Skip to comments.Why We Should Oppose Gay Marriage
Posted on 05/12/2012 6:09:05 PM PDT by Guido2012
Barack Obama has come out in favor of gay marriage (Again! He was in favor of it in Illinois before he was against it when he ran for president). He was outed when his vice-president and his education secretary recently took the same stance, forcing his hand. So the question being asked again is: Whats wrong with gay marriage, and why should we oppose it?
(Excerpt) Read more at setourchildrenfree.com ...
There are myriads of living arrangements today, from traditional marriage to cohabitation to domestic partnerships, all involving various combinations of male and female. There is an existing federal Defense of Marriage Act, which Obama refuses to defend as he is legally obligated to do. And citizens in 30 states have approved referendums which protect traditional marriage in their state constitutions. So why is marriage between one man and one woman so important that it needs to be preserved? I can recall one radio talk show host who regularly berates those who are opposed to gay marriage, challenging them to show how legalizing gay marriage would personally affect their lives. He reflects the attitude that many people have today, that this issue is a matter between consenting adults and it doesnt affect those who feel differently.
It is a good idea when confronted with any question whose answer is not immediately apparent, to first define the terms of the question. It is appropriate to consult the Bible to define marriage because it is the earliest known reference on the subject, however there are good reasons why gay marriage should be rejected regardless of ones religious beliefs. Marriage is much more than a physical union of a man and woman. A study of the original language of the Genesis account of the creation reveals that the woman was created as a helper who was the opposite of the man, i.e. a perfect compliment to him. From the beginning, this was a spiritual and emotional bond, and also a necessary union for the reproduction and upbringing of children. At no time during the six thousand plus years of recorded human history since then, did homosexuals seriously propose that a human right existed for them to be allowed to marry, even though they have been around since at least the days of Sodom four thousand years ago. And laws against sodomy had not been enforced for many years before the Supreme Court struck them down officially in 2003. So, since gays have been allowed to go about their lifestyle for decades now without interference from anyone, why the push lately to legalize gay marriage. It is because they want official sanction for their lifestyle the same reason they force their diversity propaganda on our school children in the name of anti-bullying. Of course, there are many politicians who are more than willing to oblige them in their quest to officially recognize their marriages.
We should vigorously resist this trend for several reasons. The first is that we are a nation of laws, and all of them reflect our values. We would be rejecting traditions that have worked well for thousands of years in civilized cultures by officially endorsing lifestyles that have brought degradation and destruction of that society wherever they have been practiced. Even today, despite what the media wants us to believe, most nations on earth do not tolerate homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. Secondly, the law is a teacher, and sanctioning what used to be called perversion, will remove the stigma that used to accompany such behavior. When society no longer officially considers an act taboo, it unofficially encourages experimentation and expansion of such behavior by others. There are dozens of examples of this, from drug use to gambling to teen pregnancies, which have all exploded once laws were relaxed and/or the stigma was removed. And whether they admit it or not, many of those promoting liberalization of marriage laws, also favor eliminating restrictions on transgender rights(sports gender distinctions, unisex bathrooms, etc.), homosexual adoptions, and lowering the sexual age of consent from 18 to 14. Legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope indeed. Third, those who promote such policies are not content to just live their lifestyle in peace. Wherever they are in power, such as in California, the United Nations, and in public schools, they have proven to be much more intolerant than they accuse the rest of us as being. They have used the heavy hand of government to pass laws intended to not just indoctrinate, but actively recruit our children into the gay lifestyle.
For those who understand the Truth of the Bible, there are additional reasons to oppose gay marriage. God says that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. (Proverbs 14:34) Sin, which includes both heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity, will bring Gods judgment. There is a difference, however, between individuals sinning, for which they will have to account to God, and a nation sinning by giving official sanction to what God calls an abomination. God will surely judge a nation that makes an abomination official government policy, and we all have a stake in that. Those who have abused God's precious purpose for marriage and the family, whether they are gay or straight, need to repent and seek God and cry out to Him to save our nation
I've been looking for that essay, but haven't found it.
Should we oppose gay adoption too?
They will not be happy until they can force every church in America to have to hire homosexuals.
We sure have seen a shift in the culture.
In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act passed Congress with overwhelming majorities in Congress.
At that time, strong liberals such as Tom Harkin, Chuck Schumer, Joe Lieberman, and Patrick Leahy all voted for it.
At that time, homosexual marriage was not a liberal cause celebre.
But at some point, it did become a liberal cause. When did this happen, and why?
Based on that congressional vote in 1996, there was an overwhelming consensus, across party lines, and across the political spectrum, that marriage was a man and a woman.
Less than 20 years later, homosexual marriage is a hot button “social issue”.
How many of you would have thought 20 years ago, that if you think marriage should be a man and a woman, that this makes you a bigot and a “hater”, as the liberals call such people?
How many of you would have expected the culture to shift such that how we define marriage is controversial? Back in 1996, how we define marriage was about the least controversial issue in America.
I just want to point out that homosexual marriage has not always been a liberal cause. At one time, leading liberals were willing to say they believed that marriage should be one man and one woman.
The gay agenda is another step by the radical left towards destroying Christianity and Western culture. It isn’t the first step, and it won’t be the last, so this is as good as any place to draw a line in the sand, and say no further. That includes resisting the lunacy of allowing gay couples to adopt innocent children. A majority of Americans agree with preserving traditional marriage, and they don’t approve of raising children in a perverted environment.
In Sept 2001, who would have believed:
In 10 years, the president’s name will be Hussein.
In 10 years, this event will be commemorated with prayers in Arabic.
In 10 years, Muslims at airports will search Americans for weapons.
In 10 years, secular regimes across the Middle East will fall while terrorists seize power with American help.
In 10 years, there will be a mosque built near Ground Zero to commemorate the victory.
Our enemies move very fast. Homosexuals, Mohammedans, Communists — they aren’t wasting time.
You make good case for killing prophets.
Some of you people on this blog are a little too intense for me. Gay marriage should be handled by the states. Most will vote against it, some will vote for it. Abortion should have been handled this same way. The death pealty is the only ‘controversial social topic’ that was in fact handled this way. If you think about, since it was actually handled properly, it creates the least amount of angst when discussed.
Still, I digress.
The constitution says nothing about Gay Marriage (or abortion or the death penalty). Since this is the case, the voters of the state get to decide. Now, I know this is a pretty intense audience I’m blogging to so, you people would definitely vote against it. Good for you.
When President Obama says, “I think same sex couples should be able to get married”, he displays a willfully fabricated ignorance of our Constitution. By ignoring the essence of marriage as a spiritual concept, and not a civil institution, he negates the Bill of Rights prohibition of government attacking religious freedom.
Classical Semitic theology emphasizes searching for and relating to an infinite God. Genesis tells of God responding by creating heterosexual marriage as the earthy manifestation of the absolute unity and love He seeks with each person. The Old Testament continuously addresses this subject by identifying God as masculine, and allowing humans to become feminine in relation to Him. The concept finds further emphasis in the New Testament where the church becomes the Bride of Christ
For tens of millions of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers their First Amendment rights decay as Obama redefines marriage. For these believers homosexual behavior resides among the myriad sins entrapping humanity; humanity living in a fallen world with a fallen nature. For them any subsequent theological reasoning must derive from the understanding homosexual relationships separate believers from God.
For Obama these people lack Constitutional protection and are guilty of at least cultural prejudice.
The President, Gay Unions, and the Problem of Selective Christianity
Since they obviously don’t believe in God’s teachings by committing an act He prohibits, it makes no sense why they demand religious sanction (marriage) of an irreligious act. It’s like wanting to go to heaven if you don’t believe heaven exists.
Politicians on both sides are “chumming the water” with this issue. Obama now suddenly supports states right on this issue. He said so himself.
You make some good points.
But, unfortunately, gay marriage is not going to be allowed to be handled by the states.
The homosexual activists and their liberal friends will not be content with legal homosexual marriage in just a few states.
They are dying for a Supreme Court ruling, such as Roe Vs. Wade, which would impose homosexual marriage on all 50 states.
Indeed, a few states with legal homosexual marriage had that imposed by a state court ruling, rather than a vote of the people or the legislature.
Good analogy to the death penalty issue, which goes state by state. But, sadly, the gay activists are not going to allow homosexual marriage to be settled that way. Even as we speak, a couple of cases in federal court regarding marriage are expected to go to the Supreme Court at some point. The battle is joined.
Religious reasons aside, this should be good enough to oppose it right here:
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
There is an amendment process and 27 amendments to the constitution for a reason. Saving the lives of unborn babies and the primary building block of a sane society (hetero-sexual marriage) sound like good candidates to me.
In regards to Fact 1, I believe some people are born without their parents being married. In fact, out of wedlock births are destroying our inner cities. It’s an epidemic.
Sent to a friend.
How can you compare the societal damage cause by governments Great society anti-poverty programs with the potential threat of gay marriage? The magnitude of damage done by progressive policies is about 9.5 on the richter scale of damage. Can anyone argue how gay marriage could ever inflict the same damage?
Generations of ever increasing single parent families encouraged with government payments as long as the daddy wasnt around. Free healthcare, free food, cheap housing, and assistance with utilities as long as you stay poor. I can hardly think of a more ingenious plan to bring a nation to its knees. Under the guise of compassion, destroy initiative, entrepreneurs, creativity and respect for hard work by rewarding doing nothing.
BTW- I don’t think the LG community should be allowed to redefine the word marriage or force churches to perform them. Use the term civil unions, don’t force redefinition of marriage down the Christian’s throats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.