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 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" .
No comments:
Post a Comment