I'm not sure of the author of that. It was sent to me without attribution

I will not stand corrected. You�re still a funny guy.

Same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue by Shelby Steele.

quote:

But gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle for freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete social acceptance and the sense of normalcy that follows thereof--a struggle for the eradication of the homosexual stigma. Marriage is a goal because, once open to gays, it would establish the fundamental innocuousness of homosexuality itself. Marriage can say like nothing else that sexual orientation is an utterly neutral human characteristic, like eye-color. Thus, it can go far in diffusing the homosexual stigma.

quote:

The gay marriage movement denies this difference in order to borrow "normalcy" from marriage. Thus, it is a movement born more of self-denial than self-acceptance, as if on some level it agrees with those who see gays as abnormal.

Yes, one of my first intuitions ("What gays really want is legitimacy and acceptance" � Page 1) is articulated quite well by Steele. And probably my best defense of gay marriage, when it comes down to it, might best be summarized as "What harm would it do? particularly in this sometimes bizarre culture where there are far more pressing issues, to such an extent that this one is barely a blip on the radar."

If only marriage wasn't so associated with religion then perhaps a case could be made that the civil rights of heterosexuals were being threatened. Of course, white people, straight people, religious people, and conservative people are assumed to fall into a category of people who, for the playing field to be even, the field must be slightly tilted against them. And if you consider that at least three out of the above four groups of people are associated with opposition to gay marriage then you'll understand the uphill battle when it comes to establishing the victim status of heterosexuals.

The recent decision in Massachusetts to allow same sex marriages is another step in desensitizing people to sin.

I have heard a lot about homosexuality being a "natural phenomenon rather than a moral perversion." The logic here is that if a person is tempted with a sexual desire for someone of the same sex, then it is okay because, well, that's what they "feel". By that logic, anyone is at liberty to do anything because that's their "nature." However, let's look at it from another angle. If a heterosexual has an attraction to someone of the opposite gender, that doesn't give them the "right" to have sex. That is called fornication outside the bounds of marriage. While that might be one's "natural tendency," adultery and fornication is just as much an abomination to God as homosexuality. I find it difficult to understand how ministers who call themselves Christians can condone homosexual lifestyles.

Let's take the previous line of thinking just one step further. Because a serial killer "feels a certain inclination" toward killing people does that make it okay? Is there some inherent law that says killing people is wrong?

I suppose we finally have to just ask ourselves where "laws" come from. Do laws exist because a group of people get together and a majority decides what's right and what's wrong? Or, is there a higher law than man, that of Almighty God, that we must give account to? And are those laws which are given to us by God absolute and inflexible? Is God going to be changed because a caucus of people get together and decide they don't like His rules?

From our nation's inception our founders acknowledged a power that reigned above men which gave them the right to establish the United States of America.

Following are the first few sentences of our Declaration of Independence.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"

The founders of America acknowledged a Creator that gave them rights. They acknowledged that they were held accountable to a higher power.

I think it is also important to note that we do not have a democratic government; we have a Republic and in a republic the People enjoy their God-given natural rights as opposed to a democracy in which the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights). In practice, unfortunately, we are leaning more and more toward a democratic form of government.

If marriage is considered an institution of government, and government as an institution insulated from God's laws, then those who have no religious convictions at all will want access to all the benefits endowed by the government in marriage. Marriage will not be considered "Holy."

As a nation, we are slipping farther and farther away from what God intends for us as people. This should be no surprise to Christians.

2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

In the next few years, same sex marriage will probably become common in our society; just like we have come to tolerate obscenity and promiscuity throughout our society in movies, on billboards, on our airwaves, etc... The masses of people will accept it because that is what is being taught to them in their schools. In a few short years it will be no big deal.

I am not pessimistic, but I do not see our "nation" turning toward God. I do not forsee our lawmakers making laws consistent with the commandments of God. Instead I see true Christians being more and more ostracized and ridiculed and labeled as "bigots" because they won't "go along" with the sin of the masses.

What I do see is a church that is steadfast against the surrounding immorality, keeping itself pure and preaching the gospel to every creature, seeing people saved one soul at a time, until Jesus victoriously returns.

It will not be easy, but it is right, and there is a great reward for those who keep themselves unspotted from the world.

Best wishes,

Patrick
______________________________________________

"37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." --Acts 2:37-39

Patrick, I follow your line of thinking, but I'm wondering if you read some of the exchanges above? It's really a little more complicated than saying "the Bible teaches blah blah" or "it's un-natural." The point made by countless homosexuals is that, for them, their sexual orientation IS natural, and so it's begging the question to say that their sexual activity is illicit because it takes place outside of marriage. That's precisely the impediment they're seeking to have removed.

I think we can concede all that homosexuals are saying about their desires being natural for them, that they seek committed relationship that are sanctioned socially, and so forth, as being reasonable requests they're making, and much deserving of our consideration. As we do so, it need not be an either-or situation with regard to heterosexual relationships. While I'm not yet comfortable saying that a homosexual union is the "same thing" as a heterosexual one, I'm not sure how doing so would detract from heterosexual marriages. Heteros will always have that option open to them and I can't see where it would be diminished because homos have the option as well.

But I'm still thinking on this and I thank you for sharing your thoughts. Your response to this note would be welcomed.