Many Same sex marriage advocates claim to be fighting for sexual liberty and individual rights. Is the arguement really the product of people seeing the plight of an oppressed minority or is there something bigger at work?
The sheer number of homosexuals campaigning for same sex marriage in relatively small in number. The percentage of the population that is considered homosexual is 1-3%. Gay relationships are for the most part sexually open rather than exclusive. In the course of their lifetime to date, only 2.7% of older men and just 2.9% of those under 50 years of age reported having had just one male partner.10.2% have 2-10 male sex partners. ( Paul Van De Ven, et al., “A comparative Demographic and Sexual profile of Older Homosexually Active Men, “Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 349-60) The US Census bureau of statistics counting same sex households in the us in 2010 found that only two tenths of 1% had households headed up by a married same sex couple in those states where it is legal. If marriage is a possibility for only 3 percent of the 1-3% of the population who are homosexual who are the rest of the population that is trying to enforce same sex unions as marriage?
They are the secularises Those who desire to have the foundations of our society- Christianity, removed from society so that there will be no restrictions on our sexual ethic. A society where all sexual practice is considered ones private activity- “each to his own” allows all sexual perversion acceptance.
The argument is essentially between two belief systems ( world views).
- The first is Atheism/secularism. The foundation of this belief is, simply stated: no God, therefore no accountability, therefore live for self and selfish pleasures. Do what every you can to be happy. Behind gay marriage is a push to create a free sex ethic where our growing perversions can be legitimized and not held accountable. Self fulfilment and individual happiness become the ultimate virtues in society above the good of families, communities, societies and above God’s word.
- The second world view is Theism- God exists, God created this universe, created morality, and therefore knows how we are best to live. He defines his rule through the bible, and he holds us accountable for our actions. He ultimately does everything so that we can find joy in Him.
We all have agendas, we all have biases, we all have assumptions that we believe in that we bring to any issue. We enter into any discussion attempted to prove our views, unless proven otherwise. It is the dominant secular society which seeks to impose its sexual values on the marginalized minority of Christians
The question is: what makes our society the standard by which we judge all other societies? To say that the bible is outdated, that it holds no truth, no value for today is to assume that you have now arrived at the ultimate historic moment, from which all that is relevant, true and valuable can be judged. What is the absolute vantage ground from which you claim to be able to say that this cultures beliefs are right? That most people are acting that way? Does that make it truth, or most valuable, or right or best? How can we use our time's standard of 'progressive' as the plum line by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not? We look back at previous generations and cultures and think of them as primitive, but someday others will think of us and our culture's dominant views as primitive. Many of the beliefs of our grandparents and great-grandparents now seem silly and even embarrassing to us. That process is not going to stop now. When the Titanic was launched People were proud and arrogant, making bold claims about its inability to sink. We must not look around us but look to what has proven itself true.
Our grandchildren will find many of our views outmoded as well. Wouldn‘t it be tragic if we threw away the bible over a belief that will soon look pretty weak or wrong? To stay away from Christianity because part of the Bible's teaching is offensive to you assumes that if there is a God he wouldn't have any views that upset you. Does that belief make sense?
Time Keller gets to the underlying issue of truth when he wrote in The Reason for God:
“Some may appeal 'but i can't accept the Bible if what it says about sex is outmoded', I would respond to that with this question - are you saying that because you don't like what the Bible says about sex that implies Jesus couldn't have been raised from the dead? Im sure you wouldn’t insist on such a [claim]. If Jesus is the Son of God, then we have to take his teaching seriously, including his confidence in the authority of the whole Bible....Think of it like this. If you dive into the shallow end of the biblical pool, focusing on points which culture frowns upon, you may get scraped up. But if you dive into the centre of the biblical pool - the deity of Christ, his death and resurrection - you will be safe in considering the bible’s truth for today. It is therefore important to consider the Bible's core claims about who Jesus is and whether he rose from the dead before you reject it for its less central and more controversial teachings.“
The bible is our only true moral compass
In 2003 Matthew Perris wrote an article against the ordination of gay bishops published in the Times Magazine, as a homosexual atheist his words are spoken with surprising truth:
"“Inclusive”, ”moderate”, or “sensible” Christianity is inching its way up a philosophical cil-de-sac. The Church stands for revealed truth and divine inspiration or it stands for nothing. Belief grounded in everyday experience alone is not belief. Like the changes to Church teaching on divorce or Sunday observance, the new tolerance gains its force within the Anglican Communion from a fear of becoming isolated from changing public morals. Is that a reason for a Christian to modify his own morality? I cannot recall that Moses took this view of golden calf worship. Whispering beneath the modernisers’ soft aspirational language of love and tolerance, I hear an insistent “When in Rome, we must do as the Romans do. Time has changed.” Gays in particular should be very wary of that message; some of us remember when it was used against us, and such a time may come again. A religion needs a compass. Logic alone does not point the way and religion adds to the general stock of human reasonableness a new directional needle- if it adds anything at all. I cannot read the Gospels in any way other than as declaring that this was revealed to man by God through Jesus. Revelation, therefore, not logic, must lie at the core of the Church’s message. You cannot pick and choose from revealed truth. The path to which the compass points may be a stony one, but this should not matter to a believer. The teachings of the early Church looked unattractive to the Romans. Revelation pointed the way, and only Revelation can point the way now.”
The reality of Jesus life, death and resurrection made me confront my own beliefs, and forced me to open my eyes to the relevance, truth and value of Jesus. I Hope He can for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment