RE: Gay Marriage It's About Time!

   

 
Re: Gay Marriage: It’s About Time – Really?

Brooks Davis stepped on some toes, including my own, in the opinion piece he wrote for the McIntosh Trail.  I considered what Brooks had to say and find him to be lacking proof for his opinion.  It appears to me as though he inaccurately portrays Christianity and the true state of homosexual marriages, not to mention the homosexual agenda. I’m writing for those who read his article and are struggling to understand their position on homosexuality.  I also want to point out some fallacies Brooks has stated.

Brooks’ Lack of Proof:

Brooks states, one cannot force his opinion through the law or otherwise on another person.  However, this statement contradicts everything he is trying to prove. I must ask Brooks what gives him the right to make a law which goes against my beliefs? After all you’re infringing upon my faith and enforcing what you believe upon me. 

He suggests that marriage is a simple legal process anyone can perform.  I must ask, what is marriage as a legal thing, if it’s not between one man and one woman?

Under Brooks’ logic anyone could marry anything they wanted. However, he says that it "will not open the door to human-dog or human-Barbie doll unions, because that just sounds ridiculous.”  Where is the proof that this won't happen? Is Brooks just hoping in the best of humanity, the humanity in which he states the divorce rates are close to 50 percent and many adults are on their second, third or even fourth marriage?  I would like to see evidence that weird and extreme things will not progress along with gay marriage.

Brooks’ Fallacies:

I happen to have evidence that the gay community is not just going to stop after pushing for gay marriage. Those in homosexual marriages want children. For example, look at Rosie O'Donnell. She has adopted a child! This also goes to show homosexual families are not natural as the married couple cannot naturally have a child.

The way gay couples view their relationships does not appear natural either.  Jones and Yarhouse, who have written a book on homosexuality, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate, use surveys and scientific evidence to look at homosexuality. This is quoting word for word what they have said about male-male relationships. “Many homosexual males distinguish between emotional fidelity and sexual exclusivity”, so as long as they are not attached to another person its fine to be in as many open relationships as they like. Another survey by the San Francisco State University “has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.”   

I’m not exactly sure what Brooks is trying to say when he says not to look at him in an air-conditioned room or through eyeglasses.  If Brooks is stating that looking through prescription glasses is unnatural because the person has bad vision then, I would like to say that people are born with bad eyesight. People are not born with a homosexual gene, and even if they were it would not justify homosexuality. If some people had a gene which prompted them to murder would it be alright for them to murder?

Brooks Inaccurately Portrays Christianity

Brooks is right, we are all sinners and we fall short of the glory of God as Romans 3:23 clearly states. However, as Christians we no longer follow the Old Testament ceremonial or judicial law, because it has been abrogated by Jesus. However, Christians are still under the moral law of the O.T.  If you want to learn more about this issue please look at this link.  Just to be clear a Christian is not sinning if they don’t follow the ceremonial or judicial law and Leviticus 19:27 falls under ceremonial law.

Some of you might be thinking; does the New Testament mention homosexuality? In fact it does! Here is what God has to say in the New Testament:

“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:24-27 – Italics mine).

Biblically, marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman from the beginning of mankind! God intended it that way! It’s not that we “Don’t want to bother with it”. As in regards to Brooks’ statement that the Bible has been used to justify slavery please read the following article to fully understand what the Bible says about slavery http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html.  Just because the government was wrong on slavery does not mean its wrong about homosexuality. They are two separate issues. 

Brooks is correct in assuming a progression of other related laws being struck down. Progressively it will become worse allowing eventually sex with animals and more unnatural relations.

Those Pesky Christians:

Finally, is this what America wants to be known for? Be free and be homosexual! No, I would say that’s not what I want my country to be known for. No one should want total freedom for this country. That’s the reason that the United States of America makes laws, to prohibit people from making decisions that hurt the general public! 

Christians are encouraged to participate in politics by the very definition of democracy. Although a physical church may not be influencing the government, the real Church, Christ’s followers are making a stand, a stand that cannot be ignored. No matter what, you will always have to deal with those pesky Christians who vote against what God has deemed wrong.