Californicate

With the State of California set to start recognizing same-sex “marriage” this week, Christians who understand their biblical obligation to be good citizens (Rom. 13:1-7) must not stand on the sidelines during this critical debate. As we talk with relatives, neighbors, friends, co-workers and others, Christians need to be able to give sound arguments for why “gay marriage” is both bad for our society, as well as for those who wish to engage in such a lifestyle.

Ranking in order of least to greatest importance, here are ten reasons to oppose same-sex “marriage”:

10. "Homosexual" defines what a persons does--not what person is. Therefore, homosexuals do not deserve the right to marry anymore than those who are "bisexual" and would want to marry two others.

9. Homosexuals can change! (Cf. the formerly lesbian movie star, Ann Heche--she is straight now.) If homosexuality is caused by Nature (DNA) than one could not cease being homosexual anymore than an Eskimo could cease being Eskimo. (Do you think that homosexuals without Gay-DNA would be willing to give up their chosen lifestyle?)

8. History is on our side. Never in human history has "marriage" meant anything other than the union of a man and a woman. Further, no society – at least until very recently – has recognized the legitimacy of same-sex “marriage.”

7. Language is on our side. The words “homosexual” and “marriage” cannot be combined logically to mean anything; they are oxymoronic: two words that are contradictory. It is literally a redefining of language to suggest marriage can mean anything other than the union of a man and a woman.

6. Religious liberty is on our side. America’s First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Nevertheless, homosexuals who now lobby for same-sex “marriage” will not stop at mere governmental endorsement of their immoral activity; they will one day insist that all society – including evangelical churches – condone, protect and even bless these “marriages.” Far-fetched? Look at the numerous examples of the deterioration of religious freedom of those with politically incorrect, biblical convictions.

5. The “slippery slope” argument is on our side. Those who demand that same-sex “marriage” must be legalized have an obligation to explain why marriage is not appropriate for any other deviant sexual pattern adults and/or minors would wish to enter into. If homosexual “marriage” must be permitted, why shouldn’t polygamy, incest, pedophilia and other sexual immorality? Indeed, how will these practices be denied if “gay marriage” is granted?

4. Nature is on our side. One need not hold to any particular religious convictions to understand from common sense that men and women are different. Same-sex relationships are contrary to the natural order. “Gender distinctions are not simply an artificial social construct. Men and women are uniquely designed to complement each other physically, emotionally and spiritually,” Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton has written.

3. Children are on our side. A primary reason for marriage is procreation – bringing children into the world. Children need both mothers and fathers. “Deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father is not in the child’s best interest,” Stanton notes. Research demonstrates the critical value of both fathers and mothers in the formation of children.

2. The restoration of the family is on our side. Even before the current campaign for “gay marriage,” it’s clear that America is in the midst of a massively dangerous, destructive experiment with marriage at severe cost to families and our society. Between 1960 and 2000, U.S. households with married couples declined from 78 to 52 percent, with the total number of households with unmarried partners increasing by 72 percent just between 1990 and 2000. The explosion of no-fault divorce and serial marriages is further undermining the biblical ideal for marriage. Same-sex “marriage” will accelerate these damaging trends.

1. America must be on God’s side. All truth is God’s truth, which is why all the foregoing reasons against homosexual “marriage” are valid. God’s Word explains why they are true. Every reason to oppose “gay marriage” is secondary to the fact that God has spoken. Starting in the Bible’s first book with the creation of man and woman, which as the pinnacle of creation He calls “very good” (Gen. 1:31), and continuing through the last book, God’s plan for marriage is abundantly clear.

The fact that Scripture points to marriage as the union of husband and wife as a picture of Christ’s union with His church (Eph. 5:22-33) demonstrates the critical nature of the “gay marriage” debate. For Christians to compromise on “gay marriage” is to obscure an important illustration of the Gospel message. Same-sex “marriage” is wrong because God designed marriage to be the lifetime union between one man and one woman.

Societies that reject God’s plan reap the consequences of that rebellion--that includes America!.

Pastor Terry Hagedorn
Calvary Baptist Church
Reedsville, WV 26547
304-864-3870
http://www.calvarybaptistchurchwv.com
"Pointing Mountaineers to Mount Calvary"

TerryRC wrote:1. America must be on God’s side. All truth is God’s truth, which is why all the foregoing reasons against homosexual “marriage” are valid. God’s Word explains why they are true. Every reason to oppose “gay marriage” is secondary to the fact that God has spoken. Starting in the Bible’s first book with the creation of man and woman, which as the pinnacle of creation He calls “very good” (Gen. 1:31), and continuing through the last book, God’s plan for marriage is abundantly clear.

America does not need to be on ANY god's side. Our Constitution forbids it. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution acknowledge the Creator . Why leave Him out? On what moral or ethical basis is same-sex marriage to be limited to the Judeo/Christian model of a monogamous relationship, TRC?

4. Nature is on our side. One need not hold to any particular religious convictions to understand from common sense that men and women are different. Same-sex relationships are contrary to the natural order. “Gender distinctions are not simply an artificial social construct. Men and women are uniquely designed to complement each other physically, emotionally and spiritually,” Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton has written.

Homosexuality is quite common in nature I raised homing pigeons for a number of years. It is almost physically impossible to visually determine the gender of a pigeon; however, I never had a homosexual pair. Each one always figured out the gender of its mate. Homosexuality in nature? Are you talking about male walruses swimming around and lying in the sun naked together? Female monkeys preening each other? Or, that some male dogs will try to hump another male dog? (If a male dog tries to hump my leg, does that mean Fido is human--or that my leg is a Collie?)

8. History is on our side. Never in human history has "marriage" meant anything other than the union of a man and a woman. Further, no society – at least until very recently – has recognized the legitimacy of same-sex “marriage.”

Marriage has taken many forms and means different things - an alloy is a marriage of more than one metal. Different kinds of metal are married to make an alloy. Right? If you make a mixture of half iron with half iron--you just get twice as much iron. Right?

3. Children are on our side. A primary reason for marriage is procreation – bringing children into the world. Children need both mothers and fathers. “Deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father is not in the child’s best interest,” Stanton notes. Research demonstrates the critical value of both fathers and mothers in the formation of children.

So infertile people shouldn't get married? If infertile heterosexual couples were healthy and of childbearing age, they could have babies. Right? Are you saying that homosexuals are sick because all they can make with their mate is an anal or vaginal yeast infection?

5. The “slippery slope” argument is on our side. Those who demand that same-sex “marriage” must be legalized have an obligation to explain why marriage is not appropriate for any other deviant sexual pattern adults and/or minors would wish to enter into. If homosexual “marriage” must be permitted, why shouldn’t polygamy, incest, pedophilia and other sexual immorality? Indeed, how will these practices be denied if “gay marriage” is granted?

Polygamy shouldn't be illegal. Pedophilia takes away the rights of a child. Funny how you don't cry that teens are allows to have sex with older people if the relationship is sanction in a church. The laws of the land sanction under-aged heterosexual marriage--in certain circumstances. I thought that you were governed by constitutional law, TerryRC. If homosexual marriage is made legal, how long do you think that it will be until some homosexual NAM/BLA member and his under-aged (15-17 year old) beau want to get married. Would you deny them the right, TRC? On what basis?

In other words, half of your words are false, the other half are lies. Some men reject the truth because they have already made up their minds--and don't wish to be confused with what they perceive as lies and half-truths.

TerryRC wrote:Personally, I think you've both got your mind made up and are bigoted by your religion but that's just me and is in no way meant to be a slanderous or agressive statement.

Nothing to contribute to the discussion, eh?

About homosexuals marrying? Not really. Only that I believe both sides are totally unwilling to make any concessions whatsoever, are bigoted beyond comprehension and it's gotten to the point that they care more about winning then what's right or wrong or anything else.

Aaron wrote:I feel the same way about homosexuals marrying as you do the power plants in your back yard. I can take it or leave it.

TerryRC wrote:( on Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:07 am) In other words, half of your words are false, the other half are lies.

TerryRC wrote:(Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:20 am) Obviously to Br'er Hagedorn it is a little more personal. He initiated the rant. I just picked holes in it.

When I see a pack of lies foisted about it, however, it makes me angry.

SamCogar wrote:

TerryRC wrote:( on Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:07 am) In other words, half of your words are false, the other half are lies.

TerryRC wrote:(Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:20 am) Obviously to Br'er Hagedorn it is a little more personal. He initiated the rant. I just picked holes in it.

When I see a pack of lies foisted about it, however, it makes me angry.

HUUUMMMM, .... an unprovoked "personal attack", .... calling Armon Ayers a liar, …. TWICE in the same thread ... huh?

SamCogar wrote:

TerryRC wrote:( on Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:07 am) In other words, half of your words are false, the other half are lies.

TerryRC wrote:(Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:20 am) Obviously to Br'er Hagedorn it is a little more personal. He initiated the rant. I just picked holes in it.

When I see a pack of lies foisted about it, however, it makes me angry.

HUUUMMMM, .... an unprovoked "personal attack", .... calling Armon Ayers a liar, …. TWICE in the same thread ... huh?

Armon Ayers wrote:SamCogar,

People with weak arguments, like TRC, always result in AD HOMINEM attacks.

TerryRC wrote:Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution acknowledge the Creator . Why leave Him out? On what moral or ethical basis is same-sex marriage to be limited to the Judeo/Christian model of a monogamous relationship, TRC?

Our Declaration does, not our Constitution.

(Sheik) Yes, point for RC, but the state constitutions do mention God quite often (to this day).

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

See any mention of God there? Were you mistaken or lying?
(Sheik) Just mistaken, I'm sure, but there was certainly no "censorship" of faith in the public forum in Philadelphia in 1787 like there is today,
Unless you refer to the fact that it mentions "In the Year of Our Lord" at the end. Since that is nothing more than a dating convention, perhaps you are being deliberately misleading.
(Sheik) Quit the contrary, that our founders (and us today) use "AD" tells us something significant about Jesus' life. That we date history itself on His arrival (granted in a rounded sense) tells us that this was no ordinary individual and we ignore Him to our peril.



On what basis should the government limit marriage under strict judeo-christian terms?

It limits religious freedom.

Like I said, the Bill of Rights makes it clear that the fed cannot be on ANY god's side. How can you even argue that point?

(Sheik) The Bill of Rights makes clear that Congress (a specific institution) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It seems to me, then, that Congress may make neither evangelicalism nor secularism the abiding state sponsored faith of the country. If you think that defining marriage as one man and one woman is not warranted behavior by the state, then I must ask you by what authority it defines marriage period.
I raised homing pigeons for a number of years. It is almost physically impossible to visually determine the gender of a pigeon; however, I never had a homosexual pair. Each one always figured out the gender of its mate. Homosexuality in nature? Are you talking about male walruses swimming around and lying in the sun naked together? Female monkeys preening each other? Or, that some male dogs will try to hump another male dog? (If a male dog tries to hump my leg, does that mean Fido is human--or that my leg is a Collie?)

You are determined to stay ignorant.

We see homosexual bonding in everything from midges to macaws. Even in human societies, homosexuality has been accepted.

(Sheik) Then evolutionary theory is hogwash. What is more of a "functional disadvantage" than sexual preference for the gender that will not give you more of your specie?

If infertile heterosexual couples were healthy and of childbearing age, they could have babies. Right? Are you saying that homosexuals are sick because all they can make with their mate is an anal or vaginal yeast infection?

No. You implied the sole purpose for marriage is procreation. That is why gays have no business marrying. Under that argument, sterile men and women have no business marrying, either.

(Sheik) While I see more purpose for marriage than mere procreation, I will say that it is notable that the natural consequence of straight marriage is children, whereas it is not for gay marriage.

The laws of the land sanction under-aged heterosexual marriage--in certain circumstances. I thought that you were governed by constitutional law, TerryRC. If homosexual marriage is made legal, how long do you think that it will be until some homosexual NAM/BLA member and his under-aged (15-17 year old) beau want to get married. Would you deny them the right, TRC? On what basis?

So you are a hypocrite then? If sanctioned in a church, pedophilia is OK?

It is OK for heteros but not homos?

Rgeardless, comparing being gay to being a child molester or a bestialist is a logical fallacy. That is like saying being a preacher will eventually lead one to be a suicide bomber.

No logical relationship.

Some men reject the truth because they have already made up their minds--and don't wish to be confused with what they perceive as lies and half-truths.

My life has been a quest for facts. Yours has been a quest to make what you see go along with your beliefs. You will never let facts interfere with you faith.

(Sheik) You deny that your evolutionism shapes your worldview/how you see reality?
That would be fine if you didn't try and make others adhere to your beliefs.

Keli wrote:Gays are protected under anti-discrimination laws. But until it is determined that homosexuality is a condition of birth and not of preference, gays occupy a different sphere in terms of biological determinism, and so occupy a different sphere in terms of legal protection, as well. Preferences aren’t determined, and therefore need not be treated as such.