Aberrant Attraction

 

Introduction

"When society allows what it shouldn't in order to placate, it sears its conscience and seals its fate."
The Author


This page contains:
1)
My introduction (best read first);
2)
Poems on the subject (the first poem having an article under it called Regarding Judging Others which is partly made up of poems too. Note also that the poem button to the right actually bypasses both the first poem and this particular article, and including the introduction);
3)
Other articles.

Introduction:
This page is built on the premise that homosexuals are born that way (due to something having gone askew at conception, or shortly there after). Therefore, if such is so, homosexuality (or at least this homosexuality) is not a sin (as some Christians think) but simply an unfortunate result of this fallen world that we're in where much is going astray due to this or that.
However, same-sex sexual acts and Gay marriages are quite another thing, both being a conscious choice that's made, and going by the Christian Bible, such choices being not only sinful but forbidden for various reasons, and not just biblical ones, I must add.
It's one thing to have been born that way, or to have even become that way due to child molestation, predatory seduction and grooming (not that such would make it any more acceptable) but it is quite another thing to simply choose such a path, to willingly submit to such aberrance.
My Christian poem (the first one up, and it an alternative one called A Letter From A Straight Christian) attempts to convey the correct biblical perspective, and this, in order to dispel a few myths held by both Christians and non-believers. Such is my sincere but very honest attempt to deal with the subject. More poems follow somewhat after it.

As for the cause of homosexuality, the following has been put forth:
a)
"Instead of excess testosterone, the developing male fetus receives too little, often too late.
...The developing female fetus is expecting no pre-natal testosterone. This molecule is significant only if the fetus is destined to be male. Androstenedione, produced by maternal stress, closely resembles testosterone. Even a small amount of this molecule during the critical first trimester of pregnancy could be enough to make the developing hypothalamus defeminized or masculine. So the same mechanism can possibly explain both male and female homosexuality."
Gary Vey, Viewzone
b)
Hormone injected sheep, cattle and poultry which humans injest, and which could affect the unborn child.

Further to,
It appears that no matter how carefully and thoughtfully one approaches such a subject, and despite one's right to, such attempts are often greeted less than kindly.
Hence why I wish to point out that it's not homophobic to be opposed to same-sex sexual acts and Gay marriages (such perfectly understandable for the heterosexual who's also conversant with Nature, and such being the biblical stance that Christians are called to take in accordance with their Creator's Word) but that it is homophobic to shun and physically or mentally mistreat the homosexual, who has as much right to life, friendship, kindness and peace as anyone else.
So let me make it clear that a distinction needs to be made between homosexuals and homosexuality.
Homosexuals are people, and should be treated just like anyone else, well, but homosexuality is an aberrant condition, and one
that therefore needs to be addressed.
In other words, homosexuality is  an unfortunate condition, not an alternative, and therefore, it needing help and not accommodation — help facing and dealing with the problem, accommodation simply aiding and compounding the problem.
But as with anything, it's not the person that we should condemn, but only the wrongful act that anyone may be engaged in.
And thus here, any condemnation relates to that which springs from the homosexual's aberrant condition, that which is outside the normal, such as same-sex sexual acts and Gay marriages.
Same-sex sexual acts, Gay marriages (and now adoptions) have a proven negative impact on society; and the swift and angry response of homosexuals and their supporters against those who are opposed to same-sex sexual acts, Gay marriages (and now adoptions), seriously threatens freedom of speech, one's right to act in accordance with one's conscience, and civil and religious liberty. Regarding the latter, the question could be asked: Are those who're opposed to same-sex sexual acts and Gay marriages, the new victims of oppression?
It all reminds me of reverse racism.
And you know, if homosexuals don't believe that one should judge others (though such can be debated, and as can be seen further down this page) why are they hypocritically judging others like my self, say, and saying that we're wrong and homophobic for being against same-sex sexual activity and Gay marriages?
At the end of the day, it's a massive shift within a society to accept Gay marriages, and a clear shift away from what is natural and normal to what's unnatural and abnormal
 the latter exchanging intelligence, reason, fact and wisdom  simply for feelings, the latter being something that's not without considerable consequences.
Saying that it isn't abnormal or unnatural, is delusional.
And the truth is, we shouldn't be playing with humanity's very essence.

I could apologise for my forthrightness, but that would suggest that I don’t have a right to my own beliefs and views, and therefore, nor homosexuals or anyone else.
Once again, bear in mind that any poems on this page are generally designed to provoke necessary thought and discussion, and have been prompted by the serious straying from the path of truth and right. After all, there's as much danger in liberalism as there is in fanaticism.



A Letter From A "Straight" Christian


My dear Gay friend — all being my brothers and sisters — and to whom no harm I intend, there’s something I would like to convey — and as best I can, in a respectful way — for while sympathetic to those of you who’re born that way, I as a Christian must go by what God has to say, and why here I refer to His Word, which, sad to say, some folk have distorted, misinterpreted and blurred.
Firstly, God LOVES you, and will continue to, for He loves everyone, and this is why He sent His Son, who, died that you might live via that gift of grace He delights to give, should you accept Him as your Lord and Saviour, repenting and putting aside wrong behaviour, and here’s where we get to the rub, which I hope and pray you won’t snub, for God does not approve of same-sex sexual activity, those Gay love affairs that are cemented publicly, and here, I’d like to help you understand why, for so many of us via our wilfulness Jesus re-crucify, and to be clearer, His patience thus try.
You see, in the beginning, (when only the devil was sinning), the God of order, the master designer — Creator, actually — created both male and female, (this biblical truth, not some evolutionary fairy tale), and said to them, “Go forth and multiply,” hence that often heard loving sigh, that complimentary connecting in line with God’s directing, which in time produces a family, a home where God intended there be security, stability, truth and clarity, nature and humans working in harmony, and thus it all a wholesome symphony.
But such isn’t the case with same-sex sexual acts, those Gay marriages that confuse and distort such facts, and that thereby, God’s displeasure attracts, for such is not how He intended things be, and why others consider it an offence when we, (without their authority), mess with something that they’ve created — and that God’s very particular, cannot be overstated, and understandably so, for when it comes to getting things right or wrong, He should know, shouldn’t He? And look what's happened to His rainbow.
Oh, by the way, Satan not just responsible for sin, but ill, and any mutation, aberrance, distortion, call it what
you well.

Okay, so you were born that way, sadly, some malfunction having occurred, obviously, and in the womb, undoubtedly, but burdens are what God oft calls us to bear, (even for a lifetime), and they, the sad reality of residing here, and what He wants to free us from eventually, but meantime, we living with our loss, lack or disability, and yes, we calling on His power, leaning on His shoulder day after day, hour after hour, and knowing how Christ went without and suffered, and more so than us — yes, Jesus — and why He understands our plight — in other words, your plight — but never to the point of sanctioning what’s not right, and what He calls sin, His arch-enemy its origin, and why one day He’ll act accordingly, and to those on His left say, “Depart from me,” for wilful sinners and hypocrites hardly deserve eternity.
Yes, He being a Holy God, a righteous God, one who instituted marriage between a male and female, and who when it came to creatures, also created male and female, for He’s a consistent God, an intelligent God, one whose morals, principles, standards-cum-boundaries were designed to protect who He hoped His character, ways and order would reflect, and why men should act like men, and women like women, unisex being another bone of contention, another thing that blurs God’s original intention, and effectively says, “We know better,” hence my cautionary letter.
No, it’s no mere coincidence, friend, bearing in mind Earth’s fast approaching end, that things are in a state of disarray, for humanity has largely gone its own way, it accepting, doing and sanctioning what offends God, what rightly angers God, thus forcing His hand, and lest folk misunderstand, I’m talking about a day of reckoning, that reward or penalty that He’ll bring, for what kind of God would let rebellion go unpunished-cum-turn a blind eye to those who persist? — and why He said to the woman caught in adultery, “Go, from now on sin no more,” for when it comes to God, sin’s an effrontery, (and He knowing that homosexual practices are unhealthy, both physically and emotionally).
Yes, we’re talking logic, friend, and why the opposite to God’s will we shouldn’t pursue or defend, and why sex should only occur between a male and female, the marital state too, we thereby letting sense prevail, for sex and marriage between males has less to do with rights and more to do with sin, things going awry, errant appetites — our anatomy affirming these facts-cum-that difference between the sexes that normally attracts, rightly excites, and why men shouldn’t mimic women and women men, but rather, shun the current trend that’s feminizing males and masculinizing females.
But as far as the unchangeable God goes, (and this, the informed Christian knows), it’s only sin that He hates, not the sinner, who, via his or her own choosing-cum-avenue, eternity obtains or forgoes, grace not covering sin but repentant sinners whose changed direction and genuineness shows — in other words, those who refrain from same-sex sexual acts, for here’s the facts: They're not a cultural taboo but a Scriptural taboo, and something that God’s Word, intent and command counteracts.
Yes, in Christ there is no discrimination, but where His Word says this, it's referring to the matter of salvation and not one's sexual orientation, for it was He himself who called such acts an abomination.
And all this being why I can’t go contrary to my God’s will, for were I to condone such acts, there’s a prophecy that I’d fulfil, for God’s Word speaks of a form of godliness, (as opposed to true godliness), which will manifest itself prior to Christ’s return, and which His coming wrath will earn, and the reason why is, because many in His name will pursue the wishes of men rather than His, they going by their feelings and not His Word, even succumbing to what’s preferred, and why we’re told there’ll be a falling away from truth, and what we’re seeing today is clearly proof, and why I’m nailing my flag to a heavenly mast and on the side of God my all have cast, for who hasn’t learnt from this planet’s past and that ancient God-chosen nation that didn’t last, but on the side of the wishes of men, its lot cast?

By Lance Landall


This poem was upgraded 7 December 2017.


God doesn’t hate homosexuals, He hates homosexuality; God doesn’t hate adulterers, He hates adultery; God doesn’t hate thieves, He hates thievery, and so on.

For clarity sake, here the Bible is speaking for itself, though with helpful comments in the brackets having been inserted by the author:

“For this reason God gave them up [allowed them to reap what they sowed] to degrading passions [the unnatural vices of pagan society]. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural [anal], and in the same way also men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men [same-sex sexual acts, sodomy] and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error [sexually transmitted diseases, ill health or death]" (Rom 1:26,27, NRSV).

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God [this implies that their rejection of God was not unconscious], God gave them up to a debased mind [God left them to a state of mind that was evil] and to things that should not be done [indecent, perverted, unatural]. They know [revealed in the conscience] God's decree [judgment], that those who practice such things deserve to die [the final consequences of sin] --yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them [show approval, encourage, heartlily endorse]" (Rom 1:28,32, NRSV).

"Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust [same-sex sexual acts, sodomy], serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these dreamers also defile the flesh, reject authority, and slander the glorious ones" (Jude 7,8, NRSV).

"Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people--none of these will inherit the
Kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9,10, NLT).

"And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned"
(2 Peter 2:2, NASB).

“These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths
of God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual
truths to those who are spiritual” (1 Cor 2:10,13, ESV).

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Prov 14:12, KJV).

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isa 5:20, ESV).

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17, ESV).

"Every word of God proves true..." (Prov 30:5, ESV).


Sexual sin is particularly abhorrent in God's eyes given that it distorts and defiles both His image in us and His relationship with us. And homosexuality is the most deviating of sexual sin.
All such not only departs from the biblical one-flesh principle but also God's standard for sexuality.
Such activity, (porn being another one), is perverting and corrupting society, (a biblical sign of the times), and hence why God is slowly removing His restraining hand — a hand that’s borne long, a hand that’s time is due.


Other biblical references:
Phil 3:19; Matt 19:5,6; Eph 5:31; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Deut 22:5; Gen 2:18,22,23; 1:27,28.




REGARDING JUDGING OTHERS


Don't Stop Judging!


“You shouldn’t judge,” they say indignantly, which is clearly an absurdity, for anyone who ceases to, soon sees things going askew, and is it any surprise, for the cost of one’s demise, is often failure to weigh — in other words, not commonsense display, or lest you think I’m fudging, I'm talking about JUDGING!
Oh yes, how we need to weigh what folk are doing or saying, for when we don’t, that’s how we can end up straying, and ignorance can’t claim, nor on others place some blame, for if such we haven’t weighed, what a huge blunder we’ve made, for we’ve been given a brain, one designed to spare us pain, but only when we actually use it, and in judgment regularly sit, rather than choosing to abstain.
Yes, whatever you do, (and this includes me too), don’t stop judging! — just make sure you do so correctly, and that is, without bias, not self-righteously, but impartially, objectively, and thus with an inner sense of your own fallibility, (our flawed humanity), thus acting thoughtfully, fairly and compassionately, and minding any hypocrisy, though such still shouldn’t stop you, given that commonsense never goes askew, when weighing what others say and do.
To put it another way, it’s our duty, and more so if we've a wife and family, for such demands responsibility and accountability, weighing what might affect them injuriously, which means observing and pondering, checking and researching, lest via not doing so, trouble duly spring.
And where others are acting wrongly, we may even need to approach them — that is, in order to warn and spare, (never to condemn), for love cares enough to do so, and clearly knows that here also, duty one must never forgo, lest those we cease to warn, even greater trouble spawn, which on to others, and not just them, may duly flow, and we thus somewhat guilty too, through our failure to say or do.
Yes, don’t stop judging, for you’d be a fool, given that the ability to weigh, is your most important tool.
Now why don’t they teach that in school?

By Lance Landall




To Judge Or Not To Judge?

Too many are too quick to say that judging others isn't right,
When neither is that statement when it's not balanced with further light,
Because it’s only wrongful judging that's in need of condemnation,
Not rightful judging that prudently weighs up the situation.

You see,

Judging is simply assessing any given situation,
Which thereby enables us to make a sound evaluation,
Because it’s only by this method that appraisals can be made,
Thus determining our actions according to how such are weighed.

And the same applies to people too, and whatever they might do,
As we need to determine whether we should do that same thing too.
After all, is what they are doing harmful, is it wrong or right,
Could others be affected, and thus will it good or bad invite?

It may also be that what they’re saying needs scrutinizing too,
And so, does it contain some error, is it right or quite untrue,
Could their words lead us astray, or have us put other people wrong,
And could it be that they're deceiving us, just stringing us along?

Yes, good judgment is needed daily as we make our way through life,
Because wrongly-made assessments can bring about much grief and strife.
And it’s not just we who may suffer, others being affected
By our errors of judgment, or when judgment we have neglected.

Hence why we often hear people say that there is a time and a place,
And why sometimes when we’re judging, confronting others we must face,
Because not confronting offenders just condones and aids their wrong,
Depriving them of growth and learning, which wrong-doing can prolong.

And therefore, when we don’t deal with such wrong, clearly love we don’t show,
Because genuine love knows everyone needs discipline to grow.
However, if you’re told when judging that it’s none of your concern,
And there's nothing that you can do, the hard way they’ll just have to learn.

But it’s always how it’s done, of course, and it's also how it’s said,
Because wrong approaches oft simply put things back and not ahead.
And just love should motivate you, both for them and those affected,
Yes — love’s sense of right and wrong — which it knows shouldn't be neglected.

But sadly, some are judging blindly, or in a self-righteous way,
Or because of some prejudice they’ve let their judgment go astray.
And some are simply judgmental, or they’re spitefully fault-finding,
While others judge selectively, or their own business aren't minding.

Thus, because of such wrongful judging, some don’t want judging at all,
Which effectively would mean that wrongfulness would just have a ball.
And that’s precisely why it is that wrong things must be arrested,
And why we're seeing more today that this world with wrong’s infested.

So then, when you need to judge, please see that it is done correctly,
And to anyone who has wronged you, please always go directly.
But first, make sure you’ve judged yourself, and well before you head their way,
Lest your very own sad condition some hypocrisy display.

And when and where such judgment takes place, humbleness should rule our heart,
We aware of our own failings, and letting mercy play its part,
Because by the way we judge others, we could also be judged too,
Hence why love in its wisdom always chooses the right thing to do.

By Lance Landall


This older poem was upgraded 17 November 2017.

You may also wish to read my Christian poem Of Course We Should Judge! orange box, Christian
poem list section.






APPROPRIATE JUDGING

1)
When choosing people for some position.
For example: When appointing staff, choosing a babysitter, voting someone in as a member of parliament.

2)
When seeking help or advice.
Are they trustworthy, reliable, is their thinking sound, mature, well balanced, unprejudiced, unbiased, correct?

3)
When purchasing.
Is the seller telling the truth? Could the seller be mistaken, misinformed?

4)
When choosing a marital partner, or close friends.
Would that person be a suitable partner or would their lacking, differences, or issues be destructive to the marital relationship and our personal well being?  Would the close friendship of a particular person be to our detriment in any way?

5)
When determining whether what someone is telling us, should be accepted, rejected, considered or perhaps even reported.

6)
When determining whether someone’s action in general could be injurious to us, others, or even themselves.

7)
When acting in the capacity of leader, or when in a position of authority.
Is our child, employee, member, advisor, complainant, telling the truth?  Is some source correct? Could any fault lie with us? Is some action the right one?

8)
When requested to advise a person on a suitable course of action, the suitability of another person, content, material or product.

9) When making choices on behalf of others.


And Church Wise


9)
When called upon to choose people for church office, or when voting on the choices made by others.
In such a case we have to consider whether the beliefs they hold, their behavior, ability, attitude, background, maturity, responsibility, etc, is satisfactory for such a position, and is in accordance with Scripture.

10)
When considering the actions of another church member.
Does their action warrant biblical church discipline (see Matt 18:15-17). Should it be copied or avoided?  Should their action be mentioned to someone who may be adversely affected by it?  Should they be approached about it? Could it be harmful to the common good?  Could it mislead, endanger?

11)
When determining whether words spoken by someone regarding biblical matters, contain error or truth.
If error is being spoken, should they be approached, corrected? Should others be informed?

12)
When determining whether an action occurring, where others are involved, is suitable for your involvement or presence. Does it violate your conscience, godly principles? Does it put man before God?


“ ‘If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother’ ” (Matt 18:15, NASB).

“ ‘Do not judge according to appearances, but judge with righteous judgment’ ” (John 7:24, NKJV).

“ ‘And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?’ ” (Luke 12:57, NASB).

“ ‘You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye’ ” (Matt 7:5, ESV).

“...And I [Paul] have already passed judgment on the one who did this…” (1 Cor 5:3,4, NIV).

“Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, will all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another...” (Col 3:16, NASB).

“But those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them” (Prov 24:25, NKJV).

“Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him [before rebuke comes judgment]” (Luke 17:3, NKJV).

“Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and teaching” (2 Tim 4:2, NKJV).

“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that every one who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16,17).

“Mortal, I have made you a sentinel for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, you shall give them warning from Me. If I say to the wicked, “You shall surely die,” and you give them no warning, or speak to warn the wicked from their wicked way, in order to save their life, those wicked persons shall die for their iniquity; but their blood I will require at your hand [failure to utter the warning may result in their rushing headlong to destruction, hence their blood will be required at the watchman’s hand. God depends upon the co-operation of human beings in His work of salvation]. But if you warn the wicked, and they do not turn from their wickedness, or from their wicked way, they shall die for their iniquity; but you will have saved your life” (Ezek 3:17-19).

Christian Quotes:

“Nothing can be more cruel than the tenderness that consigns another to his sin. Nothing can be
more compassionate than the severe rebuke that calls a brother back from the path of sin.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The real problem isn’t that we judge, but that we do so blindly and arrogantly. By not confronting people [because we are afraid of upsetting them] we may deny them the opportunity needed to learn and grow, with the result that they may come unstuck further down the track. Compromise can always be identified by false sympathy for the sinner. In the name of acceptance and love, false sympathy fails to help a person recognize and address sin squarely and thus denies the person the very thing needed, the transforming grace of God.
Unsure of source.






INAPPROPRIATE JUDGING

1)
Falsely accusing.

2)
Spiteful fault finding.
Jealousy or guilt based, making yourself feel better by putting others down.

3)
Unjust criticism.
Embellished, not altogether correct. Over harsh.

4)
Prejudiced, biased, selective judging.
Choosing to ignore what suits, lacking impartiality, treating differently two people who have done the same wrong, operating with a mind already made up.

5)
Acting from a judgmental spirit.
Not motivated by genuine concern or love, obsessed with others wrongs.

6)
Careless, indifferent judging.
Not making an effort to find out all the facts you can, lack of thought/feeling for others.

7)
Self righteous, hypocritical judging.
Accusing someone of adultery when you’re guilty of stealing, a holier than thou attitude.


See my poetic story A Classic Case which is near the top of my poem list page.





SHOULDN'T JUDGE?

Well,

just hire anyone as a babysitter;
too bad if they’re irresponsible, unreliable or a paedophile.
Just marry whoever you fancy;
too bad it they have roving eyes, serious hang ups or violent tendencies.
Just go by what anyone says;
too bad it they’re deluded, misinformed or a charlatan.
Just do as anyone does;
too bad it what they’re doing is wrong, foolish or thoughtless.
Just put your trust in anyone too;
too bad if they’re a cowboy builder, bogus doctor or false prophet.
And hey,
as far as an employee goes, don’t worry who you hire;
too bad if they’re never on time, are inept or lazy.

Yes, there’s always a time and place.





REGARDING TOLERANCE

We can’t “tolerate” other folk unless we disagree with them. Or to put it another way, we don’t “tolerate” those who share the same views as us. In other words, we don’t “tolerate” something that we accept or are plain indifferent towards, and the reason why is, because it requires nothing of us.
Tolerance is something that’s reserved for those whom we consider wrong. Tolerance, (by definition), implies disagreement or dislike. Given that tolerance requires a disagreement and an initial objection, it surely follows that the least tolerant person is the one who accepts everything. Why? Because such people aren’t required to overcome any internal objections. Hence why much that masquerades as tolerance today is hardly genuine tolerance at all, but rather, cowardice — yes, such folk frightened of becoming unpopular in the eyes of our relativistic culture. In the context of church discipline, many so-called tolerant memberships that fail to discipline erring members, simply betray their impotence or lack of backbone.
Unsure of source





AND FURTHER TO

The whole Gay debate goes beyond Christendom because same-sex sexual acts and Gay marriages are changing the natural order of things.
Let me say that it’s not about judging the Gay person but simply recognizing something for what it is, and in this case, an aberrant condition, one that shouldn’t be normalised.
Fair evaluating and judging go together. We weigh up the various elements of something — evaluate — and then come to a conclusion — a judgment — as to whether to allow, copy, censure or whatever, and that action following on from our decision. Much like a court judge who weighs and sentences, or a parent who weighs and disciplines. Such authority is God-given, I believe, though He the ultimate judge, the one who repays with eternal life or eternal death.
So, are same-sex sexual acts and Gay marriages an acceptable thing?
Going by Nature, no.
Going by the Bible, no.
Are there proven negatives that flow from same-sex sexual acts and Gay marriages?
Yes, confusion within society.
Yes, the line between what’s normal and what’s not normal being blurred.
Yes, both emotional, physical and societal ills.
We can have all the compassion in the world for the homosexual, and many of us do, but, because same-sex sexual acts and Gay marriages are turning society upside down;
because such things as Hero parades are so very in the face of many who don’t approve of such;
because Christians, or others, are being unfairly labelled homophobic for their stance;
because of the vitriolic attacks upon those expressing their opposing view, and even the boycotting of their products or restaurant, say, which is endangering freedom of expression and civil/religious liberty,
Christians, and others who’re opposed to same-sex sexual acts and Gay marriages, feel compelled to stand up and speak out against such, which means clearly outlaying why they’re opposed to the legalising of same-sex sexual acts and Gay marriages, and now Gay adoptions, which have their own issues.
For the Christian, sin is sin, we all struggling with something, and therein lies our compassion for our fellow brothers and sisters. But compassion must also be coupled with common sense and wisdom, especially where certain introductions would have major and negative implications for the Church and society.
There’s always those Christians, and those within society in general, who respond badly to something, and here, calling homosexuals “fags,” or condemning them to “Hell.” But that’s the price we pay for freedom of expression, something we should never trifle with. And hence why I respect the right of homosexuals to disagree with my own view, and even call me homophobic; something I'm not.
I guess it’s easy for the homosexual to take it personally when same-sex sexual acts and Gay marriages are condemned, when, for many of us, it’s not the homosexual we’re condemning, but what we believe is injurious both for them and us.
Yes, our heart bleeds for those of you who’ve been born that way. We understand your longing for a partner too, one  with whom you can share that special intimacy. But those “buts” in life have their place too.
Personally, I look forward to that day when I’ll be able to start all over again. For many of us, hurting or struggling, this life is simply as if to be endured, though there’s still much to enjoy and savour midst temporarily going without something that we’d love to have but can’t have, whatever that be. And yes, that waiting can be hard, very hard.
The biggest problem that we all suffer from is selfishness. The next is probably acceptance.
Just as the devil seeks to make Jesus appear unfair and unjust, many Gay people (and their supporters) would have those who condemn same-sex sexual acts and Gay marriages seen that way too.
If it’s all about love, then it cuts both ways.
Having been born that way, it's hard (if not impossible) for the homosexual to see why it's all so wrong because it all  seems normal to them. And this is why it takes those who're outside the situation to deal with it objectively.
And this is why we have judges who can weigh up all the evidence of any particular criminal case that comes their way. Otherwise, if left to the public, it would be an eye for an eye world.




POEMS


Or should I say, more poems.

Poems one to seven may contain some Christian references necessary for the purpose, and poems eight and
nine are indeed Christian ones.





1.  When It's Not Your Fault


To find that you’re Gay, when a male, must be the hardest thing, and why it’s hard to say,
That though it isn’t your fault, it shouldn’t be treated as an alternative way.
I’m sure it’s tough, but even “straight” people don’t always marry, and then there are those,
Who are blind, deaf or paraplegics, and that painful path too, never caused or chose.

Something sad has caused your condition, and who knows what, such ill growing by the day,
Hence why there are more and more men and women who’re coming out and saying, “I’m Gay.”
And this why I'm sympathetic, sincerely concerned, and wish to help and befriend,
But please understand, same-sex sexual acts and Gay marriages I can’t defend.

Religious grounds aside, your condition simply isn’t normal or natural,
And thus any society giving such free reign will be one where things don’t gel.
And that’s when trouble follows, for there goes boundaries, demarcation lines and sense,
And why despite my deep sympathy, I cannot condone some things, the cost immense.

By Lance Landall





2.  Gay Pride


I don’t know who came up with Gay Pride — such being wilful denial, I say,
Because homosexuality’s a condition, not an alternate way.
Their value having nothing to do with Gay Pride, but their very existence,
And hence why I have a serious problem with all that Gay Pride persistence.

Every human is precious, Gay or straight, so please, leave off that Gay Pride thing,
For normalizing homosexuality is like calling winter spring.
It’s a condition! Something having gone wrong, and thus pride way out of place here,
One's value found in one's birth, ones very being, Gay Pride a hollow veneer.
 
By Lance Landall


What next? Alzheimers Pride!





3.  Love's Not One-sided


Love has its view, but it allows others to have theirs, such being right and fair,
Truth only found, and growth occurring, where open-minded people something share.
And I meaning, opposite views, one view being wrong, and one view being right,
And truth and its acceptance coming last where folly’s seen to argue and fight.

So, lets take something that is very controversial — Gay marriages, say —
And you’re against such, but not so that other person who happens to be Gay.
You hot over their stance, they hot over your stance, and thus both of you askew,
Because there is seen bigotry, neither tolerating an opposite view.

Yes,

Two dictators in the making, or so it appears, should each one get their way,
And pity help us, because everyone should be able to have their say.
And no angry voice being raised, but simply stating its case, listening too,
Because others have just as much right to hold an opposing belief or view.

No,

Love’s not found where there’re hot heads, a bigoted intolerance of other views,
Such being sorry behaviour or an arrogant attitude that we choose.
And via such, we placing ourselves on the opposite side of the fence to love,
Where prejudice and hate are found, that tendency to hurt, harm, force, pull and shove.

By Lance Landall






4.  Homophobic? No, However...

What’s all the fuss about? — because if folk have an issue with homosexuality, such is their right,
Or do we no longer have freedom of expression, and once again, that same old battle to shout and fight.
And bearing in mind that the homosexual condition is clearly not normal, something plain to see,
Given that their general anatomy-cum-sex organ remains the same, no changes there, quite clearly.

Thus, folk are not so much anti-Gay, but anti-same-sex sexual acts, and giving such normality,
They knowing that such isn’t normal — however, there are those who do treat homosexuals badly.
But such folk have always been — they muddying things — for who would deny anyone their basic human rights?
And this gender malfunction being something that most of them seem born with, and why the other sex hardly excites.

But as sorry as we may feel for them, such is not a reason for condoning homosexuality,
For once we sanction the abnormal, it effectively ceases to be abnormal, and why worse we see.
Yes, we no longer able to discern between right or wrong, the acceptable and unacceptable,
Our feelings getting in the way of sense, our compassion erring unhealthily — the outcome far more ill.

History conveys that where such has happened, society’s always gone downhill, and disastrously,
For where there’re no boundaries and clear distinctions between this or that, folk lose the ability to see.
And that meaning — clearly — they losing their way, and here, losing sight of the consequences until it’s too late,
They having confused sound reasoning and a valid argument with homophobia-cum-cruelty and hate.

While I don’t approve of same-sex-sexual acts, and don’t believe such should be sanctioned legislatively,
I’d never treat a homosexual badly, though they may disagree given my stance, ignorantly.
For there’s a big difference between drawing conclusions based on one’s research, beliefs and conscience, and plain hate,
As the latter is purely the behaviour of foolish and callous people who more injury create.

Given that nature clearly intended that sexual attraction only occur between opposites —
And hence the complimentary sex organs, it’s clear that only a man and woman relationship fits,
And therefore why only marriages between a man and a woman should be the bedrock of society,
And no legal alternative confusing the issue, nor creating some aberrant morality.

At the end of the day, we can’t have an anything goes society-cum-a please all society,
Which is what happens when we cave into every desire and whim, and here, also sanction aberrancy.
And why hard as such folk may find this, there’s no safe and acceptable alternative, nor logical too,
And why all opponents of such — and without protest — should be allowed to express their own beliefs or view.

It also needs to be borne in mind that there’s a clear attempt out there to blur the gender distinctions, and
So much more, largely courtesy of feminists determined to reduce us all to a sexless wasteland.
Hence the feminizing of men and the masculinizing of women that we’re seeing — oh yes, unisex,
And why sanctioning and legitimizing same-sex-sexual acts only sees more foreboding muscles flex.

Let’s be honest with ourselves: When men marry men and women marry women, we’ve a weird society,
Even if such doesn't seem weird to them, (or others), and such weirdness we’ll pass on generationally.
When nature herself makes it clear how things were designed to be, how backward it is when we, humanity,
Go and act differently — yes, we nature’s crowning glory — but here, hardly thinking intelligently.

Yes, to sanction such via civil laws, rather than such remaining behind closed doors, is more than just folly,
And hey, what if there were a Creator who abhors such aberrance, and takes such very personally?
Well, when society loses its way, and from the path of sense and wisdom is seen to stray, woe betide,
For there’s always consequences as a result, and why we should never encourage or applaud Gay-pride.

As far as the homosexual and lesbian condition goes, who knows how such occurs exactly,
Though no doubt during the embryonic stage, and by that I mean, things going astray somehow internally.
And then there're those hormones that are injected into those creatures that we eat, (or that they’re fed)
plain folly
For there, could be where one answer lies, and what else might we be taking in that's causing this aberrancy.

Well, in some folk, that is.

And to think that law changes could be being made on the basis of such — ignorantly, that is
and foolishly —
But were homosexuality a choice, not a condition, such would be acting inexcusably.
For as I said, if nature herself is clear on the matter, what on Earth do we think we are doing here.
But hey, history has a way of repeating itself, and that it is repeating itself, is very clear


By Lance Landall




5.  The Rainbow Folk

Could someone tell me why the rainbow folk can be so intolerant, and yet,
They condemning intolerance in others who have their rights too, don’t forget.
And one being to hold and express their own view, but oh dear, ’cause when they do,
The rainbow folk oft turn an angry shade of red and blast that opposing view.

Thus they striking deeply at freedom of expression, holing their own boat,
That one they’ve charted too, which, if peppered by foolish demands, may cease to float.
I referring to eventual legislated inroads-cum-some foolish loss,
And why all must have the right to speak their mind, and no one acting like the boss.

And straight talk is fine, nasty and rude another, the latter not from us, who,
Are tired of being labelled homophobic because of an opposing view.
We simply against same-sex sexual acts, and not haters of Gay folk, who,
Should show the same respect that they desire, and sense too, but what do many do?

They strengthen those backs that are already up by their intolerant rants, and
Rub it in same faces with their Hero parades and that hijacked rainbow brand.
And many Christians offended given that misuse of a God-given sign,
That has naught to do with being Gay, and more to do with those who’d crossed the line.

Hence that flood mentioned in Scripture, and God’s promise such wouldn’t happen again,
But such aside, why “come out” in such a way, thus provoking the born-again?
Such hardly drawing sympathy; restraint and any dignity out the window,
They just as vitriolic and abusive as some who aren’t shouting “Bravo!”


By Lance Landall


"And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow [rainbow] in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth" (Gen 9:11-13, KJV).

"Do not deceive yourselves; no one makes a fool of God. You will reap exactly what you plant" (Gal 6:7, GNT).


This poem was altered 18 June 2018.




6.  "Love Is Love," They Say


Yes, “Love is love,” they say, referring to two who’re Gay and on their wedded way,
And here’s me shaking my head, more silly nonsense coming out every day.
Because if “love is love,” what’s wrong with fathers and daughters, or mothers and sons
Living as if a couple too, and why such crazy thinking one surely shuns.

Yes, that “love is love” statement as askew as two men marrying each other,
Or two women; new meaning having also been given to the word “lover.”
And yet, both men having a penis, both women a vagina, and hence why
I’m still shaking my head, for honestly! — the silly things some are buying, my.

“Isn’t there a law against incest?” “Yes, but love is love.” “What! — You’re kidding me?
 And doesn’t Nature have her laws too?” “Yes, but love is love.” “What! — Seriously?”
Oh dear, no moral absolutes, no natural clarities, just your view or mine,
And I guess that’s why some don’t have a problem with Hitler, ’cause whatever’s fine.

Or so it would seem, going by those who’re turning everything upside down,
And who, via their hostile hollering, any differing voices seek to drown.
“We’re all for love,” they also shout, but some as unkind as those they condemn, who,
Have every right to disagree — and in fact, an opposing path pursue.

And they seeing “love is love” as a convenient cloak for what shouldn’t be,
So why shouldn't they have the right to express their disapproval openly?
Debate being a healthy thing, open forums too, so let all have their say,
Because the way things are going, things are swinging far too far the other way.

Yes, "We're all for love," they say,

But loving everyone doesn’t mean accepting everything, and hey,
Since when has love sanctioned what’s askew? — and then there’s tough love, for some go astray.
And so, if “we’re all for love,” we’re surely all for common sense too, and what’s right,
Not just going by feelings, for though such have their place, some things are black and white.

Oh yes, there’s a law against incest, alright, and for very good reasons too,
And once Gay marriages were illegal, until society went askew.
Yes, abnormal now in the eyes of the beholder; it mere hypocrisy,
Laws simply being made to suit — whoever can howl the loudest, seemingly.

Yes, “Love is love,” they say, as if an apple is an orange, and then adding,
“We’re all for love,” when love would hardly endorse such a perverse, confusing thing.
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil,” the Good Word hollers loudly,
“Those who put darkness for light, and light for darkness,” a lesson not learnt, sadly,

And why society is erring badly.

No, in this case love isn’t love (as we know it) but a strange desire, and
Why many have a problem with it — and once, all of us — it not as Nature planned.
No, it’s an aberrant attraction, feelings that have gone terribly askew,
And this why Gay marriages and same-sex sexual acts should still be taboo.


By Lance Landall





7.  Gay Adoptions

Such really disturbs me.

A homosexual or lesbian couple, and they adopting kids too,
Who, as a result, really only get one parent, not their natural two.
And I meaning, a mum and a dad, such being the right of every kid, who,
Wasn’t meant to be raised in a same sex situation, such clearly askew.

And therefore,

Their natural right removed, and all for the sake of that couple’s so-called right,
Who, given they both have a penis or vagina, aren’t entitled to that right.
Yes, despite legislation, and why more messed up kids we’ll see, ultimately,
They realising themselves that such is askew, and feeling resentful, you see.

And can you blame them, for I’d feel cheated too, part of a bizarre family,
No mum’s goodnight kiss or father’s hug, my wishes having come secondary.
Well, not at all, actually, and the State having colluded in that crime,
Two men in a bed with a boy between, such messing with its head overtime,

Or two women in a bed with a girl between — oh, where’s the rhythm or rhyme?

Well, there clearly none, and sad to say, this world hardly making sense anymore,
Wrong now right and aberrance normal, sympathy having kicked sense out the door.
“So long as they’re happy,” folk say, but what about that kid? What if it was you?
And why you’re most likely glad it isn’t you, so what’s with the “it’s okay” view,

Or does such really disturb you too?

And isn’t there the danger of homosexual or lesbian grooming,
And in on such adopted kids, the prospect of straight raised kids cruelly zooming?
For let’s face reality:
Most of us having a natural hardwired aversion to, (undoubtedly),
Lesbianism and homosexuality, though not the person, surely.

Yes, which partner will that kid call mum, or dad, and this no solo parent thing,
But an aberrant alternative setting without that familiar ring.
And that little kid watching it all 
— oh, the sadness of it all, the cruelty,
For that's not how innocent kids should be raised, and why such really disturbs me
.

Yes, even if one of them is the biological parent, it still wrong,
There no feminine or masculine balance, Nature ousted like words from a song.
And those kids thereby victims, less protected, for much goes on behind closed doors,
And here, things that Nature never intended kids see, but hey, where's all the roars?


By Lance Landall


See the link enclosed in article One.




The following two poems are soley Christian poems.

8.  Out Of The Closet

Am I anti Gay folk? No! Am I anti same-sex sexual acts? Certainly!
Why? Because my God is, and if He is, then that is His direction for me.
Am I homophobic? No! And nor is God, for He loves all humanity,
Which is why I would never treat a Gay person any differently.

As I understand it, Gay people can be born that way, unfortunately;
The result of various things going astray in the womb, undoubtedly.
Therefore, such is hardly their fault, and they, thus deserving of our sympathy,
But not our acceptance of same-sex sexual acts; which Paul condemns strongly.

Was Paul a prisoner of his culture? No, for God made male and female,
Thus, those who attack Paul's condemnation, clearly God's boundary walls assail.
And also sense, for just take a look at the male and female anatomy,
Which clearly shows that same-sex sexual acts have no legitimacy.

Thus, the Christian Gay person should refrain from such -- it's a cross that they must bear,
Just like any other cross, and they're not alone, for burdens we all must bear.
But such is a very small sacrifice when compared to our eternal prize;
And given God's coming consuming wrath, a path that's much safer and wise.

God means what He says, His Word is trustworthy and true, far from out of date,
As it's still clear that women were meant for men, and men for women, (meant to mate).
And hence why same-sex sexual attraction is unnatural, not meant to be,
In other words, such is abnormal, a distortion, even an absurdity.

Yes, "As in the days of Noah," hence that blatant 'coming out' that we see today,
And oh, how the closet door has sprung open, for we're often hearing, "I'm gay."
It seems as if such has become fashionable, a badge to be worn proudly,
And hence those cries of "Live and let live, and certain changes legislatively.

Whether one's born that way, or so conditioned, God will not excuse its practice,
For same-sex sexual acts draw one into an unhealthy shameful abyss.
An abyss of Satan's engineering, which breaches a demarcation line,
Assaulting God and His Word, and violating His creational design.

Despite all the woes besetting earth, God still wants His directives maintained,
For against such, (and more so during such times as these), Satan has shrewdly campaigned.
Yes, midst times like these, he tries to make gross offenses seem minor, or not sin,
And is attempting more than ever to corrupt the masculine and feminine.

Regardless of the times, it's the Christian's duty to uphold God's will, and fully,
Thus, what's wrong is wrong, and shouldn't be embraced, lest one incur the penalty;
Yes, not just God's wrath, but those meantime consequences that plague society,
And that can seriously and injuriously affect one personally.

We can't get around God's Word, though many try in order to sanction some sin,
A sin in itself, which clearly shows that something's seriously amiss within.
When it comes to our walk with God, and our salvation, we can't have it both ways,
Which sinners will soon find out, as did ancient Israel, for rebellion never pays.

By Lance Landall





9.  Same-Sex Sexual Acts

Of course God isn’t happy with same-sex sexual acts, for look at the facts,
He creating a woman for man, hence Adam and Eve, which the Bible backs.
Yes, they both different sexually, designed to create a family,
And thus continue that line of masculinity and femininity.

But along came the Fall and much has gone astray, and hence why we see today
Same-sex sexual acts that the clear commands of our Creator disobey.
Yes, He a God of order and design, who here, drew a demarcation line,
And said, “Don’t mess with, blur, nor distort this male and female creation of Mine.”

And not surprisingly, for how would you feel if you were Him, and mankind said,
“Despite what You want, we’re going to be intimate with our own sex instead.”
Well, I’m sure that you’d be angry, you the Creator and they your creation,
Yet, having the gall to challenge your authority via some deviation.

Hence no reason to be proud of being Gay, despite not choosing to be that way,
For being proud of being what God never intended one be, is to “So what!” say.
And that of course ignores and tramples over biblical commands and plain facts,
When one should bear that cross like any other cross, for feelings don’t change the facts,

Nor somehow bless wrong acts.

Though sympathetic to those so burdened, Christians should never veer from God’s Word,
For ill has always followed where folk have gone along with what’s wrongly preferred.
After all, God knows best, and what’s His is His, enter you and I by design,
Who via those same-sex sexual acts, God’s perfect creation will undermine.

Yes, God is very fussy when it comes to His commands, that which He’s conveyed,
He being the unchangeable God, who despite His love, justice will not evade.
For when a man lays with a man, or a woman with a woman, such shouts “sin,”
Given that God has said “No!” to such, and thus such acts clearly being rebellion.

But with the Bible little regarded today, and challenged by Christians too,
Such acts aren’t bothering the same, all why society’s short on moral glue.
And thus most treading the broad way, their end as sure as Satan’s, for God must act,
They having removed, altered and mocked all that He said He wanted left intact.

By Lance Landall




ARTICLES


Note:
To read articles from homosexuals who're also against same-sex marriages,
see my articles number five and six.


Article One
Regarding Homosexuality, (lesbianism)


Firstly, remember that it's always wrong to mistreat anyone, (including homosexuals), via verbal or physical abuse.

Secular argument:

Gay marriages and same-sex-sexual acts run contrary to Nature and logic, even creatures being both male and female. Hence the differing sexual organs, (including the female mammary glands), that different way that men and women think, that natural mutual attraction of the sexes, and hence why it appears that we have an inbuilt hardwired aversion to Gay marriages and same-sex-sexual acts.

Homosexuality is clearly an aberrant condition caused by some malfunction, (no doubt in the embryonic stage), and one possible culprit is the consumption of hormone laced flesh food.

Thus Gay marriages and same-sex-sexual acts lead to confusion within society, and this why only marriages between a man and woman should be the bedrock of society.

Gay marriages automatically devalue and threaten the natural marital union between a man and a woman by introducing an unnatural substitution, alternative and competitor.
The vast majority of homosexuals in countries with same-sex marriage don't get married. They simply want government-backed same-sex marriage because it will validate and normalize homosexuality throughout society.

Children raised in such settings are not only at risk of grooming but are denied the benefits and normality of heterosexual marriages, (both a mum and dad). Men and women are born with innate psychological differences, thus children should be influenced by both a male and female role model. Children denied such may later become resentful and also develop psychological problems, even sexual dysfunctions possibly, and may be subjected to sneers, etc, from other children raised in a heterosexual setting-cum-relationship.
Further to this: Are children who're being raised in such settings being deprived of their right to be raised via both a mum and dad-cum-Nature's way? Surely so. So where's the hue and cry from those bodies who're championing the rights of children? Or do the desires of same-sex couples come before a child's right?
Homosexual relationships are notoriously unstable, only a very small percentage staying together long enough to raise a child to adulthood. Children need safety, stability and the advantages that biological parents are able to provide.

"The rights of children trump the right to children.” 
Jean-Marc, homosexual French mayor

Regarding such, the following is a terribly sad but critical link that everyone needs to check out:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/


There is also evidence attesting to the fact that homosexual relationships are very unhealthy emotionally and physically. And who needs to be reminded of AIDS?
Homosexuals significantly contract and spread more sexual diseases than the rest of society.

“There is no safe homosexual anal sex. There are a number of medical complications of anal intercourse that can lead, even with treatment, to serious disability or death.”
Dr Woodrow Myers

To the clear thinking person, there's nothing more obviously revolting and unhygenic than anal intercourse -- sodomy.

“Homosexuality, by definition, is not healthy or wholesome...The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person. There are emotional and physical consequences to this protracted state of mental dissatisfaction. At worst, the homosexual person will die younger and suffer emotional, mental and physical illness more often than the normal person. The natural history of the homosexual person seems to be one of frigidity, impotence, broken relationships, psychosomatic disorders, alcoholism, paranoia psychosis, and suicide…”
Dr Daniel Cappon, a psychiatrist who has treated hundreds of homosexuals.

It’s my personal belief that when people indulge in same-sex sexual acts, they automatically become degraded given that same-sex sexual acts are a perversion of natural law, and especially the disgusting act of sodomy.

When we sanction the abnormal it effectively ceases to be abnormal and why worse is seen; we less able to discern between right and wrong and thus heading backwards as a society. No civil law should sanction what many would say should remain behind closed doors, nor accommodate an aberrant condition.
As stated on the web, laws should promote behaviours that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive.
And thus Gay marriages being but absurdity enshined in law.

Studies show that in societies where homosexuality is lauded or approved, there’s a greater increase in homosexuals seeking to lure young recruits into their lifestyle.
This from the book True Sexuality by Ken Unger

It appears that homosexual molestation and predatory seduction are one of the key entry paths into a Gay identity and lifestyle for many males.

Every society needs some kind of moral boundary, demarcation line, otherwise it will sink to an injurious level.

Therefore, it’s hardly wrong to disapprove of Gay marriages or same-sex-sexual acts.

And remember this: That sympathy should always be tempered with wisdom, one taking in the bigger picture.

Personally, I find it very intriguing how so many homosexuals who call for tolerance are actually very intolerant themselves — quick to condemn those who’ve every right to share their disapproval of Gay marriages and same-sex sexual acts.

Thus it's no wonder now that many straight people don't want to say they're gay when they're happy, and who looks upon heroes and rainbows quite the same?

For more on the health risks associated with same-sex sexual acts, check out the following link:

http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/

From a secular point of view, one may well think “live and let live,” but it’s the Christian perspective and references that have given society safeguards, benefits and focus that otherwise wouldn’t be, and pity help us.

"Just as the ancient empires of Greece and Rome collapsed when every indulgence of the flesh took over, we in our society today need to heed the warning."
Ruth Webb

Christian argument:

God deliberately and purposely created the gender distinctions, male and female. Such being all part of His creation design and intent.

"Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called "woman," for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
(Gen 2:22-24, NIV).

God clearly didn't make man for man in this context.

The Bible clearly identifies a husband and wife relationship as a natural relationship (Matt 19:4,5), and a homosexual relationship as an unnatural relationship (Rom 1:26,27).

It was God who instituted marriage and only between a man and woman. He then stating that He didn’t want this union between a man and woman broken and reemphasised such by saying He hates divorce.

God told the first couple to go forth and multiply, procreate, hence their differing sexual organs, (including the female mammary glands), that different way that men and women think, that natural mutual attraction of the sexes, and hence why it appears that we have an inbuilt hardwired aversion to Gay marriages and same-sex-sexual acts.

God considers this family unit to be sacrosanct.

God has made it clear that He doesn't want His demarcation lines and boundaries trodden on or discarded for any reason.

Via His Word, the Christian Bible, God strongly condemns same-sex-sexual acts and thereby Gay marriages. Thus anyone condoning or encouraging such comes under the same condemnation.

It’s far from true that God hates homosexuals as it’s only sin [rebellion] that He hates, not the person.

God calls homosexuals to carry their burden like any other burden that folk have to bear in this world, as hard as it is, a new life and freedom from such having been promised in the future. There’s always rewards for right doing and consequences for wrong doing.

We insult God by thinking we know better and imperil ourselves by going contrary to His will.

Some biblical references:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Jude 7,8; Romans 1:26-28,32; Phil 3:19. Note also Lev 18:22; 20:13; Deut 22:5; Gen 2:18,22,23; 1:27,28; Matt 19:5,6; Eph 5:31.

Last updated: 7 January 2018


Article Two

Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage


From www.frc.org

A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion.
This statement from Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative:
If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1994) 38.

The following are ten science-based arguments against same-sex "marriage":

1. Children hunger for their biological parents.

Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following:"Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.
Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed (Broadway Books, 2001) 204.
Elizabeth Marquardt, The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce. Forthcoming.

2. Children need fathers.

If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples. This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.
What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe's work, suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.
* Ellis, Bruce J., et al., "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?" Child Development, 74:801-821.
* David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999).

3. Children need mothers.

Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians, homosexual men are and will be raising children. There will be even more if homosexual civil marriage is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby summarizes much of this literature in her book, The Two Sexes. See also Steven Rhoads' book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously.
Eleanor MacCoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together (Boston: Harvard, 1998).
Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).

4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.

A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage:
Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.
This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment.
Steven Nock, affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department (2001).

5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.

Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, it does suggest that children raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey-- a sociologist and an advocate for same-sex civil marriage--reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine.
She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers ... reported having a homoerotic relationship." Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions.
Her review must be viewed judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of homosexual parenting.
Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. See especially 168-171.

6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.

One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of same-sex marriage, Virtually Normal, homosexual commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." Of course, this line of thinking--were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media--would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage.
One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.
Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003.
David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple (Prentice Hall, 1984) 252.

7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.

Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms.
Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. Same-sex marriage would only further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage.
This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no accident that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing same-sex marriage have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per woman--well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1.
For national fertility rates, see: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html
For more on the growing disconnect between marriage and procreation, see: http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2003.pdf

8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.

The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades have seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion.
It is plausible to suspect that legal recognition of homosexual civil marriage would have similar consequences for the institution of marriage; that is, it would further destabilize the norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their children. Why? Same-sex civil marriage would institutionalize the idea that children do not need both their mother and their father.
This would be particularly important for men, who are more likely to abandon their children. Homosexual civil marriage would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children.
James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem. (Perennial, 2003) 175-177.
George A. Akerlof, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz, "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Economics CXI: 277-317.

9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.

If same-sex civil marriage is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would be more use of gender-neutral language like "partners" and--more importantly--more social and cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage.
But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits.
E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, For Better or For Worse. (W.W. Norton and Co., 2002) 31.
Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).

10. Women and marriage domesticate men.

Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.
If the distinctive sexual patterns of "committed" gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in homosexual marriage. Thus, gay activists who argue that same-sex civil marriage will domesticate gay men are, in all likelihood, clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage.
Steve Nock, Marriage in Men's Lives (Oxford University Press, 1998).

Hardwired to Connect: The New Scientific Case for Authoritative Communities (Institute for American Values, 2003) 17.
This paper is reprinted with permission of the Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, New Jersey, on whose website a version of it first appeared at www.winst.org/index2.html.


Article Three

Ten Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage Is Harmful And Must Be Stopped


Contains some Christian content.

From www.tfp.org

1. It is not marriage.

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It violates natural law.

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It always denies a child either a father or a mother.

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle.

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It turns a moral wrong into a civil right.

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It does not create a family but a naturally sterile union.

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It defeats the State’s purpose of benefiting marriage.

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It imposes its acceptance on all society.

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It is the cutting edge of the sexual revolution.

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It offends God.

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.
Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29).
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25).


Article Four

Gay Marriage, Distant Consequences

By Brian Fitzpatrick, Lambda Report

In his book , On Character, eminent social commentator James Q. Wilson defines virtue as “habits of moderate action; more specifically, acting with due restraint on one’s impulses, due regard for the rights of others, and reasonable concern for distant consequences.”
Alarm bells should ring when prominent commentators start talking seriously about decidedly immoderate notions like homosexual “marriage,” without considering the consequences. William Raspberry recently [in 1996] noted in his Washington Post column that gay and lesbian couples of his acquaintance are “not dangerous,” wondered why some people believe allowing homosexuals to “marry” could threaten their own relationships, and suggested that opposition to “gay marriage” springs from prejudice. He asked, “What are we afraid of?” The answer, of course, is the distant consequences. The health and survival of our civilization is at stake.
To understand the danger posed by homosexual “marriage,” you must join the great scholars in asking some fundamental questions. Why do some civilizations flourish? Why do others perish?
Perhaps the definitive work on the rise and fall of civilization was written back in the thirties by an Oxford anthropologist. In Sex and Culture, a study of 86 human civilizations ranging from Rome to Tahiti, J.D. Unwin found that a society’s destiny is tied inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression. The highest levels of social development are reached only by cultures that practice what Unwin called “absolute monogamy,” in which marriage is limited to one man and one woman, sexual outside marriage is not tolerated, and divorce is prohibited.
Absolute monogamy promotes cultural growth by solving what anthropologist Margaret Mead termed the “central problem of every society,’ to “define appropriate roles for men.” Monogamous civilizations require men to choose either lifelong celibacy or the responsibilities of a husband: fidelity, breadwinning, and fatherhood. Most marry, to their good fortune, because married men tend to be healthier, happier, and more productive than bachelors. Joseph Schumpeter, the great economist, attributes the success of capitalism not to the entrepreneur’s lust for money or status, but to his love of family. The central pillar of any healthy civilization is the self-sacrificing married man who doesn’t spend his income on himself, but prefers “to work and save primarily for wife and children.”
Civilizations cease to grow, found Unwin, within two to three generations after retreating from absolute monogamy. Moral standards erode when a society’s members chafe at the discipline imposed by monogamy, and begin to gratify their personal impulses without regard for the consequences inflicted on others. According to sociologist Robert Nisbet, “What sociologists are prone to call social disintegration is really nothing more than the spectacle of a rising number of individuals playing fast and loose with other individuals in relationships of trust and responsibility.
If individualistic selfishness and self-seeking are not checked, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin warns us, a society will lapse into “sexual anarchy.” In The American Sex Revolution, Sorokin wrote that “both men and society are degraded” as a culture becomes “sexually obsessed.” “The members of such a society are habituated to look at the opposite sex as a mere instrument for pleasure…to these individuals, talk of human dignity, religious and moral commandments, and rules of decency is just bosh…the society degrades the values of womanhood and manhood, of motherhood and fatherhood, of childhood and venerable age, of marriage and family, and even of love itself.” Divorce, desertion, and deviance become commonplace, when “what used to be considered morally reprehensible is now recommended as a positive value; what was once called demoralization is now styled moral progress and a new freedom.” Sorokin describes this as “moral schizophrenia.”
In an amoral, hedonistic society, you can’t trust the people you need to trust, not even your spouse. If people can make and break relationships at will, with no legal repercussions or social stigma, they are much more likely to abandon their marriages – at their children’s expense – when they encounter tough problems. Husbands with roving eyes are much more likely to trade in the wife for a new model.
Such selfish, undisciplined societies meet ugly fates. In his Social and Cultural Dynamics, Sorokin studied 1,623 “internal disturbances in Greco-Roman and European history,” and found that sexual permissiveness almost always precedes or accompanies “an explosion of sociopolitical disturbances.” Unwin found that every society, without exception, that rejects absolute monogamy either becomes a stagnant cultural backwater or collapses altogether.
What does all this mean for homosexuality and “gay marriage”? No sector of our society is more obsessed with sex, or more promiscuous, than the homosexual subculture. To accept the practice of homosexuality is to make irresponsible sexual behavior easier for our society. To permit homosexual relationships to be formalized is to establish a dangerous precedent that people may form sexual unions outside the healthy one-man, one-woman framework. In effect, we’d be rejecting Unwin’s “absolute monogamy” model for good, because rights are very difficult to withdraw once they’ve been granted.
What of Mead’s “central problem” in society, defining the duties of the male? Homosexuality does nothing to channel men into the husband/father/provider role that so benefits society. Male homosexuality entices men away from that role, by offering a sexual outlet with no strings attached – and even trains them to view one another as sexual objects through the anonymous sexual encounters so prevalent among homosexual men. Lesbianism eliminates male responsibility altogether.
“But wouldn’t ‘gay marriage,’” counter supporters, “encourage homosexuals to be monogamous?” Hardly. In the homosexual press, “gay marriage” advocates admit openly that they would not remain faithful if married. Homosexual columnist Michelangelo Signorile writes that “gays” would seek instead to make adultery acceptable, by redefining the “archaic institution” of marriage. The purpose of “gay marriage” is to win legal benefits and social sanction for homosexual couples, not to improve their behavior.
According to Unwin “the historical evidence [suggests] that homosexuality is a habit that appears in a society … that has been absolutely monogamous, and is relaxing.” If Unwin is correct, then the increasing prominence of homosexuality in our culture confirms ominously that America has strayed too far from the straight and narrow morality that invigorates cultures. To give homosexual couples the right to marry would be like taking another giant, virtually irrevocable step down the road to sexual anarchy and cultural ruin. Here are the distant consequences that threaten every marriage in our society, including Raspberry’s; here is the reason why opposition to “gay marriage” is not based on prejudices, but on common sense.
America need not slide irretrievably into cultural demoralization. According to Sorokin, “through an earnest and strenuous effort of the society itself, it may regain its mental and moral sanity.” Historian Arnold Toynbee noted in 1972 the beginnings of a “counter-movement of asceticism” in the West. This movement has since become much more prominent. From the intellectual classes have emerged the “communitarians,” who view our culture as overly concerned with personal rights but too little concerned with responsibility and duty. The Religious Right has risen out of the middle classes to promote traditional moral standards. Two mass movements, Promise Keepers and the Million Man March, are challenging men to resume their roles as servant leaders of their families. Tens of thousands of high schoolers celebrated Valentine’s Day this year [1996] by declaring their commitment to sexual abstinence before marriage. These movements deserve support.
Granting homosexual couples the right to marry would be a milestone on the road to cultural oblivion. America’s first step back to moral sanity and cultural vitality should be to reject “gay marriage.” Next, we must return to the ideal of “absolute monogamy,” and start teaching our children that their duty to society is to remain chaste until they wed. As James Q. Wilson observes, “in the long run, the public interest depends on private virtue.”


Article Five
I’m Gay But I’m Against Same-sex Marriages.


By prominent Irish homosexual and political commentator Richard Waghorn.
Irish Daily Mail, June 2, 2012 at 4:50 am.

Marriage is vital as a framework within which children can be brought up by a man and woman. Not all marriages, of course, involve child-raising. And there are also, for that matter, same-sex couples already raising children. But the reality is that marriages tend towards child-raising and same-sex partnerships do not. I am conscious of this when considering my own circle of friends, quite a few of whom have recently married or will soon do so in the future. Many, if not most or all of them, will raise children. If, however, I or gay friends form civil partnerships, those are much more unlikely to involve raising children. So the question that matters is this: Why should a gay relationship be treated the same way as a marriage, despite this fundamental difference? A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures. This is certainly not to cast aspersions on other families, but it does underscore the importance of marriage as an institution. This is why the demand for gay marriage goes doubly wrong. It is not a demand for marriage to be extended to gay people – it is a demand for marriage to be redefined. The understanding of marriage as an institution that exists and is supported for the sake of strong families changes to an understanding of marriage as merely the end-point of romance. If gay couples are considered equally eligible for marriage, even though gay relationships do not tend towards child-raising and cannot by definition give a child a mother and a father, the crucial understanding of what marriage is actually mainly for has been discarded. What that amounts to is the kind of marriage that puts adults before children. That, in my opinion, is ultimately selfish, and far too high a price to pay simply for the token gesture of treating opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships identically. And it is a token gesture. Isn’t it common sense, after all, to treat different situations differently? To put it personally, I do not feel in the least bit discriminated against by the fact that I cannot marry someone of the same-sex. I understand and accept that there are good reasons for this.


Article Six
I’m Gay And I oppose Same-sex Marriage.

By  Doug Mainwaring, The Witherspoon Institute, Public Discourse, March 8, 2013.
   
While religion and tradition have led many to their positions on same-sex marriage, it’s also possible to oppose same-sex marriage based on reason and experience.
“I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.
I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.
The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.
I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.
Learning from Experience
As a young man, I wasn’t strongly inclined toward marriage or fatherhood, because I knew only homosexual desire.
I first recognized my strong yearning for men at age eight, when my parents took me to see The Sound of Music. While others marveled at the splendor of the Swiss Alps displayed on the huge Cinerama screen, I marveled at the uniformed, blond-haired Rolfe, who was seventeen going on eighteen. That proclivity, once awakened, never faded.
During college and throughout my twenties, I had many close friends who were handsome, athletic, and intelligent, with terrific personalities. I longed to have an intimate relationship with any and all of them. However, I enjoyed something far greater, something which surpassed carnality in every way: philia (the love between true friends)—a love unappreciated by so many because eros is promoted in its stead.
I wouldn’t have traded the quality of my relationships with any of these guys for an opportunity to engage in sex. No regrets. In fact, I always felt like the luckiest man on the planet. Denial didn't diminish or impoverish my life. It made my life experience richer.
Philia love between men is far better, far stronger, and far more fulfilling than erotic love can ever be. But society now promotes the lowest form of love between men while sabotaging the higher forms. Gay culture continues to promote the sexualization of all (viewing one’s self and other males primarily as sexual beings), while proving itself nearly bankrupt when it comes to fostering any other aspect of male/male relationships.
When all my friends began to marry, I began to seriously consider marriage for the first time. The motive of avoiding social isolation may not have been the best, but it was the catalyst that changed the trajectory of my life. Even though I had to repress certain sexual desires, I found marriage to be extremely rewarding.
My future bride and I first met while singing in a youth choir. By the time I popped the question, we had become the very best of friends. “Soul mates” is the term we used to describe each other.
After a couple of years of diligently trying to conceive, doctors informed us we were infertile, so we sought to adopt. That became a long, arduous, heartbreaking process. We ultimately gave up. I had mixed emotions—disappointment tempered by relief.
Out of the blue, a couple of years after we resigned ourselves to childlessness, we were given the opportunity to adopt.
A great shock came the day after we brought our son home from the adoption agency. While driving home for lunch, I was suddenly overcome with such emotion that I had to pull the car off to the side of the road. Never in my life had I experienced such pure, distilled joy and sense of purpose. I kept repeating, “I’m a dad,” over and over again. Nothing else mattered. I knew exactly where I fit in within this huge universe. When we brought home his brother nearly two years later, I was prepared: I could not wait to take him up in my arms and declare our kinship and my unconditional love and irrevocable responsibility for him.
Neither religion nor tradition turned me into a dedicated father. It was something wonderful from within—a great strength that has only grown with time. A complete surprise of the human spirit. In this way and many others, marriage—my bond with the mother of my children—has made me a much better person, a person I had no idea I had the capacity to become.
Intellectual Honesty and Surprise Conclusions
Unfortunately, a few years later my marriage ended—a pain known too easily by too many. At this point, the divorce allowed me to explore my homosexuality for the first time in my life.
At first, I felt liberated. I dated some great guys, and was in a couple of long-term relationships. Over several years, intellectual honesty led me to some unexpected conclusions: (1) Creating a family with another man is not completely equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.
It took some doing, but after ten years of divorce, we began to pull our family back together. We have been under one roof for over two years now. Our kids are happier and better off in so many ways. My ex-wife, our kids, and I recently celebrated Thanksgiving and Christmas together and agreed these were the best holidays ever.
Because of my predilections, we deny our own sexual impulses. Has this led to depressing, claustrophobic repression? No. We enjoy each other’s company immensely. It has actually led to psychological health and a flourishing of our family. Did we do this for the sake of tradition? For the sake of religion? No. We did it because reason led us to resist selfish impulses and to seek the best for our children.
And wonderfully, she and I continue to regard each other as “soul mates” now, more than ever.
Over the last couple of years, I’ve found our decision to rebuild our family ratified time after time. One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on. With two dads in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness.
There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch “deprivation” on their hearts.
Rich Versus Diminished Lives
Sexuality is fluid for many, and much more complex than many want to acknowledge. Gay and straight activists alike pretend this isn’t true in order to fortify their positions. If they fail to maintain that mirage, fundraising for their organizations might dry up, as would the requests for television and radio interviews. Yet the “B” in the middle of “LGBT” acknowledges an important reality concerning our human sexuality.
Here’s a very sad fact of life that never gets portrayed on Glee or Modern Family: I find that men I know who have left their wives as they’ve come out of the closet often lead diminished, and in some cases nearly bankrupt, lives—socially, familially, emotionally, and intellectually. They adjust their entire view of the world and their role within it in order to accommodate what has become the dominant aspect of their lives: their homosexuality. In doing so, they trade rich lives for one-dimensional lives. Yet this is what our post-modern world has taught us to do. I went along with it for a long while, but slowly turned back when I witnessed my life shrinking and not growing.
What Now?
In our day, prejudice against gays is just a very faint shadow of what it once was. But the abolition of prejudice against gays does not necessarily mean that same-sex marriage is inevitable or optimal. There are other avenues available, none of which demands immediate, sweeping, transformational legislation or court judgments.
We are in the middle of a fierce battle that is no longer about rights. It is about a single word, “marriage.”
Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together. Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.
Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable “social units,” and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.
And while same-sex marriage proponents suggest that the government should perhaps just stay out of their private lives, the fact is, now that children are being engineered for gay and lesbian couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.
Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.
Statists see great value in slowly chipping away at the bedrock of American culture: faith and family life. The more that traditional families are weakened in our daily experience by our laws, the more that government is able to freely insert itself into our lives in an authoritarian way. And it will.
Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, recently said, “I think you can have social stability without many intact families, but it’s going to be really expensive and it's going to look very ‘Huxley-Brave New World-ish.’ So [the intact family is] not only the optimal scenario … but it’s the cheapest. How often in life do you get the best and the cheapest in the same package?”
Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.