We are bombarded by questions pouring from television commentators, gay activists, politicians, and liberal-minded publications: Don’t gay and lesbians deserve equal rights under the law? Why should we care what happens between consenting adults? If it doesn’t take anything away from others, why not allow for gay marriages? For some reason we never hear answers from those who conclude that homosexual unions should not be given the sacred stamp of marriage. Many are ambivalent or fashionably tolerant for fear of being labeled “ultra-conservative.” Let me attempt to answer those questions.
First, gay and lesbians already possess rights equally protected under the law. They have the exact rights that I have today. They can marry a member of the opposite sex if they so choose, just like I have done. I can't marry a member of my own sex, even if I wanted to. So, we have the exact same rights. What is being suggested by the gay agenda is not "equal rights" but "extra rights." They want to be allowed to reap the benefits of marriage without actually marrying in its traditional sense. There are many wonderful people who choose to remain single for myriad reasons, and these people are not clamoring for the rights granted to couples who marry. Why should those who refuse traditional marriage be granted such rights simply because they prefer sex with someone whose anatomy resembles their own? In fact, most of the so-called “rights” married couples have can be obtained through a lawyer’s legal maneuvers. What if they achieve this marital status? Does anyone really believe that it will stop there? Any heterosexual buddies could take the opportunity to garner for themselves incentives and privileges intended to support the traditional family structure by which our society survives. Make no mistake; there is a deeper agenda at work here, even if all gay and lesbians are not aware of it.
Secondly, consenting adults can do many things, but there are some actions restricted even to consenting adults. Concerning marriage, we conclude as a society that incest is harmful and thus refuse to allow family members to intermarry. Also, we conclude that polygamy is harmful and restrict Mormons and Muslims from marrying more than one consenting adult at a time. We have age requirements on marriages as well. There are reasons we place restrictions on marriage. Homosexuals have never received marital status in the history of mankind until recently. There is a reason for that. It is not productive to continue to shred the fabric of our society. The burden of proof for changing history’s traditional marriage should fall upon the supporters of the homosexual agenda. I have heard of no compelling reasons that suggest homosexual marriages are necessary to the well-being of our society.
Finally, the agenda pushed by the gay lobby encourages behavior deemed unacceptable by every major religion, by the vast majority of our society, and by nature’s evolutionary track itself. They already have the right to participate in aberrant behavior, but that isn’t enough. They want us to validate something we consider wicked. Where are the defenders of the law who claimed Alabama’s Chief Justice Roy Moore must be fired for defying the law through civil disobedience when he placed a monument to the Ten Commandments in the courthouse? Where is the uproar for the firing of San Francisco’s Mayor Gavin Newsom for defying the law by granting marriage certificates to homosexual couples? There won’t be one. The double standard against Christianity in the public square will be ignored by most, but we should not succumb to those who mock our faith. If homosexuals win this issue politically, the victory will be hollow for them and harmful to our society. The truth of the matter is marriage is a sacred union ordained by God, and nothing man does can ever really change that.
Share
Print
Save
Author Tracker
