion of social interest as heterosexual ones and thus should be granted legal status. It is a weak argument and one that ultimately back-fires on those who employ it. This is for two reasons: 

  First, adoption by homosexual couples is still exceedingly rare and the law-though many are surprised to learn this-is aimed at the general case. To confer legal benefits on the entire class of would-be homosexual spouses just because some very small minority of this class approximates the pattern of the nuclear family would be a bit like admitting all applicants to a select university on the grounds that a few of them had been shown to meet the entrance requirements. 

  Second, the right of this small minority to the benefits of marriage is dubious in the extreme. Homosexual "families" of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic on heterosexual ones. 

Every child has the right to a mom and a dad. See 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children.  

But homosexuals not only want fair treatment, they are pushing for "Super Rights." According the Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute: 

  "Every member of society has a duty to contribute to the commonwealth. Yet the empirical evidence indicates that those who engage in homosexuality 1) contribute less and cost more in goods and services, 2) disproportionately disrupt social functioning, and 3) have few children while being more apt to harm them. Thus, homosexual practioners not only fail to 'pay for their keep,' but by their negative influence on children, cloud society's future. 

  Those who engage in homosexuality seek what they say are 'gay rights." In reality, they are demanding Super Rights. Super Rights are those privileges that allow one to ovverride the inalienable rights of other citizens, such as freedom of speech and association. These Super Rights-which are conferred by 'non-discrimination,' 'hate crime,' and 'hate speech' laws-allow homosexuals, if they so choose, to endanger or punish those who would exercise their associational rights to avoid them or protect their children from them. 

  As an example, empirical studies to date indicate that a male teacher who practices homosexuality is the most likely kind of teacher to sexually molest students. A principal knowing this may not want to hire a teacher who declares his homosexual interests. But if that teacher wants the job, his Super Rights trump the associational rights of the principal as well as the right of students not to experience extra risk (especially since safety is part of their right to life). Parents renting out one side of their duplex may not want to place their children at risk by renting to a gay couple. But if-even on a whim - the homosexuals want the duplex, their Super Rights trump the property and associational rights of the parents as well as their children's right not to be exposed to potential molestation. 

  The Super Rights of homosexual practitioners also squelch the right of others to freedom of speech. If a broadcaster opines that homosexual sex is dangerous, but a homosexual finds such speech 'offensive,' his Super Rights trump the broadcaster's freedom of speech and the broadcaster may be fined or imprisoned." 

The concept of hate crimes seems particularly reprehensible. If one of your (heterosexual) loved ones is the object of a despicable crime, the perpetrator would receive a lesser punishment than someone who committed the same act against someone who practices homosexual sex! 

+-+-+-

   He has made clear to you, O man, what is good; and what is desired from you by the Lord; only doing what is 
 right, and loving mercy, and walking without pride before your God. Micah 6:8
~~~

Alan D Wheeler
awheeler at neb.rr.com
IM me at: outlaw-cowboy at live.com
Skype: redwheel1
Check me out on the Q, Fridays from 10 AM to 1 PM eastern time at www.theqonline.net