Playful, Pius or Remembered Stuff

Hang out with the old preacher by browsing my blogs.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Gay marriage

The great debate here in California is whether or not to redefine the concept of marriage. It is not a case of discrimination against a minority. Gays already have the right of domestic partnership. If there are some insurance and tax advantages they miss in that category, this "left coast" state will gladly give it to them. But that is not what this debate is all about. How shall we define marriage? Proposition 8, which the populace itself passed, defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. This did not surprise anyone. That has been the understood meaning of marriage since time began. Even our liberal culture knows the definition of marriage, and that is why the proposition passed. Gays are NOT prohibited from getting married. Using the heretofore universal definition of the term they simply do not want to be married, that is, to a member of the opposite gender.

Changing the definition of marriage is not a simple measure. It is a cultural paradigm shift. If--by definition--marriage includes same sex couples, then we will be shifting the foundation of culture itself. It will necessarily require a revamping of our educational system. Sex education is not the only subject that will have to be revised. The assumed definition of marriage creeps into many disciplines, literature is an obvious example.

It is not gay coupling that produces a family. "Families" with two mothers or two fathers must always be artificially contrived. Nature itself teaches us that it takes a male and a female to propagate the race.

In spite of recent propaganda for "unisex" rearing of children, those who have actually done it know full well that boys are wired differently than girls. Men from Mars and women from Venus stuff strikes a responsive chord in all of us. Boys like trucks, dirt and daredevil tricks. Girls like Barbies, tea parties and shopping. My point is simply this: the most favorable couple to raise a child is
a loving heterosexual couple. To cite a dysfunctional home as proof for either side is sloppy logic. Anecdotal cases are not a scientific sampling. In the very nature of the case it is only the heterosexual couple who are able to supply a fully rounded milieu. So for begetting children or for raising them, it requires a mom and dad. That's why marriage, by definition, is a male/female relationship.

I live on the left coast of a pagan nation. The Christian memory of our culture is quickly fading away during my lifetime. And for some it can't come a moment too soon. Contrary to popular opinion, I do not want to shove my moral standard down anyone's throat. That is why I have written this post without appealing to biblical teaching. I believe God finds homosexual acts an abomination in His sight for reasons which are discernible to all of us in nature itself. If gays want to enter a committed domestic relationship, it is not against California law even as we speak.

If you do not love Jesus first and best, if you do not trust Him alone to wash away your sin and govern your life, you are headed for eternal damnation. Whether or not you adopt a homosexual life style will not change that. A homosexual life is just symptomatic of a heart that does not submit to Christ. Heterosexual fornication is also a symptom of the rebel heart. This is not gay bashing. To accuse me of that is just a lot of political sympathy mongering.

1 comment:

  1. Marriage is not a state institution, it is a Church institution. If you remove marraige from the government laws/decision process for rights, all debate is mute.