A Response to an Advocate of Same Sex Marriage

NOTE: Of recently I have been witnessing to some people online. Here below is a response I recently gave to a homosexual on the topic of "Same Sex Marriage." His words are in bold and mine are in normal font.

Vivy Heine Jerry, we were talking about valid arguements against gay marriage, and your blog is simply your opinion. It is not and can not be the foundation to deny consenting adults any rights.

ANSWER: Vivy, whether you think my arguments on same sex marriage are not valid doesn’t change the fact they are. Now as for my opinion; well, it looks to me you need to be reminded once again of what I had said to you in my last response. “Everyone has and is allowed to have their own opinion. However, whenever fact enters the playing field, opinion is rendered irrelevant and must bow to fact. Opinion only matters with regard to likes and dislikes; e.g., what the best colour in the world is. Opinion is merely personal preference and is no contender against fact.” Need I remind you that what I am talking about is fact, not opinion my friend.

1) You don't even bother to get into single parents or those straight people who can't or don't want to receive. Your arguement is, gay people cannot receive without the help of artificial insemination or surrogacy. So can a lot a of straight couples. They can marry nonetheless, double standard right there - equality is what this is about. And since we have various options to help all couples (gay or straight) who cannot reproduce naturally, and considering that getting children is no requirement to get married in the first place, this arguement is invalid. Homosexuality is found in many species, so the "it's not natural" thing is out of the window too.

ANSWER: A Heterosexual couple who cannot have children is not comparable to a same sex couple. Look, if a heterosexual couple didn’t have the obstacles in the way that prevents them from having children, they could have children. However, homosexual couples can never have children period! It takes one man and one woman in order to create life. It will never happen with two men or two women. Even in the case of adoption, if both a same sex and straight couple were to adopt a child, It would be the heterosexual couple that would model to the child the correct, natural order of what real parents should be. They should be a mother and father, not a dad and daddy or a mom and mommy. If such a child has two dads as parents, the child is deprived of a mother, and if a child has two mothers, then the child will be deprived of a father. So as you can see both a mother and father is essential to the mental health and well being of a child. It is about what is best for a child.

2) The women's role has changed - that was my point, you clearly didn't get it. Women are no longer shackled to home and herd, you will find straight fathers taking time off from work to raise their kids, even single fathers.

ANSWER: Whether a woman’s role has changed or not, is not the point. My blog article was talking about Same Sex Marriage not a woman’s role. Both parents are responsible for raising kids. Children benefit best when both parents are a male and a female.

3) There are plenty of straight women who cannot fulfill the role of mother, plenty of straight fathers who are shitty dads. The gender doesn't define how well equipped you are to be a parent, or how capable you are. Your equation "mom + dad = happy child" is ridiculously flawed - what makes a good parent is not to be coupled with a partner of the opposite gender, it's how you you care for your child, how you show your support, set boundaries and so forth.

ANSWER: Heterosexual marriages are not perfect. I never said it was. If a man or woman cannot fulfill the role as a mother or father; then it is obvious they are not mature enough and ready to take on the responsibility of being a parent. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out.   

" Regardless of the obstacles that prevent opposite-sex couples from having children, or regardless of their age, the fact is that they can have children together. Homosexuals can never and will never have children together. If you throw all the homosexual men on one island and all the homosexual women on another, they will die out in their own generation without having produced any subsequent progeny. The Genesis account is God's standard for all human beings and relationships. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7-8; Eph. 5:31). Jesus re-iterated this, as did Paul, bringing their hearers/readers back to the beginning, and upholding God's standard for all human beings and relationships. You might take note of the fact that Paul said "let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2). On every page of the Bible, it re-affirms God's standard and upholds heterosexuality. There are not only the 9 negative prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible, but there arethousands of positive affirmations for heterosexuality that, by necessity, prohibit homosexuality, as well. If I love babies, then by necessity I must be against abortion."[1] 

So as you can see my “equation "mom + dad = happy child" is ridiculously flawed” is NOT flawed after all.

4) Again with the bible. It doesn't matter what the bible says, not everybody subscribes to the club this rule-book belongs to. Seperation of church and state, remember? Makes all your bible quotes, what you think is God's plan, all the religious babble irrelevant and invalid.

ANSWER: Yes, again with the Bible. Yes, it does matter what the Bible says, whether you choose to believe it or not. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Now as to “Separation of Church and State.”See below: 

" The below can be found on a plaque on the outside wall at Harvard University (verbatim, in the spelling of the day). This reveals that no such thing as "separation of church and state"ever existed. If you are going to have a civil government that has justice and law, it has to be based upon a moral foundation, which comes from the church.

After God had carried vs safe to New England
and wee had bvilded ovr hovses
provided necessaries for ovr liveli hood
reard convenient places for Gods worship
and setled the civill government
one of the next things we longed for
and looked after was to advance learning
and perpetvate it to posterity
dreading to leave an illiterate ministery
to the chvrches when ovr present ministers
shall lie in the dvst

New England First Frvits

In order to have a moral society, morality has to originate from some place. Moralitycannot and does not originate from man, as we can see from modern society where everyone does what is right in their own eyes. There is no standard, and if it were left up to man to come up with a standard, they would never agree. Morality originates from God's Word, the Bible, which originates from God Himself Who is the authority on and standard for morality. God determines what is moral and what is not moral. As soon as a society rejects that, as soon as a society rejects God and His Word, morality begins to deteriorate into immorality, where bad is called good and good is called bad. Society has to be governed by a standard of morality, and the early founding fathers of America knew this. Without it, you end up with a corrupt and perverse society such as we see today. The church does not need to govern the state, but it ought to influence it." [2] 

 So as you can see all the “religious babble” is NOT “irrelevant and invalid” as you claim it to be. 

5) Marriage is not divine, the sacrament is, and you can keep that. Marriage was first an exchange of property, then a legal contract between the man and the parents of his bride-to-be. It was a legal contract before the churches started having ceremonies besides the signing of the contract.

ANSWER: Vivy, it doesn’t matter about “an exchange of property” or a “legal contract between the man and the parents” or about wedding “ceremonies” long before the Church came on the scene. All these things are man made marriage customs to witness before people, to celebrate two people coming together in the bonds of marriage, and to testify that their marriage vows to each other was for life. Not to say there is anything wrong with these customs. The fact is, they are not divine. Long before Christianity came on the scene, we read of the ancient patriarches Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who took wives, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah. What’s interesting, nothing is mentioned about a special wedding ceremony or legal contracts being signed and given. It was when these men had sex with these women that they became their wives (see Gen. 11:29; 24:67; 29:25, 28-30; 1 Cor. 6:16). Did you catch that, it was the sexual union between the man and woman that made them in God’s eyes “one flesh” in Marriage, not the marriage ceremony or legal contracts (see Gen. 2:24; Matthew 19:5-6; Eph. 5:31).

6) Something doesn't become a fact because you say so and quote the bible. There are many countries in which same-sex marriage has been established, and society doesn't crumble there, marriages of straight people don't fall apart more often, there's nothing to support your claim. It doesn't matter what you think is sinful, all these faith-related standards only apply to those who chose this belief. And even they don't uphold them in last consequence. How can you expect all of humanity to fall in line? You have no right to do that.

ANSWER: Again, I am not here to give my opinion, I’m here to share fact based on the Word of God. I happen to live in one of those countries where same sex marriage is sadly established. Sure, society may not crumble right away. But as the old adage says: “They that fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it.” The ancient Roman Empire is only one example I could give of many, where homosexuality became widely accepted and prevalent in its culture. Now did Rome fall in a day because of such rampant sin as homosexuality? No, of course not! It was only one problem of a greater problem that lead to the fall of the Roman Empire. Just to be fair, homosexuality was not the primary problem of the Roman Empire, but it certainly did contribute to the eventual fall of the Empire. Now the same is going to happen to North America, because it has failed to learn from the past and from what God's Word says on the issue. 

Now as for “all these faith-related standards only apply[ing] to those who chose this belief” not applying to those who reject Christianity and the Bible. Sorry, but you are not off the hook on this one. The judicial system was based on the 10 commandments of the Bible that for hundreds of years kept law and order in our Western Society. For example, if you murder someone, you go to jail, if you steal from some store or business, the law will reprimand you for it, etc. Even though we live in a secular society these laws taken from these commandments, “thou shalt not steal,” “thou shalt not murder” still apply today (see Exodus 20:13, 15). Now as to Christians not “upholding the standards” of God’s Word, well, of course not! Christian’s who follow God’s Word do not do it perfectly. “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). This is why Christians has placed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who had died for their sins. Finally, as for your closing comment: “You have no right to do that.” Vivy, this has nothing to do with “my rights,” but has everything to do with what God’s moral standard of right and wrong is.

--------------------------------------------

[1] The Berean's Desk, "A Letter to Harry Knox" .

[2] The Berean's Desk, "Separation of Church and State" .

A CALL TO SELF-EXAMINATION

NOTE: Here below is an excellent article by a puritan named Benjamin Keach I came across on the Defending and Contending blogsite that I think is both fitting and challenging article to start the New Year with. I hope it will inspire you to live for the Lord as It will me.

Posted by Manfred DefCon on January 1, 2014  

by Benjamin Keach

What can render the state of a person worse than to be an enemy of God, Jesus Christ, and the power of godliness; and yet to think he is holy and a good Christian? Nay, because his conscience is blind in the matter, it acquits him since it lacks saving light, while he keeps up in a zealous performance of the external acts of duty and religion; by which means he is deprived of that help which some openly profane gain from the rebukes and lashes of their own consciences, which often proves a means of their conversion. But the hypocritical professor, not knowing he lacks a changed heart, nor understanding that he is without those Sacred Principles from whence should flow all he acts and does, but contrariwise he is stirred up by false Principles, and acts only by the power of natural conscience and affections, having no clear judgment to discern his own danger, nor what a state he is still in. His condition is deplorable, and this unclean spirit is worse and more dangerous than that which he was in before.

Their blindness and ignorance consists in that they cannot discern nor distinguish between a changed heart and a changed life, or between legal reformation and true regeneration. They think, because their behavior seems so much better than it was before, in their own apprehension, and in the apprehension of others also, their condition is good enough. They comparing themselves with themselves, beholding what a vast difference there is, or seems to be in respect of what they once were, when swearers, drunkards, whoremongers, etc., cannot but commend themselves to themselves. Once they saw themselves sinners, and called themselves so, and were ashamed of their own sinful and wicked lives; but now they are righteous in their own eyes, and so have no need of any further work, being arrived to that state of holiness (so they think) to that degree of piety, to that change, to that conversion, that they conclude they need not seek for further change and yet they are deceived…

The state of the self-righteous and Pharisaical persons is far worse than the state of gross and profane sinners. These are sick and know it not; wounded, but see no need of a physician… They may conclude they are converted, and therefore seek not after conversion.

It is a hard and difficult thing to bring a Pharisaical person, one that looks upon himself to be a religious man, to see his woeful state and condition.

Men may be civilized, and make a great profession of religion, and pass for saints on the earth, that are not such in the sight of God in heaven.

It is a most dangerous thing to make a profession of religion without true regeneration being first wrought in the soul; better to be no professors at all, than not so as to be sincere…

This may inform us of the cause and reason there is so great reproach brought upon religion, and on the ways of God, and on the people of God, by some who profess the gospel. Alas, many of them who are called saints, we may fear are but counterfeit Christians, such as who never experienced a true work of grace; they may have knowing heads, but unsanctified hearts…

Moreover, it sharply reproves those preachers whose great business is to bring men into visible profession, and make them members of churches, whose preaching tends more to bring persons to baptism, and to subject to external ordinances, than to show them the necessity of regeneration, faith, or a changed heart. 

For the Lord’s sake take heed what you do, if you would be pure from the blood of all men. We too often see when people are got into churches, they conclude all is well; and when conversion is preached, they do not think it concerns them, but other people who are openly profane: and thus they come to be blinded, maybe to their own destruction…

It may also put us all upon a strict examination of our own hearts, lest we should be found to be some of these false and counterfeit Christians. And that we may clear ourselves in this matter; consider:

1. Were you ever thoroughly convinced of your sinful and lost condition by nature, and of that horrid evil there is in sin? Did you ever see sin as the greatest evil, most hateful to God, not only of the evil effects of sin, but also of the evil nature of sin, not only as it has made a breach between God and man, but has also defaced the Image of God in man, and made us like the devil, filling our minds with enmity against God, godliness, and good men?

2. Is there no secret sin lived in and favored, the evil habit never being broke? Is not the world more in your affections, desires, and thoughts, than Jesus Christ?

3. Are you willing to suffer and part with all that you have, rather than sin against God? Do you see more evil in the least sin, than in the greatest suffering?

4. Do you as much desire to have your sins mortified as pardoned, to be made holy as well as to be made happy? Do you love the work of holiness as well as the reward of holiness? Do you love the Word of God for that purity which is in it, as well as the advantage that comes by it?

5. Have you seen your own righteousness as filthy rags, and have you been made poor in spirit?

6. Have you received a whole Christ with a whole heart? A whole Christ comprehends all His offices (prophet, priest, and king), and a whole heart includes all our faculties. Is not your heart divided?

7. Is Christ precious to you, even the chiefest among ten thousand? Are you the same in private as in public? Do you love Christ above son or daughter? Do you love the Person of Christ?

8. Can you bear reproof kindly to your faults, and look upon him your best friend, that deals most plainly with you?

9. Do you more pry into your own faults, than the miscarriages of others? Are you universal in your obedience? Do you obey Christ’s Word, His commands, because you love Him?

10. Have you been the same in a day of adversity, as now you are in a day of prosperity?

11. Can you say you hate sin as sin? Is your mind spiritual, and set upon heavenly things? Do you love the saints, all the saints, though some of them are not of your sentiments in some points of religion?

12. Can you go comfortably on in the ways of Christ, though you meet with little esteem among the saints? Can you stay your souls upon God, though in darkness, having no light? Is all the stress of your justification and salvation built upon Jesus Christ?

Consider these few questions, and do not doubt but that your hearts are sincere, when you can give a comfortable answer to them, though it be with some fear and doubts that still may arise in you. A true Christian is ready to mistake what belongs to him, and take that to be his, that belongs to an hypocrite; while, on the other hand, an hypocrite mistakes that which belongs to him, and applies that to himself, which is the portion of sincere Christians. – Benjamin Keach

Taken from The Counterfeit Christian or the Danger of Hypocrisy by Benjamin Keach, (London: John Pike, 1691). Some archaic words have been modernized.

Do not quickly read these questions and forget about them. Many professing Christians today are simply outwardly religious, but their hearts have not been changed by the regenerating power of God. Christ demands the supreme place in your heart and affections. If you love anything more than Christ; if you love anything equal to Christ (though you may have a wealth of biblical knowledge); you are not a child of God. “Do not be deceived” (Galatians 6:7).

http://defendingcontending.com/2014/01/01/a-call-to-self-examination/#respond