[Faith-talk] More about homosexuality.

[Corey Cook]

This is an excellent read.
I am going to post 4 articles here in a minute that bring some more light to 
the issue.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Wheeler" <awheeler at neb.rr.com>
To: <faith-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 1:53 PM
Subject: [Faith-talk] More about homosexuality.


>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
> _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> Faith-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/ccook01%40knology.net
>
Corey Cook