Posted on 07/25/2004 1:39:37 PM PDT by familyop
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--My mailbox is deluged weekly with fundraising letters from pro-family organizations that invoke the threat of same-sex “marriage” being legalized by liberal judges in various states.
As important as it is to stand for the truth, these groups are tilting at windmills as long as American Christians continue to have a less-than-biblical respect for opposite-sex marriage.
That point was brought home to me recently with astounding clarity. A young lady who my wife grew up with decided to divorce her husband of two years, with a young daughter relegated to being tossed back and forth in a joint custody arrangement. There was no abuse or adultery, but since marriage is hard when two people are young and broke, she decided they made, in her words, “better friends than marriage partners.”
As far as I know, the young lady has never made a profession of faith, does not attend church and does not claim to know Jesus Christ, so to no one’s surprise she sees no problem with a quickie divorce when things have not worked out the way she wanted.
It’s time we quit being “huffy” when a pagan acts like a pagan -- what else do you expect?
What disgusted me was the response of the young lady’s mother and grandmother, which is symptomatic of how lightly modern American Christians esteem marriage. Both the mother and the grandmother claim to be Christians and attend church regularly. The mother said very little except to offer her daughter a place to stay. The grandmother, however, was bolder. “I don’t believe in divorce,” she said, “but sometimes it can’t be avoided.”
Well, in this case we’ll never know if it could have been avoided. No one tried to counsel the young lady or her husband or share with them what God has to say about marriage.
As a quick review for the sake of convenience, God said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24, NASB). Expounding on the theme, Jesus added, “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6, NASB). Jesus went on to add that Moses gave the exception allowing divorce because of the hardness of people’s hearts. Therefore, the exception is not absolute and does not have to be followed.
God’s opinion on divorce of any kind is quite clear: Malachi 2:16 says that God hates divorce.
As God’s children, should we not also hate divorce? Of course we should, and we should seek to avoid it wherever and whenever possible. But the simple fact of the matter is that corporately we do not hate divorce, nor do American Christians avoid it any better than our non-believing fellow Americans. A 2001 survey by George Barna showed that the divorce rate among evangelical Christians is “statistically identical” as the divorce rate among the general population.
When marriage means that little to the people of God, why should the broader culture care what we think about the subject?
The pro-homosexual “marriage” crowd is the one making all the noise and actually having the courage to stick up for what they believe, as perverted as it is. They understand that the first rule of getting what you want from the government in a democracy is to make more noise than the other guy.
There is really only one way for Christians to respond to this nightmare and silence the critics of traditional marriage and proponents of homosexual “marriage.” It’s not easy. It’s not always fun. It takes everything a person can give all the time.
It’s called staying married, even when times are tough and you want out more than you want another breath. Beyond that, Christians should seek to glorify not themselves but God with their marriages.
If the broader culture should see the divorce rate among Christians go through the floor, they would know that there really was something different about us. Who knows what kind of opportunities this radical strategy would bring about for evangelism and national revival?
Right now, roughly a third of Americans say they support homosexual “marriage.” But in another few years, homosexual “marriage” will be the law of the land if Christians – too many of whom see no problem with easy, no-fault heterosexual divorce -- have not recovered a respect for marriage beyond sending the occasional check to a pro-family organization.
--30--
Samuel Smith is a student and a news writer at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.
I'm sorry to hear of what your wife has been through. That sucks. We are permitted to divorce in the case of marital unfaithfulness -- generally interpreted as adultery, but it makes sense to interpret the man's behavior as "marital unfaithfulness"....
It does reveal something, though -- that your doctrine seems to be more influenced by a rough situation than by Scripture. And this thread began with a post written by a Christian about a Christian's doctrine regarding marriage. Doctrine drawn from Scripture is going to be more pure than doctrine informed by experience.
It is neither a straw man or ridiculous. It simply means that once the legal door is opened to unnatural "marriages", between members of one group, there is nothing but moral restraint to prevent the extension of marital rights to any other group of sexual perverts. A few years ago both moral restraints and legal restraint kept homosexual "marriage" from gaining recognition, but moral values have now eroded to the point that only legal restraint prevents it being recognized in most of the US.
Once unnatural "marriage" of homosexuals is accorded legal recognition in the US, in light of the accelerating decline in moral values how long can it be before pedophiles and bestialists demand their places at the table? The seemingly inevitable decline in morality combined with the legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" will eventually embolden practitioners of even the most reprehensible sexual deviancies to plead their case before the courts, and will inexorably lead to legal recognition for every possible perverted abuse of the institution of marriage.
That line of reasoning is the basis of the marriage license clerk scenario in my previous post, and I don't see it as ridiculous, I see it as a real long term possibility.
Ok, leave religion out of it. Fine. Two men or two women marrying each other puts the imprimature of normalcy on behavior that is against the natural use of the human body. Evidence? Check Scripter's profile page and read for several hours.
1. Wildly high rate of promiscuity.
2. Higher rates of child molesting and seduction of adolescents and youth.
3. Sexual practices which are injurious to the body by their very nature.
4. Very little actual monogamy practiced.
5. High rate of truly bizarre and unhealthy sexual practices involving torture.
6. Historically homosexuality has been considered a criminal act, often punishable quite severely.
So the people who want radical change are not the conservatives, it is the radical homosexuals and their supporters.
Why are you a supporter?
YES, emphatically YES. Read Romans 1:24-32. In that passage of scripture Paul lists homosexual activity by both men and women as especially prominent among the wicked, ugly, self destructive sins of mankind for which Jesus Christ atoned by his own death on the cross. In the passage Paul places homosexual acts in the same class of sinful behavior as murder, deceit, fornication, covenant breaking, hatred of God, etc. I know of no scripture saying that a predilection for homosexuality is a sin, but based on several clear portions of holy scripture there is no question that acting on that predilection is grossly sinful.
His laws are guidance to help us down the road to success and happiness.
Wrong again. God's laws and commands are NOT suggestions or merely guidance to help us achieve success, they are given to be OBEYED. And to fail to obey a single law is to disobey them all and be condemned to eternal punishment and separation from God. UNLESS of course the lawbreaker avails him or her self of the blood atonement for sin accomplished by Jesus Christ on the cross. Of course no human being, save Jesus Christ, has obeyed every law of God. Therefore every human who has ever lived was or is under condemnation until he or she accepts the free gift of salvation by confessing Jesus Christ as Lord and believing in their heart that God has raised him from the dead, Romans 10:9.
You say you are a Christian, so you should be familiar with the scriptural references posted above and in agreement with their message. That is, unless your version of Christianity is similar to that of people like the Episcopal Bishop Sprong(sp?) who has openly declared his disbelief in virtually every fundamental doctrine of the Church. In that case I suppose your dismissal of biblical and/or moral reasons for not allowing the corruption of natural marriage by sanctioning unnatural "marriage" is understandable.
It's not only a possibility, it's a certainty. "Ethicists" such as Peter Singer (Princeton) and other academicians have been promoting child/adult sex for some time. Even the American Psychologists Association (I may not have the name exactly right) published a paper - I think it was last year - making the claim that adult/child sex isn't always harmful to children.
It's in the works.
Not in my house, if my daughter (or son) disgraces our family like that.
You said:
"I simply want to know why it is you feel that you can impose your view of morality (and mine) on someone else with force. Law is force."
First of all, I wasn't impugning your personal likes, dislikes, or actions by wondering why you support "gay" marriage. I still wonder why. Usually people have some sort of reason why they support it, despite medical, biological, rational, psychological, and historical evidence that homosexuality is detrimental to individuals and society.
It is not "my" view of morality. Objective truth exists. Your arguments are all on the side of "no objective truth exists".
Homosexuality is unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral. This is objective truth. It should not be promoted, normalized, nor should same sex marriage be legal. If you want to argue on the facts of what homosexuality is, what it does to people, and what the plans and desires of the homosexual activists are, fine.
But the arguments you offer are irrational and are based solely on the premise that there is no objective morality. How you can think this and be a Christian is odd.
We didn't "suddenly" call for it. Judges overruled the law.
However, you can have friendships, associations and sex with whoever you choose.
Cool. Check and see how many tax dollars go to AIDS funding. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, venereal warts, and herpes are rampant in this country. Many of the new versions are resistant to antibiotics, because they're being spread by people with AIDS. These people act like petri dishes, allowing more treatment-resistant strains of the viruses to multiply.
If you use this issue to assert your majority will, in direct conflict with the Constitution article 9, don't whine when the left forms its majority over something near and dear to your heart and yanks your righteous indignation right out through your ear, okay?
I've never read anything in the Constitution that guarantees the right to have governmental endorsement of one guy putting his penis in another guy's anus. As to the "full faith and credit" clause, you think those judges in Massachusetts would rule that it applies to my Texas concealed carry permit?
The left is doing everything it can to destroy Christianity. They're also doing everything they can to move forward on everything on your list. What you're suggesting is that we roll over for everything in the hopes they'll be nice to us once they've got everything they want.
I don't want to live in that world. If you do, kindly move to Antarctica and create it there.
This is a particularly lame ending to a particularly uninformed post. Your posting reads more like a DUer than a Freeper, or one of Limbaugh's seminar callers. You argue for the left while claiming to be on the right. If you're a member of the "Religious Right", I'd like to see something in a post that doesn't read like you're Barry Lind.
In my post above I mentioned Peter Singer (ethicist - Princeton) who says there is no reason to prohibit adult/child sex, or even human/animal sex. He is cutting edge, greatly admired by cutting edge liberals and academic elites. You know, the ones who figure out what to teach kids in schools and college students in universities.
Already polygamists are suing to be allowed to marry. Actually polygamy has more going for it than two men or two women, at least historically. The original platform of the Gay Rights demands in 1973 called for elimination of restrictions of the sex and *number* of people who could marry, AND the elimination of ALL age of consent laws.
That should tell you something.
Parental rights will disappear and be replaced by the discretion of the State.
Derogatory speech which APPEARS to be directed at racial, socioeconomic groups, or other protected groups will be criminal.
Your right to worship as you choose will disappear, and the Bible will be replaced with a more tolerant and even-handed version.
All behavior deemed offensive to any group will be outlawed. These behaviors include spanking, prayer, wearing of religious ornaments, use of opinionated or poignant bumper stickers, uppity black people supporting conservative causes, gun ownership, action movies, nudity (of womyn), heterosexual intercourse (see rape), marriage, motherhood (see white slavery), public opposition of marxism/leninism, consumption of fatty foods, smoking, Atkins, cheesecake, candies, Valentine's day, Father's Day, Christmas, Yom Kippur, Hannukkah, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, Capitalism, Entrepreneurship (see Capitalism), loud music, Sport-Utility-Vehicles, gasoline, CO2 production, breathing, passing wind, lumberjacking, camping, hunting, fishing, zoos, meat, animal husbandry, eggs, fish, poulty, fur, Roy Rogers, Huckleberry Finn, abstinence education, pastries, clothes with mixed fibers, plastic, glass, and the miniskirt.
On a second reading of that post I am amazed that you would berate me for setting up a straw man in my reply to that post. Nothing I said in my admittedly exaggerated scenario is nearly as improbable or outlandishly nonsensical as the portion of the post quoted above. I'm sure most of the list was intended as humor, but was it entirely for humor and I missed the joke?
If I understand the gist of the quoted portion, it maintains that if the Constitution is amended by 2/3 of congress and ratified by 38 states, the long laundry list of radical propositions in the quotation will also be enacted into amendments to the Constitution as surely as night follows day.
What poppycock! It has to be a joke. It is far more probable that my little imaginary scenario could at least to some degree become reality than that any one item of the above list could be added to the Constitution.
It is way past bedtime here in the east, so if the thread has deteriorated to this degree of nonsensical argument for argument's sake, I will close up shop for tonight and hope for a more reasonable discussion of the issue at another time.
"my posts on the subject reflect more my desire that our Government protect all equally..."
Then how about protecting children from homosexual predators? If "gay" marriage becomes the law of the land, naturally adoptions will occur en masse (they already are legal in most states, AFAIK), and since homosexuals have a much higher rate of child molestation, it's a recipe for disaster.
That's just one tiny reason.
You're new here. You should really educate yourself.
Check out these articles and links.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1026551/posts?page=58
Homosexual Agenda Categorical Index of Links
The article is correct in that we Christians should look to our own record as to divorce.
BTW, Susan B Anthony and the early feminists were absolutely opposed to abortion.
http://www.sba-list.org/index.cfm/section/about/page/earlysuffragists.html
At present, the government licenses marriage. Marriage licenses are at issue, not private behavior.
The advocates of same sex marriage in NY, Massachusetts, California and other States have shown us their willingness to break the current laws and now they are demanding that we change them by judicial high handedness.
Why should the law be changed?
I misread your signup date - it's 03, not 04 as I misread. Still, you should check out the facts about homoseuxality and the homosexual agenda. Your opinions are not based on factual truth.
Take it up with Rodney King. He can be your candidate.
As for the rest, you really didn't think we were going to accept your homosexual agenda did you ?
"It's like in the great stories, Mister Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy. How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened. But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something. Even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mister Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back only they didn't. Because they were holding on to something."
[Frodo is sitting behind Sam, leaning on a wall, with tears in his eyes.]
Frodo: "What are we holding on to, Sam?"
[Sam walks to Frodo and lifts him up.]
Sam: "That there's some good in this world, Mister Frodo. And it's worth fighting for."
It seems to me that this thread has detiorated into the usual slugfest between the Libertarians and the Social Conservatives over homosexual unions, whereas the real point of the article is that Christians should get their own houses in order and view marriage as a lifetime commitment. Ireland may still be conservative but at least the state and the Catholic Church take it seriously. That's no longer true of most states and denominations in the USA
You might want to have a look at this.
National Men’s Council of Ireland
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON
THE FAMILY AND MARRIAGE
IN IRELAND IN 2003
http://www.family-men.com/
I agree on the rest of what you said, however. The destruction of the family started long before the latest homosexual activist effort. At the same time, though, homosexual activists have long been involved with male and female feminists ("progressives," et al) to destroy the family.
Most all churches have also participated in the destruction campaign against families.
" Those who've presented themselves as anti-abortion feminists are man hating Gnostics."
Not all of us.
You and I agree that abortion is "horrible crime of child murder." We agree that divorce is hated by God, as are men who break faith with their wives and cover themselves in violence.
Let's fight these things in the unity of God's reconciliation rather than in division.
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.