|
|
All this flap over gays right to marriage stems from ignorance and a willful rejection of God's laws. (That's got a high "obviousity" rating to any Bible reader). If they succeed in getting some kind of law passed (and they probably will, given the fear of the political system of their supposed power), it will not make an ounce of difference in reality.
Two gay men cannot marry. They may call some silly sickening ceremony (marriage), but I can call my 1989 Mercury a 747, but it still won't fly!
Of course, the standard objection to my argument is something to the effect that the Bible (or at least the parts they don't like) doesn't apply, or that they are not Bible believers, therefore it ought not to apply. Which is something like my saying I don't believe in the Rocky Mountains. It's OK, as long as I don't try to fly to Denver at an altitude of 4,000 feet. May fate would be settled in a mass of those cumulo-granite clouds on the way.
When we go back to the original "marriage" instituted by God, there is the command connected with it to "be fruitful and multiply." While we may not agree with the Roman Catholic position that every sex act should have the potential of producing life, I think we can safely say that every true marriage should have that potential, if not the actuality.
Humans were created with the potential of "sexual reproduction." With the threat of human "cloning" hanging over the race, we are getting closer to some kind of human/horticultural method of propagation, but without a doubt the birds and bees technique was God's Divine intention. No matter how much we tamper with the process, we know how God started it out.
Sexual reproduction, whether in humans, animals or the vegetable world, requires two differing genders, or sexual organs. Even trees need male and female!
Without getting into the mechanics of the situation, it is obvious to the average (or below average) redneck farmer that the sexual acts of two men will never produce progeny. It may produce for them a temporary sexual thrill, but it will never fulfill the full and primary intent of the Creator.
Some of us are old enough to remember when failure to consummate a marriage with the sexual act was grounds for nullification. The phrase about becoming one flesh seems to at least imply the sex act. Paul illustrates this in I Corinthians when he speaks of a man becoming "one flesh" with a harlot.(1 Corinthians 6:16).
A sterile union (one incapable of producing progeny) falls short of being a Biblical marriage, no matter what one may call it.
There is another matter of importance here. Paul teaches in Ephesians 521-33 that the relationship of husband and wife is a "miniature" of the true husband/bride relationship of Christ and His church. Further, the church as "body" is also"bride" in that husband and wife become one flesh in the marriage bond. Both in Genesis and here we are left with the distinct impression that there is something sacred about the "one-flesh" relationship, and that for this to exist there must be husband/wife.
In this respect, a homosexual union is a direct assault upon this heavenly truth. It is a denial, an insult, if you will, of this divine truth. A man/man relationship in no way fulfills the Divine pattern of "marriage."
There is another way in which a man/man relationship is a denial or insult to Biblical truth. In the creation, man (kind) was created "male and female." The Biblical passage goes on to tell us that man (kind) was created in the image of God. There is a Hebrew construct here, a trilogy of "ideas."
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."
Genesis 1:27, NIV.
That is a three-part parallelism; the same thing said three ways. "Man" is repeated. First the term "man," then "him" and finally "them" meaning that mankind was created plural. "Image" is a term used twice, and in the third part, image is replace by "male and female." We may therefore draw the conclusion that the image of God in man, at least in part, is reflected in maleness/femaleness. Or it may be better to say that there is a relationship comparable to male/female within the Godhead. I have chosen to call this relationship "reciprocity." Within the Godhead there is that which answers to male/female in the creation.
That is not to say that each individual has that within him/herself, but that mankind in complete reflection of God's image has that within it.
Therefore I conclude that homosexuality, the substitution of a human/satanic substitute, is an insult to the image of God in man.
Which leads me to ask: are some sins "worse" than others. Quite obviously so. For instance, sins differ as to their social consequences. (We have seen, and are seeing, the social consequences of the sin of homosexuality.) Jesus noted a distinction in describing the sin which may not be forgiven. Sins differ as to their penalty in this life, and laws recognize this distinction. Romans 1 brings us to the inevitable conclusion that the sin of homosexuality, which Paul most emphatically classifies as one which is chosen by men, has a most horrendous end and penalty to it. For of all sins described or mentioned (including the "unpardonable sin,") this bears the rare distinction of one for which the Creator God abandons the stubborn, headstrong rebel.
While some (so-called) Christian homosexuals perform all sorts of mental and theological contortions to evade the simple truth of this passage. they cannot escape its condemnation. The fact that in the face of irrefutable truth these people maintain their contentions about this sin is, to me, proof positive that God has indeed given them up to believe the lies they have chosen, and to go on their way.
I do not doubt that in the present circumstances, they will gain what they want. The ability of the homosexual rights movement to portray all who oppose their agenda as "homophobes" will continue to confuse the majority of Americans. Their abuse of the language in portraying those who hope and pray for their ultimate redemption as "hate mongers" and "liars" and "bigots" will continue to gain sympathy. I do not doubt but that some soft headed judicial panel will ultimately gain them what they want, and they will flock to whatever state allows it to "get married."
But, whatever they call it, they are not married. There is a prior law that takes precedence, whether they recognize that Law and that Lawgiver or not. Like the Rocky Mountains, you my deny their existence, but there they stand!