Hurrah for Texas
Topic: Same Sex Marriage
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Culturally critical times, these. The moral and spiritual future of America is on the line. The massive reorientation of American civilization over the last 50 years has clarified the crystallization of two diametrically opposed ideologies. The chasm between these two ideologies is deep and wide. Simply put, the ideological antithesis is between those who embrace the Christian worldview and those who do not.

The social revolution ignited by the post-World War II baby boomer generation in the 1960s has slowly but surely encroached on traditional American values (i.e., those drawn from the Bible). The formidable philosophical shifting has come about one skirmish at a time—a school board decision here, a judge’s decision there; a television program that pushed the envelope of decency and sexual propriety here, a politician promoting relaxed moral stands there. This gradual, steady chipping away at America’s two-century-old foundation has achieved the accumulation of a remarkable number of most unfortunate strides—not the least of which has been the blatant and visible defense of homosexuality in the public arena.

The sleeping giant of the “moral majority” is gradually asserting itself. The shocking, startling series of events that culminated in the legalization of homosexual marriage by the state of Massachusetts (see Miller, 2004) appears to have prodded citizens into action. The definition of marriage is being hotly debated state-by-state with a view toward enacting amendments to state constitutions. Texas is the latest to step forward on the issue. On Tuesday, November 8, Texans voted overwhelmingly to deny same-sex marriage and reaffirm the biblical definition of marriage (Garrett, 2005). Texas became the 19th state to amend their constitution in an effort to prevent activist judges from rewriting law in order to advance the homosexual agenda.

Americans must wake up to the fact that homosexuality is a watershed issue that will alter the course of the nation. The very fabric of society is at stake. If the slide to the left is not checked, the moral climate will degenerate, and eventually God’s justice will manifest itself in the form of calamity and punishment.

REFERENCES
Garrett, Robert (2005), “Gay-Marriage Ban Coasts,” The Dallas Morning News, November 9, [On-line], URL: go here

Miller, Dave (2004), “Massachusetts and Gay Marriages,” [On-line], URL: go here.


article can be found at Apologetics Press Website.

Do Homosexuals Really Want The Right To Marry?
Topic: Same Sex Marriage

In their own words: Homosexual activists reveal their real agenda.
Homosexuals claim they want the "right" to get married and live normal lives just like heterosexual married couples.

The truth is, however, that the drive to gain legalization of so-called "gay" or "same-sex" marriage is part of a larger sexual agenda. Homosexual activists are now beginning to openly admit that they don't want to marry just to have a normal home life. They want same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as "families."

They are finally admitting what the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) has been saying for years: Their ultimate goal is to abolish all prohibitions against sex with multiple partners.

WHAT ARE THEY SAYING? ...
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).


Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, "...fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely … To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. … The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)


Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)


Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)


Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? … marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)


Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)


1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit…" [Emphasis added.]

Gay Marriage Chaos
Topic: Same Sex Marriage

By William J. Federer

"What's wrong with adult-child sex?" the college student asked me, "We read in an American Psychological Association report that it could be beneficial for children." Thus began the Q & A session of my talk "Preserving the Traditional Marriage" at Indiana University, home of the Kinsey Institute. It became clear that "gay marriage" was not the end, but the beginning of an agenda to change our entire cultural. The ACLU, for example, is not only defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association), which advocates the removal of all laws against incest, prostitution and age of consent, but the ACLU is also working to remove laws against polygamy.

If what was unimaginable a generation ago is reality today, where will America be a generation from now? Group marriages? Alternative Bisexual marriages, Children as sex toys? Don't think it can't happen. For 5,000 years, the overwhelming majority of the civilized world has defined marriage as one man and one woman. Indeed, the original 1856 Republican Party Platform defended marriage and called for elimination of "those two relics of barbarism - slavery and polygamy."

The Supreme Court in Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) wrote:

"Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome...than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony."

In an interview with Diane Sawyer, President Bush said: "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman."

Senator Joseph Lieberman took criticism from Democrat supporters when he stated August 1, 2003: "I do believe marriage should remain uniquely a union as it has traditionally been of a man and a woman.”

In disbelief at the liberal agenda embraced by these Indiana University students, I explained that the adult-child sex study they cited has been discredited by the scientific community as unreliable since it was not a random sampling. I then shared statistics showing children in homosexual home situations are more likely to engage in sexual activity and experimentation, and, as a result, be more at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Also, whereas two percent of the population at large are homosexual, nearly ten percent of children raised in homosexual homes become homosexual.

I asked this student if he thought there were homosexual individuals who desired to sexually abuse children and wouldn't they be the first in line to want to adopt children. He said “maybe.” I asked him who is going to police to make sure pedophiles don't adopt. He said that would be impossible. "Exactly my point," I answered, "it would be impossible. There would be no way to protect children from sexual predators if homosexuals were allowed to marry and adopt."

He stated that sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual homes too. I responded there was statistically far less abuse in traditional homes with monogamous heterosexual parents than in homosexual home situations.
“Besides,” I asked, “what do you observe in nature? A male whale and a female whale have baby whales, a male wolf and a female wolf have baby wolves…We must give Mother Nature some credit for what is best – all creation testifies that it takes a male and a female to bring forth offspring. This is what is natural – and by default, anything else is unnatural. The Declaration of Independence even refers to “Laws of Nature.”

This does not mean that a child who overcomes great obstacles by growing up in an unnatural home setting cannot do great things with their lives – they certainly can, but by the same token we should not surrender the ideal, we should not stop doing what we can to help each child grow up in a safe neighborhood, have health insurance, have warm meals, and have a natural mommy and a daddy. If gay marriage were allowed, in time we would see that the real losers would be innocent, vulnerable children.

A while later, I was interviewed on the “Adler Online” radio program in Winnipeg, Canada, where the other guest was a homosexual man who taught diversity classes and had just married his boyfriend. He argued that I should not push my religious views on him by opposing homosexuals marrying and adopting, to which I responded “What is best for the child? I heard that even if homosexuals marry, they still can have other partners.” He explained that is known as an “open marriage.” I continued with reports that some male homosexuals have as many as 500 or a 1,000 partners in their life time. He quipped “Well, they’ve been busy!”

I asked him how many partners he has had. He countered “How many partners have you had?” I responded “One – my beautiful wife of 23 years!” He chuckled and said he had many more than that. Then I asked if the next step in his agenda would be to legitimize polygamous gay marriages, to which he responded “Well, polygamy is accepted in other cultures around the world and all the Judeo-Christian patriarchs were polygamous.” I interrupted “Not Christian.” “Well,” he responded, “Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon all were polygamists.”

I asked him to give me just one Scripture from the Old Testament where God said it was OK to have polygamous gay marriages, to which he answered that some rabbi said “God made all things good.” I answered “Now you are the one pushing your religious views on everyone else!” No one is telling homosexuals what they can or cannot do with each other in the privacy of their own homes, but it seems irresponsible for homosexuals to force the rest of the country into social chaos.

President Theodore Roosevelt stated in his Message to Congress, January 30, 1905: "The institution of marriage is, of course, at the very foundation of our social organization, and all influences that affect that institution are of vital concern to the people of the whole country." President Theodore Roosevelt added in his 6th Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1906:

“There is nothing so vitally essential to the welfare of the nation, nothing around which the nation should so bend itself to throw every safeguard, as the home life of the average citizen....When home ties are loosened; when men and women cease to regard a worthy family life, with all its duties fully performed, and all its responsibilities lived up to, as the life best worth living; then evil days for the commonwealth are at hand.”

Do we have Answers for the gay Marriage issue?
Topic: Same Sex Marriage
The gay marriage issue has been headline news across North America and on other continents. Even the acceptance of gay clergy has been widely noted in both secular and Christian media outlets.

* In November of 2003 a part of the Episcopal Church voted to ordain a gay bishop. Thus, the world saw a part of the church now condoning homosexual behavior.

* On January 30, 2003, a section of the United Methodist Church in America supported a lesbian pastor. Once again, the world looked on as many churches legitimized homosexual behavior.
Rev. Karen Dammann

As part of the public debate on the gay marriage issue, many church leaders have been interviewed on national TV programs and asked to share their position on this topic. While the magority of church leaders have been speaking against gay unions and have been defending marriage as being between one man and one woman, many of these same church leaders have not been able to adequately defend their position.

A prominent Christina leader on MSNBC-TV being asked about "gay marriage" issue. The interview went something like this:

TV host: "Did Jesus deal directly with the gay marriage issue?"

Christian leader: "No, but then Jesus didn't deal directly with the abortion issue or many other issues...."

A proper response could have been such a powerful witness-not only to the interviewer but to the potential millions of viewers watching the news program, so people could understand why this Christian leader opposed gay marriage.

So how could he have responded differently? Well, consider this answer:

"First of all Jesus(who created us and therefore owns us and has the authority to determine "right and "wrong"), as the God-man , did deal directly with the gay marriage issue, in the Bible''s New Testament, in Matthew 19:4-6:

My answer would have continued:

"Christ quoted directly from the book of Genesis(and its account of the creation of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman-the first marriage) as literal history, to explain the doctrine of marriage as being one man for one woman. Thus marriage cannot be a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

"Because Genesis is real history(as can be confirmed by observational science, incidentally), Jesus dealt quite directly with the gay marriage issue when he explaned the doctrine of marriage.

"Not only this, but in John 1, we read:

John 1:1-3

"Jesus, the Creator, is the Word. The Bible is the written Word. Every word in the Bible is really the Word of the Creator-Jesus Christ.

"Therefore, in Levitucus 18:22, Jesus deals directly with the homosexual issue. This is also true of Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10

"Because Jesus in a real sense wrote all of the Bible, whenever Scripture deals with marriage and/or the homosexual issue, Jesus Himself is directly dealing with the issues."

The same Christian leader appeared on CNN-TV doing an interview that in part went something like the following:

Interviewer: "Why are you against gay marriage?"

Christian leader: "Because down through the ages, culture after culture has taught that marriage is between a man and a woman."

We believe this kind of answer actually opens the door to gay marriage! How? Because it basically says that marriage is determined by law or opinion.

Even in a secular context, the only answer a Christian should offer is:

"The Bible is the Word of our Creator, and Genesis is literal history. Its science and history can be trusted. Therefore, we have an absolute authority that determines marriage.

God made the first man and woman-the first marriage. Thus, marriage can only be a man and a woman because we are accountable to the One who made marriage in the first place.

"And don't forget-according to Scripture, one of the primary reasons for marriage is to produce godly offspring. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply, but there's no way a gay marriage can fulfill this command!"

The Truth is dear
Topic: Same Sex Marriage
This article found here

To the editor:

In response to Mr. Gunnels' letter to the editorgo here, I am not here to defend the Southern Baptists, and I believe they should not have ended the boycott against-Disney.

I am on the frontlines everyday as a Christian, and yes, people get angry with me when I tell them their religious beliefs are wrong.

Does this mean that I am not a compassionate person? I witness to people because I love them, and that is whether they are gay or not.

In our culture, though, we are so "tolerant" that to tell someone they're wrong is considered hate. Canada has placed a few pastors in prison for simply saying that homosexuality is a sin -- the same thing the Bible says.

If we hold dear the truth of the Gospel, however, we must be completely uncompromising to the culture. If, as the Bible makes clear, those who aren't atoned by Christ's blood are doomed for eternal punishment, we should have no reservations about proclaiming the good news boldly.

If you believed one bit that thousands every day were falling into an eternal and unchangeable fate, you should be running the streets mad with rage at their blindness.

That's equivalent to standing on a street corner and watching every person that passes you walk blindly directly into the path of a bus and die, yet you stand idly by and do nothing. You're just twiddling your thumbs, happy in the knowledge that, one day, that 'walk' signal will shine your way across the road.

Think about it. Imagine the horrors Hell must have in store if the Bible is true. You're just going to allow that to happen and not care about saving anyone but yourself? If you're right, then you're an uncaring, unemotional and purely selfish (expletive) that has no right to talk about subjects such as love and caring.

The truth of the Gospel requires us to be confrontational, though, not offensive. We are compassionate, Mr. Gunnels, and it is because we love people that even when we are called unloving or not compassionate, we do not compromise the truth or stop caring.

We share because we care.

Oscar Broome Jr.

Muscle Shoals