Eleven Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage - Dobson

www.family.org ^ | May 23, 2004 | Dr. James Dobson

[Mr. Silverback]

He didn't say you made it up, he asked what the source was. Unbunch your panties.

[Mr. Silverback]

Once for Valentine's Day, I left Rambette a trail of love poems (starting with Burns' "Red, Red Rose", of course) that ended with the most romatic stuff of all--selected quotes from the Song of Solomon. The trail ended with this, SS 8:6,7:

Place me like a seal over your heart,
like a seal on your arm;
for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave.
It burns like blazing fire,
like a mighty flame.
Many waters cannot quench love;
rivers cannot wash it away.
If one were to give
all the wealth of his house for love,
it would be utterly scorned.

[Torie]

Did you all read the link in reply # 17? That is where Kurtz is taken on as to interior points. I just thought I would just nuke the whole edifice with one fell swoop by showing the data from the less enlightened lands. (What IS going on in Georgia by the way?) The numbers simply buttress my sense that the assertion is intuitively ludicrous on its face in any event, as well as statistical gigo and specious causality.

Ya, some of the other points are tendentious (it will undermine "Christianity" for example), and/or unsubstantiated as well, but there are only so many hours in a day.

There is a real fiscal issue however, that needs to be addressed. John Walsh is right, that it will be fraud city as folks just get married to rip off the system, in considerably greater numbers than now. But that cannot and must not be a reason to deny such a key "right" and important aspect of one's life, in and of itself. If it costs more money, well that's just life in the big city.

[CalifornianConservative]

Actually, this sexual teaching was taught by Pastor Jack Hayford, now the president of the Foursquare Church International formerly of The Church on the Way in L.A. Hayford's position on it was the same as Christ's toward the unmarried eunuchs -- "for whoever can accept this, accept it." Maybe it's on his website. It bugged some celeb church goers I knew, too. (Perhaps "bugged" is the wrong choice of words... )

Well, the first scripture that comes to mind is the one in Romans about how "women gave up what was natural intercourse for what was unnatural." Hayford's attitude was that you would not subject your spouse to anything that would put your body on a physical level in any way debasing -- but face to face as equals, looking into each other's souls. I hope I don't have to spell out the logistics of what he was talking about.

I recall he talked about the sin of Onan, too, which was masturbation. Point is that the Lord, who calls us to respect our bodies as the living temples of the Holy Spirit, looks upon our hearts even during sex. Who we are and what we think about and -- most importantly -- what we project upon our spouses with whom we are "one body" is extremely important to Christ.

The Word about it being a "narrow path" and that the Lord will save a "remnant" of His washed clean virgins come to mind in this day and age of attenuated Sodom and Gomorrah.

I agree with Hayford -- let who accept it who will -- but I can never get over the revulsion I experienced as a young teen when the older brother of a friend of mine first showed me a photo of oral sex -- (he was gay and is dead now of AIDS) -- it just seemed so unclean to put your mouth where any kind of excrement might have been.

And another scripture is how the Lord commanded Moses I think to bury human excrement in a way that made things okay for God's spirit to be around -- because the excrement was ritualistically 'unclean". It is interesting to me that the devil is often called "an unclean spirit".

In any case -- I think it is a matter of whoever can accept it should -- but for me it is difficult to imagine the Holy One of Israel blessing sodomy. And it was illegal for heterosexuals to have oral or anal sex in this country until the last generation. Reading the script for the upcoming film KIN SEY recently, the writer noted that a man was put in jail for cunnilingus on his own wife in the late 1930's.

The point being for Dobson's article is that for prayerful intercession on the part of Christians for the upholding of marriage and family values -- God needs people to take a personal stand in their own lives for holiness in order for there to be any efficacious prayer in the spiritual realm.

Do a concordance search on the meaning of an intercessor or intercession -- that our prayers have authority only when we are ourselves pure -- and the problem of sodomy will make sense.

As for the Song of Solomon, suckling of breasts and other romantic allusions somehow aren't the same thing. God calls us to not be of this Sodomic culture -- are we already like Lot, so desensitized to sexual purity that we would offer up our daughters to appease the sexual lusts of the men at his door who wanted to have sex with the angel that was visiting him?

[pollywog]

GOD BLESS YOU Dr. DOBSON !!!!!!!!!!!! I have been on www.frc.org all day getting info and contacting my senators.
PRAYING MUCH HERE IN EAGLE ROCK.
Polly

[CalifornianConservative]

Too busy tonight to do a real search for you, but an eye opener as to how "hip" Jesus is about sexuality was the reading a while back in a King James Bible where Paul is talking about those people who have been saved and he mentions the word "catamite".

Catamites are the passive partner in any kind of sodomic act, usually homosexual prostitutes but also heterosexual.

I was positively astounded at the level of specificity regarding sex in the Bible...

[concerned about politics]

But that cannot and must not be a reason to deny such a key "right" and important aspect of one's life, in and of itself.

So does that mean I can marry my SUV and stop payments on it? I really like it. If they try to take it, I could hit the bank with a kidnapping charge - a federal offense?

If homosexual deviates hooked on strange sex fetishes can marry, so can tree humpers, foot licker's, and farmers with their favorite mutton chops.
I suppose the homosexuals will try to take the "moral high ground" to argue against their marriage rights, huh? LOL.

[supercat]

Probably not. Those who want a traditional marriage can still have one. Most people will opt for tradition, even though something like 50% of straight marriages will end in divorce, but I guess that's just part of the tradition.

The institution of Marriage is in very sorry shape, in large part because people have lost sight of its fundamental purposes:

• To join together two families, and start a third.
• To allow men to know who their offspring are (men in particular, since if a woman gives birth to a child, it's a pretty safe bet the child is 'hers').
• To ensure that each child has one person (alive or dead) to call "father" and one to call "mother", as well as two extended families ("father's side" and "mother's side") in which to be a part.

For the institution of marriage to recover, I believe people must be more aware of why it exists in the first place. While it is not necessary that every couple who gets married have children, people should nonetheless bear in mind that marriage is about families (including extended families), not just couples.

To use an analogy, the purpose of a library is to provide books for people to read. That does not mean that everyone who enters a library is required to check out and read a book. If a couple friends want to use a library as a rendez-vous point, that's apt to be fine even if they have no intention of checking out any books provided that they conduct themselves discretely and do not interfere with others who are using the library for its main purpose. If, however, a group of people were to descend upon the library who made no secret that their being there had nothing to do with checking out books, and if they drew attention to themselves and their actions, the librarians might very rightly be upset and should have every right to kick them out. If the librarians failed to do so, the book-filled buildig would lose its utility as a library.

[CalifornianConservative]

Look at posts #66 and 64.

Then ponder the fact that Paul delineates 'catamites" as those sinners who now can enter the Kingdom of heaven because they have been washed clean. (Paul also specifies homosexuals as being changed, too, but that is an entirely different argument than Dobson's)

God considers excrement and things having to do with excrement as unclean. You've got a concordance. The devil is called a liar, a deceiver, a destroyer and the accuser of the brethren but also an "unclean" spirit. But read 64 and 66 because I forgot to address you...

[Joe Republc]

"..The one thing Dobson seems to have forgotten to mention is that until Christians abstain from the same sexual practices homosexuals engage in, there will be no moral authority or moral high ground for "family values" to stand on. This is a difficult teaching, as all oral sex is sodomy, according to the Bible, and according to our old time sodomy laws in this country. This means heterosexual oral sex, of course."

Having read the Bible a few times, this one is a surprise.

Could you point to what part of scripture forbids hetero oral sex?

I don't doubt at one time it was considered beyond the norm by society, but I don't know of any Bible passage that clearly forbids any specific sex between a married man and woman.

-- Joe

P.S. There is a good point here, in any case. Our society has accepted lots of sex outside of marriage under the values of privacy and pleasure. 'Free love' that is hetero eventually has to accomodate homosexual behavior. Of course, there are a number of Bible passages that clearly prohibit homosexual behavior.

[Labyrinthos]

I hear what you're saying. But the problem goes way beyond gay marriage.

[CalifornianConservative]

read posts 64 66 and 69 -- unfortunate number, that last one!

[concerned about politics]

I don't doubt at one time it was considered beyond the norm by society, but I don't know of any Bible passage that clearly forbids any specific sex between a married man and woman.

The Bible does not condemn any sexual act between a man and woman. See Solomon.

[kpp_kpp]

astounded at the level of specificity regarding sex in the Bible

It is specific. And "catamite" refers to the effeminite, or receiving, partner in a homosexual relationship, usually younger (i.e. today's NAMBLA). It is not used in reference to heterosexuality.

I certainly do not question your aversion to oral sex, or criticize you for it, but don't stretch the Bible and make it say something it doesn't. There are plenty of people of who find "plain/regular/normal" sex disgusting, probably due to a poor introduction of it in their life, and I would not judge them for that using the Bible as a hammer. It should not be used in the opposite fashion either.

[jwalsh07]

Your guy misses or ignores a salient point. The out of wedlock birth rate began to rise dramatically when the sexual mores of the countries changed to give government approval of and endorsement to alternative lifestyles.

The damage was already done when they took the final step. I find the author unconvincing. Snide but unconvincing.

[annyokie]

I can't read that stuff.


You guys are as crazed or are part of the abortionists behind every post that doesn't agree with me crowd.

I am sick of this crap. There are a lot of us who send our kids to (horrors!) public school because we work our tails off and paya boat load of taxes.

I went to and my parents went to and my children go to public school. Read the "Little House Books" and learn that Caroline wanted her kids to go to school and not be home schooled.

I am sick of this debate..

[supercat]

I recall he talked about the sin of Onan, too, which was masturbation.

Onan's crime was much more specific. IIRC, Mosaic law required that if the eldest son of a family died married but childless, the next-eldest son was required either to try to impregnate the widow (with any resulting child being declared to have been fathered by the deceased, and thus being named heir of the family's estate) or publicly refuse to do so.

Onan was commanded by God to impregnate his brother's widow as the law demanded. He had sex with her, but withdrew before ejaculation so as to avoid impregnating her. His crime was not masturbation (he didn't), nor was it his refusal to have a child of his own (for any child he conceived would not have been his own). Rather, his crime was his secret refusal to give his brother an heir.

To put it another way, Onan was required by God and by law to put his seed to a particular use. That destroying seed which is slated for a particular use is a crime does not mean all 'spilling of seed' is a crime. The general rule is not implied by the highly-specific example.

[jejones]

So, Dobson is saying that the homosexuals who say they want to marry are all lying? That's hard to believe.

Also, the "Social Security will collapse" claim is curious; is he basically saying "we heterosexuals want to make sure that homosexuals support us in our old age by keeping them from getting the benefits we get"?

[CalifornianConservative]

I was only describing the revulsion of an innocent kid, not my own sexual proclivities. The Bible plainly says that "likewise, women gave up what was natural for unnatural intercourse." That's not a stretch. What was Paul referring to if not the same sexual acts that the homosexual men he was discussing previously?

But I am not judging you or anyone -- I'm just saying that I have heard this teaching and I tend to agree with it -- even Clintoon's argument that it is "not sex" means that it is something other than normal sexuality, no? And, the classic definition of anything outside normal sexuality is, unfortunately, "perversion".

[jejones]

I figured "charleton" was how charlatans danced in the Roaring 20s. :)