Advocates of same-sex “marriage” present the idea as a step forward for tolerance and respect. But recent developments place that interpretation very much in doubt.
Legalizing same-sex “marriage” is not a stand-alone policy, independent of all the other activities of the state. Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes.
Unfortunately, these government-enforced changes conflict with a wide array of ordinary liberties, including religious freedom and ordinary private property rights.
It began with the persecution of Catholic Charities in Boston. The archdiocese eventually closed down its adoption program, because the state of Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency in the state must allow same-sex couples to adopt.
Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.
All must give way and it will be enforced at the point of a bayonet. We se it in Europe and Canada. All other rights and liberties bow dow to this on behavior. And make no mistake they have taken laws that were origionaly intended to deal with immutable characteristics such as race and national origin and applied then to a sexual behavior. And one which is totaly subjective such as the so called transgender peopld. If you think you are female you are and can use the women’s restroom.
This article is not shrill or alarmist, but the ironic trend it describes is very real and poses a major threat. That is, contrary to the propaganda we are constantly fed by the advocates of the “gay is OK” delusion, attempts to normalize homosexuality are not only futile but dangerous. Rather than fostering true tolerance and mutual respect, they inevitably tend toward coercive repression of all opposition to the pro-gay agenda. The examples cited in this article are just the tip of the iceberg, the thin end of the wedge.
And that is why this is one battle that we MUST fight and win. Not only for the sake of Christ and the Church, but for the sake of the world that in its folly is acting in a very foolish and self-destructive manner.
David Handy+
Thank you for posting this; I’ve added it to my collection. Perhaps the clearest indication that same-sex attraction is a disorder is the demands for absolute agreement. All opposition must be silenced.
R.R. Reno has a posting today at First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/) that explores the same issue.
Will all of the proscriptions regarding sexual SIN in Leviticus Chapter 18 be declared “null and void” in our increasingly “liberated” society?
No, but only those that are still in accord with contemporary progressive/liberal morality. So incest, for the time being, is still in.
[blockquote]Unfortunately, these government-enforced changes conflict with a wide array of ordinary liberties, including religious freedom and ordinary private property rights.[/blockquote]
Of course to those behind same-sex marriage there is no “unfortunately”. If – note the if because this is not my own conviction – one regards same-sex attraction as morally equivalent to having a different skin color or ethnic background… then just as one would not accept discrimination against say African-Americans (you may not get married here, I will not photograph your wedding, we will not mention black people during social studies, you cannot adopt children) then it makes perfect sense that similar discrimination against same-sex couples would be unlawful.
And – please note – one would not accept “but my religious convictions” as an excuse. “I do not think God wants white and black people to get married”. Too bad so sad. Similarly “I believe same-sex marriage is against God’s purposes for humanity”. Too bad so sad – at least in their minds. Appealing to religious freedom will be futile.
My point is simply that to us this is encroaching on religious and other civil/political rights. But to those who support if not actively promote same-sex marriage (and activity and whatever)… this is entirely logical and reasonable. What Jennifer Morse writes is excellent and must be heeded. But cannot but fall on deaf ears.
5. AnglicanFirst wrote:
“Will all of the proscriptions regarding sexual SIN in Leviticus Chapter 18 be declared “null and void†in our increasingly “liberated†society?”
I think the Council of Jerusalem already did that in 49 CE. We’re not bound by the Purity Code (pork and shellfish, anyone?), but gay-marriage opponents love to trot out this section of Leviticus as if it were binding on Christians. A tired, tired argument.
plinx –
The 18th chapter of Leviticus says nothing about shellfish and pork. Here’s a sample of what’s actually there:
[blockquote] 1 “None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the LORD.
7
You shall not disgrace your father by having intercourse with your mother. Besides, since she is your own mother, you shall not have intercourse with her.
8
You shall not have intercourse with your father’s wife, for that would be a disgrace to your father.
9
You shall not have intercourse with your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in your own household or born elsewhere.
10
You shall not have intercourse with your son’s daughter or with your daughter’s daughter, for that would be a disgrace to your own family.
11
You shall not have intercourse with the daughter whom your father’s wife bore to him, since she, too, is your sister.[/blockquote]
And it goes on in that vein. Just before the prohibition against men with men, the text includes a prohibition against sacrificing your children to idols. Perhaps that’s out of date?
Of course, if you wish to appeal to the Council of Jerusalem, then you are stuck with the prohibition against “sexual immorality” or, in another translation, “fornication”.
True, Leviticus 18 is actually part of the Holiness Code (Chapters 17 -25? 26?), but the point is still clear: This part of the Jewish Law does not bind Christians (according to the Council of Jerusalem) with the exceptions outlined in the so-called Noachim precepts, one of which, as you mentioned, forbids sexual immorality. The problem you have is that a committed, loving, monogomous married gay couple is never going to concede that their blessed relationship is immoral, therefore, this prohibition is still an empty suit. In fact, many gay couples will agree with you that promiscuous living is indeed a violation of the prohibiton on “pornea” as outlined in Acts Ch. 15, but since their relationship is not promiscuous (see above), there’s no problem.
Maybe plinx will publish his or her own scripture since he or she doesn’t like the one God gave us. To discuss this with plinx is a waste of time.
Pling – Two quick points. First, someone not conceding an argument does not mean the argument is wrong. Second, the prohibition in the Council of Jerusalem refers to what is refered to as fornication, sexual immorality, lewdness, whoredom, or unchastity. The Vulgate uses the Latin “fornicatione.” All seem to suggest sexual relations outside of marriage qualify as sexually immoral. So the question is begged – what is marriage? I can’t find any Scriptural reference that contravenes the usual man-woman pairing, or even anticipates a departure from it. Cheers.
TWilson (“what is marriage? I can’t find any Scriptural reference that contravenes the usual man-woman pairing, or even anticipates a departure from it.”) — Do the scriptures anywhere limit a man to having only one wife?
ember – When Christ talks about marriage in Matthew, two become one flesh (sundered only by death as per Romans 7), and Christ refers to the creation story wherein God sees that Adam should not be alone and makes him a helper (singular). In 1st Corinthians, Paul says “Each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband,” where both wife and husband are singular. Also, if the Church is mystically speaking Christ’s bride, certainly the mystically unity of the church implies a singluar wife, while the uniqueness of Christ implies a singular husband.
The OT is more problematic, given a surviving brother’s duty to marry his brother’s widow, and since Abraham, Solomon, Jacob, etc, had many wives, but inter-spousal jealousy was often the cause of their downfall or of strife more generally.
My two cents.
[i]The problem you have is that a committed, loving, monogomous married gay couple is never going to concede that their blessed relationship is immoral[/i]
I’m sorry, but that’s not my problem. Nor is it a credible argument. People often don’t believe what they are doing is wrong. Ku Klux Klansmen don’t believe intimidating black people is wrong.
By this argument, a mother and son sleeping together in a relationship they they define as blessed are not engaging in an immoral act. That’s ridiculous.
Sorry, folks, you don’t persuade. First, as ember correctly points out, there is no single version of “marriage” endorsed by Scriptures. And since we’re invoking the OT, plural marriages were certainly the cultural norm. I know that’s inconvenient for your current argument, and so you try to downplay it, but it’s clearly there. Second, when TWilson wrote “All seem to suggest sexual relations outside of marriage qualify as sexually immoral,” it’s the “seem to suggest” part that gets you in trouble. That’s YOUR spin on the meaning of the words. MY interpretation is different, and so we have to disagree.
Wail all you want about gay marriage, but it’s coming and you can’t stop it.
So, plinx, what is your interpretation? Interpret some scripture that says sexual relations outside of marriage is not sinful or that says same sex relations are not sinful or are blessed.
As far as gay marriage coming, it’s already here in CA and NY is recognizing it. We’ll see how far this pendelum swings. The backlash on this may be much stronger than expected. If not, you have the “utopian” world you wanted. So what’s next for the GBLT network? What steamrolling action will political correctness require the vast majority of us to put up with next?
The backlash is over. You’ve lost the culture wars, get over it. The public thinks this issue is a big yawn. Why? Because dire predictions of fire and brimstone raining from the sky if gay marriage becomes a reality have been shown to be laughably false. I’m betting the referendum in California fails; even if it does fail, I’m still outraged that you think you should get to vote on whether I can get married. It’s none of your business.
The “vast majority” that you speak of is getting smaller everday. Look at the generational polls on acceptance of SSM. Your days in the “majority” are numbered. As to “putting up” with the rights of a minority, I again say your approval isn’t required: It’s not for you to say how I live my life.
[blockquote]It’s not for you to say how I live my life. [/blockquote] Well said, Plinx. You are absolutely correct.
I would also add, it’s not for me to say how I live my own life. That’s because I’ve given up my life to Jesus. I am no longer in charge of my life; Jesus is in charge. To understand what Jesus would have me do, I consult the Bible, mainly.
If you should ever choose to give up your life and give it to God, whatever you do, don’t look to me to tell you how to live your life. Look to Jesus. And look to the Bible to find out how Jesus wants you to live your life.
You will not be sorry.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]