The officially-mandated legitimization of same-sex pseudo marriage is absurd, contemptible and even evil. So naturally our ruling elite are enthusiastic about it, and the regular people are increasingly falling into line.
It therefore seems likely that homosexual pseudo-marriage will soon be enshrined into law throughout the United States. Our nation—at least most of our leadership class—is eager to defy God, nature and human tradition.
As traditionalists, we of the Orthosphere know that the legitimization of homosexuality—currently the most popular of the destructive leftist fads—is a great wrong. Let us therefore summarize the reasons why it is wrong so that those capable of acknowledging reality can at least have the satisfaction of a clear statement on this important topic.
We will not, of course, convince our opponents. And so we will not try, that is, we will not attempt to dot every “i” and cross every “t.”When someone is wrong about something as obvious as the superiority of heterosexuality to homosexuality he is not wrong because of inadequate reasoning. He is wrong either because he dares not defy the spirit of the age, or because his spirit rebels against God.
So we will simply make a series of true assertions, and not attempt to rebut every pseudo-objection raised by the other side.
The campaign to establish same-sex pseudo marriage (SSPM for short) is just the latest offensive on the legitimize-homosexuality front. (And this front is just one theater of the larger war against Western Civilization, but let us not get too general.) Therefore many arguments against SSPM are more general, opposing the legitimization of homosexuality.
[We do not use the word “gay” unless we are reporting the other side’s terminology. Sinning is not gay, that is, lighthearted.]
What exactly is the so-called same-sex marriage for which they push? It is the full and official legitimization of homosexuality. Observe that it is not currently illegal for two homosexuals to conduct what they call a marriage ceremony, or to live together and call themselves married, or to engage in homosexual acts, or to adopt and raise children. [In a properly-ordered society these things would all be either illegal or at least the objects of popular scorn and contempt. But ours is not a properly-ordered society.] Since all of these things are legal, the push for same-sex marriage is actually a push for the official legitimization of homosexuality.
And if homosexuality is to be legitimized, and especially in today’s politically-correct, liberal-dominated world, disagreement with the legitimization will become an even more serious offense. Since homosexuals already have the freedom to marry, even to “marry” someone of the same sex, and since the law gives homosexuals the same rights as everyone else (freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, trial by a jury of their peers, etc.), SSPM is not at all about equality or freedom. It is about forcing everyone, at metaphorical gunpoint, to act as if homosexuality is good.
So same-sex pseudo-marriage is all about legitimization. That is, it’s all about the morality of homosexuality.
But the morality of homosexuality depends on the purpose of sex. If the purpose of sex is whatever we say it is, then there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, except perhaps for the correlation between homosexuality and poor health or longevity. We may find poor health or longevity undesirable, but they are not immoral, if the purpose of sex is whatever we say it is.
Of course, if the purpose (we could say “meaning”) of sex is whatever we say, then back in the days when mankind said that sex was for a man and a woman only and homosexuality was a shameful practice best pushed to the margins of society, then sex was for man and woman only. If the meaning of sex is whatever we say, then in days of old it really was true that sex was for man and woman only. In that case, the homosexual activists had (and have) no valid complaint.
This is why apologists for homosexuality constantly try to reinterpret the past, trying to make homosexuality into something valid from the beginning. But the historical record shows that homosexuality was universally regarded as shameful by the legitimate leaders of society. The few ancients who disagreed were outsiders, odd ducks. They did not speak for mankind. For the legitimate leaders of society, as for the common man in the street, man was obviously designed for close relations with woman, because this is how the race continues its existence, because man and woman are different in mutually complementary and enriching ways, because those who are raised in a happy and safe environment overwhelmingly prefer the opposite sex, and because tradition is to be respected unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.
And if sex means whatever we say it does, then it doesn’t mean anything. For man constantly changes his mind, constantly makes mistakes, and constantly sins. So if we are the supreme determiners of the meaning of sex, then the meaning of sex does not exist. Something that could be anything is not actually anything at all.
And if sex doesn’t mean anything, then neither does anything else. Why should sex be any different? If sex means whatever we want it to mean, then reality is meaningless. And if reality is meaningless, then you are meaningless. Welcome to the postmodern world, pilgrim.
But man knows intuitively that reality is not meaningless. Even those who argue for same-sex pseudo-marriage know intuitively that reality is not meaningless; they just use the argument from meaninglessness as a sometimes-expedient tactic for bamboozling their opponents. But we are on to their game.
[This is why we oppose SSPM, and the rest of the leftist agenda. Not because we’re “haters,” but because we oppose the soul-destroying nihilism of the left’s way.]
So sex does not have a meaning that is just a matter of opinion. All people can sense by intuition the wrongness of homosexuality—even if some deny the intuition—but to turn this sense into knowledge we must look to biology, tradition and God
It is clear from the functioning of the organs that man and woman were made (even if you believe they were made by evolution) for one another. Man was not made for man, nor woman for woman. Of course, some are attracted to homosexual activity. But this is because of the concept of perversion, in which a person comes to see something bad as being good. And the existence of perversion does not prove that the bad really is good. It only shows that man can go wrong.
Some say “We had no choice but to be this way.” Even if they really were fated to come out that way, this would be no reason to legitimize homosexuality. Many other wrongdoers feel as if they had no choice, but we do not validate their wrongdoing if it is really wrong.
Some say “You are just like those who forbade miscegenation.” Not so. Some things are intrinsically wrong, while others have only practical difficulties. Homosexual desire is a fundamental disorder; the desire for an inter-racial mate is unusual, but not a disorder. After all, the opposite sex is still the opposite sex.
Some ask “What difference does it make to you or to society what I do in my bedroom?” We have already given the basic answer, but let us elaborate. Same-sex pseudo-marriage is about legitimization. It means forcing everyone to act as if homosexuality is good. All people know intuitively that there’s something wrong with homosexuality so the state-sponsored lie will have to be maintained by force. Aside from being a huge lie about one of the most important aspects of human life, the homosexualist position is to criminalize disagreement and to require constant, state-sponsored homosexual propaganda to ensure that the people comply. Furthermore, marriage (real marriage, that is) is the foundation of any society, for that is where men and women are formed, under the care of both a man and a woman. And when the authorities try to force us to act as if pseudo-marriage is just as good as the real thing, it only devalues the real thing. And if we must legitimize SSPM, then there is no reason not to legitimize other sexual perversions, as long as there is a group pushing for them. [What’s wrong with having a threesome or marrying an animal, you (rhetorically speaking) bigot?]
That’s just a sampling of what difference it makes to me and my society.
Some say, “You won’t let us do what makes us happy. You’re a bigot!” To which we say, “If we are bigots, then so are you. So what’s your point?” You oppose our position that homosexuality is sin, and we oppose your position that it is not. You don’t win by default just by crying “wolf!” If you want to do what makes you happy, in the company of others like you, in private, we have no major objections. But do not ask (or force) us to honor your proclivity, and do not outlaw morality. Homosexual acts are sin, and we oppose a system that says otherwise.
Some say “We should be free to do what we want.” We reply “Not if what you want is bad.” And on this rule you agree with us: If you are a typical liberal you want to restrict all sorts of freedoms: the freedom to own military-style rifles, the freedom to discriminate in choosing whom to hire, the freedom of parents to spank their children, etc. You don’t win the argument by default by invoking “freedom.”
Some say “The sexual outlaws will be brought back into civilized society by same-sex marriage.” No they won’t. An outlaw is one who wants to be an outlaw. His desire will not be changed by having his proclivity declared to be good.
Some say “We must settle this question by looking at the research data, not by using your unfounded traditionalist assertions.” To which we reply “You are either dishonest or deluded when you say this.” If, as the other side says, the legitimization of homosexuality is a moral issue (and it is), then by definition it is not settled by empirical research data. Science only deals with what is, not what should be. Even the so-called scientific studies of the happiness and well-being of homosexuals or children adopted by homosexuals can only presuppose a definition of happiness. They cannot prove that their subjects are happy in the true sense of the word, for true happiness is primarily a moral state: the state of being able to do what is right and consequently to enjoy one’s life.
Some say “You heterosexuals have already wrecked marriage. Therefore you have no standing to criticize same-sex marriage.” To which we reply that two wrongs still do not make a right. Besides, the heterosexual devaluation of marriage is the devaluation of something good, whereas same-sex pseudo marriage is not good. The important question is not whether heterosexuals marry well these days. It is whether the government should enforce respect for same-sex pseudo-marriage.
Speaking of the government, some say “The government should keep out of the marriage business, whether to support or to oppose same-sex marriage.” To which we reply that government’s God-given duty is to protect the people and to enforce justice. By banning same-sex pseudo-marriage the government would be doing its proper duty of opposing the wrongdoers who want to force us to honor their perversion of marriage. It would also be protecting the people, both adults and children, who would be harmed deeply by participating in same-sex pseudo-marriage.
And let us also point out that since God exists, He has the authority to determine the morality of homosexuality. The sinfulness of homosexuality is not an arbitrary rule. It follows from the proper function and relation of the sexes, and God, our Creator, has the right to determine our proper functioning. Since the present writing is just a summary of the arguments there is no need to quote and interpret all of the many verses of both the Old and New Testaments that clearly identify homosexual activity as sin. We will content ourselves by referring the reader to Romans 1:26—27, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and I Corinthians 6:9—10.
But let us also point out the good news. Start at I Corinthians 6:9 and read on. What do we see?
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
The sin of homosexuality, like all sin, can be forgiven, through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. And the sinful habit of homosexuality, like all sinful habits, can be overcome through the sanctification that all Christians undergo. The proper response to homosexuality, or any other sin, is not falsely to declare that it is good. No, the cure for all sin is repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ.