I really do not want this website to become an avenue for activism but the past few days the stories on justifying same-sex marriage have just provided good material to discuss. The latest is found below
The bad reasoning to justify inaction against protecting the definition that marriage is only between a man and a woman is astounding and shows how far secular man and even those who claim to be Christian has fallen from God’s morals. We should expect this deepening rift between God and man as Paul warned us that evil men will go from bad to worse
But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2 Tim. 3:13 NASB)
We should not be surprised at this turn of events nor should we let this cultural flood influence our faith away from God. Instead we should be praying that God preserves our faith and make it stronger so we do not fall away. here is a look at some of the bad reasoning used by those who support evil over what God has called right and good.
#1. “I do not believe that the United States Supreme Court could rule that all of those laws prohibiting marriage are suddenly constitutional after all these individuals have gotten married and their rights have changed,” he said in an interview
So according to his logic, the number of people committing this sin or wrong makes it impossible to correct a mistake? That is just not good thinking. We might as well over turn all laws making rape and murder illegal then because too many people practice those acts. I am not trying to be absurd here but simply illustrate how illogical such thinking is. This kind of reasoning tells us that we should not punish anyone for their disobedience because too many people disobey. it also says we should not correct a wrong or our mistakes.
The number of people participating in an act does not determine our actions. If we need to correct a mistake then we correct it. Nothing good comes from allowing people to continue practicing the mistake. What does that idea teach to our students and children? It certainly sets a precedent for them to ignore the rules for if they get enough people to do the same bad thing they won’t be punished. We should be more concerned about right the wrong than supporting it.
#2. “To have that snatched away, it seems to me, would be inhuman; it would be cruel; and it would be inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has said about these issues in the cases that it has rendered.”
What right is being snatched away? The homosexual would still have access to marriage, they just have to follow the real rules of marriage if their special right is over-turned. It would be inhuman to allow the homosexual to continue in their sin without some sort of repercussion. Right now they are being given special rights because no other alternative sexual preference is being given this same access to marriage. Then since when is correcting a mistake cruel? The homosexual needs to learn hard lessons and so far they have been able to find some path around these lessons and avoid learning what is important.
It is cruel and inhuman to continue spoiling that community of people. We are not helping them with such reasoning but enabling them to be more spoiled, selfish, and retaliatory towards others. They certainly are not grateful for their new status but in general they have become more vindictive when told no by those who do not share their ideology.
#3. This month, the high court let stand without explanation appeals court rulings permitting gay marriage in five states
When given the position and responsibility of solving critical issues that divides a nation, silence is not the answer. Even if the Supreme Court renders a decision in favor of same-sex marriage, they should provide with wisdom and understanding clear guidelines outlining the boundaries on how far the homosexual and their opponents can go in their respective activities. In other words, the Supreme Court needs to make everyone aware that a general, subjective use of the word ‘discrimination’ is not the proper guideline. They need to provide the right rules to protect all people’s rights instead of letting some be trampled underfoot by those who support same-sex marriage (and vice-versa). The favoritism that is permeating society at this time is dividing and ruining the nation not helping it.
#4. In an interview with The New Yorker published last week, President Obama said he believes it is a constitutional right but endorsed the court’s incremental approach.
Unfortunately for Mr. Obama the American constitution does not provide rights when it comes to marriage. The institution transcends the American ruling document as it is world-wide and has been defined far back in history and followed by all people in antiquity through to the modern era. The institution of marriage was defined supernaturally not naturally thus any legal document does not have the authority to alter that definition. It does have the authority to enforce that definition but it cannot edit it.
If I remember correctly, the constitution remains silent upon the issue of marriage. maybe that is because its writers already knew that they did not have any authority to make amendments to that institution. And as everyone already knows and argument from silence is not an argument at all for there is no evidence to support that view. What we do know is that from the formal acceptance of that document t be the governing rules for the country, the founding fathers and their subsequent governing leaders have always understood that marriage was between a man and a woman.
If the homosexual community wants to argue from history then they need to be honest and realize that history doesn’t support their claims.
#5. Olson disagrees with that, saying the Supreme Court should take a case and affirmatively endorse marriage as a constitutional right. “I think the thing he overlooks …(is) that there are people in 18 states of the United States that don’t have this fundamental right that he has just announced that he believes in.”
This is just untrue. Everyone has access to marriage, it is the methodology that they do not have access to. There is nothing anywhere where the method of marriage needs to be rearranged to please a small group of selfish people who do not want to follow the rules. we do not change the definition of marriage to appease such people. We do not change the rules because someone wants to practice sin even though they do not agree that what they are doing is sin. All we are doing if we do so is opening up a Pandora’s box and let more sinful alternatives out to play.
#6.I recently had someone quote Genesis 1:28 to me as though it were an argument against gays and lesbians being allowed to marry, since they cannot fulfill what it commands. This is how I replied:
If you are referring to reproduction, then they have the same options available to them that infertile heterosexual couples have (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/10/genesis-128-and-same-sex-marriage.html)
As you can see the source for this bad reasoning comes from a different source. McGrath is wrong, of course, as he confuses inability by corruption with inability due to incompatibility. It is bad reasoning because the infertile couple have a genetical or spiritual problem which has a possibility of being solved. An infertile couple’s inability to conceive is due to one or another genetical corruption whose source is found in original sin through no fault of their own. it is the luck of the draw. while the homosexual couple’s inability to fulfill that blessing is due to their willing choice to be with someone with the same sexual configuration.
The same-sex couple’s inability is through their own fault as they reject the natural way to conceive for their own desires. it is their choice while the infertile couple did not have a choice. McGrath is also wrong because the same-sex couple doe snot have the same options available to them that an infertile couple has for no medication or operation existing from the beginning of time till now can change the fact they are missing the correct parts to conceive. Teh infertile couple have that hope.
The arguments and reasoning used to support same-sex unions just fail because they try to place the homosexual couple on the same level as the heterosexual one or they advocate the continual practice of sin/mistakes instead of correcting the wrongful behavior. They do not make sense because there is only one right way to participate in marriage. That way involves only 1 man and 1 woman.
theologyarchaeology 