" /> Al's BLOG: April 2009 Archives

« December 2008 | Main | February 2010 »

April 04, 2009

Marriage?

Activists for homosexual marriage have attacked the Mormon Church for promoting the passage of California's law to ban homosexual marriage. Many who consider themselves enlightened have attacked all who believe in traditional marriage as the norm for society or a tenet of their religion. It is easy to say we should all be open-minded and permissive of others' beliefs and practices. It is actually harder to stand for traditional mores, and especially religious beliefs, in the face of accusations of hate mongering.
Several factors are ignored by the "enlightened":
1. Heterosexual marriage (never before requiring an adjective) has been considered normal and homosexual activity abnormal throughout time. That is, social norms have defined accepted behavior. This is a request, an insistence, to redefine mores.
2. There is biological validity to heterosexual marriage - it can produce offspring. And then there is the anatomical design of the sex organs. Does that have to be explained?
3. The assertion that homosexuality is an innate biological drive can not be proven. Even if it is considered to be, it can be compared to other sexual drives that may be just as "biological". Whatever our drives or compulsions, we still have a choice whether we act, heterosexuals included. In fact, this issue has little to do with marriage, other than to enforce acceptance of a life style.
Why must these arguments even be made? For millennia there has been no issue. If mores are to be redefined - normal redefined - there should be vigorous debate. What is permissible in private between adults is quite another thing from redefining marriage. On one side there is a strong political-social force to make homosexuality acceptable. If one disagrees, one is a homophobe or hatemonger. There is political activism to effect laws in favor, to elect politicians in favor, and to define in movies and television the normality of homosexuality. The perfectly good word "gay" has been absconded; who could be against being "gay" (i.e., happy)? The promotion of same-sex marriage is more about legally approving homosexuality than about union; otherwise, why not civil union instead. This involves not only adults, but families, as well as the whole of society. Then there is introduction of children into same-sex homes. Does society not have a stake in this?
Religious views have clearly informed social mores through the centuries. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are together in proscribing homosexuality, and are largely responsible for our values concerning marriage. Religious views can be seen as personal, but they cannot be separated from our social view. There has been a movement in Christian churches to validate homosexuality and same-sex marriage. However, it is very clear that Christian and Jewish teachings (holy scriptures) do not concur with this movement. The various attempts to explain away the clear language is driven by a desire to conform to a desired behavior, rather than being submitted to the will of God, which is the method of Christ-followers. Paul wrote to Timothy that “…people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” There is no indication that the new covenant, according to New Testament scripture, changed God’s definitions of sexual sin, quite the contrary. What was changed is the manner in which we are to deal with sin. Therefore, Christ told the woman caught in adultery: “neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more”.