By: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
The following essay was written in response to an email from a conservative friend attempting to justify why homosexual marriage would have unpleasant societal side effects. I have used the comments of this email as seed concepts to launch my own consideration regarding homosexual marriage.
In the email, my friend posited that the fundamental nature of marriage is to protect women and children. While a plausible thesis, I believe this explanation is too narrow to account for the innate attraction and importance given to the man-woman-child family by God throughout scripture. Therefore, I have focused my defense of marriage in terms of how it satisfies the inborn emotional and spiritual needs by the union of the male-female polarity, and the family unit as the cornerstone of society.
One sociologic/cultural reason for opposing homosexual marriage as a society comes from 18th-century research showing that every culture which has embraced homosexuality has collapsed within 2 generations. Even if this were proven to be false by current example, I would still oppose it completely because it contradicts our basic God-given nature. As such, I resort to the justification of my position based upon my belief structure, which I believe reflects “Truth”. And of course, whenever we argue based on subjective premises, the listener is given the authority to examine and speak his perspective and compare it with other premises and arguments. The goal of such intercourse is, of course, to challenge our assumptions and justifications with the intent of allowing influence upon our belief structures.
The following commentary contains much elaboration on many points of philosophy surrounding the issue of homosexual marriage. The reader is invited to challenge my perspective, logic, premises, arguments, and conclusions.
Charles F: “The fundamental nature of marriage is to protect women and children, especially children. The gangs we suffer from now originated fundamentally in the efforts to eliminate poverty in the 1960s. The “welfare” payment was predicated on the absence of a male (presumed to be a breadwinner) in the household. This changed and destroyed a previously strong family culture in certain segments of the American population, removing males from the family unit, for economic reasons. The result is that two generations removed from this folly, we have the current situation. By redefining marriage we are taking the next step in destroying the cohesiveness of traditional culture, and moving faster and faster toward the dissolution of any social contract.””
Thomas: The purpose of marriage is to create a covenant relationship between man and woman for the mutual satisfaction of both, one aspect of which is survival and protection of the weaker members of the family, usually women and children, but not always. Both man and woman have natural abilities and deficiencies, and both have their unique needs. Neither functions as well alone as together. Both men and women must mature so as to fully accommodate the other’s deficiencies and differences, and contribute their strengths to the survival and emotional well being of his/her mate.
The intangible needs of the heart require both respect and love to be satisfied. Living well within the contract of marriage can provide great satisfaction to the soul over a wide spectrum of human needs. And, when lived at its best, marriage provides a model for properly living well in the full spectrum of life circumstances and relationships.
The covenant of marriage is similar in type to the covenant/testament between God and man.
Jeremiah 7:23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.’
The terms of the covenant between God and man was restated by Jesus as one commandment,
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him, ” ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ “This is the first and great commandment. “And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
Regarding marriage, the expression of love and respect is central to the marital relationship.
Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
In marriage, the mother and father provide the prototypical models of proper life and relational behavior for their offspring. Children raised in a home where the parents display the mature and Godly examples of respect and love, experience life lived under the principles and disciplines of Holy matrimony. Teaching and living the example establishes a visceral foundation of group behavior within the child’s habits and sensibilities. The child so raised and trained responds to life’s circumstances and judges right and wrong, fair and unfair, based upon those Right standards. As the child matures, he may embrace those principles and choose a like-minded mate dedicated to Right principles. Living righteously and teaching Righteousness perpetuates Godliness in the society, and produces a societal environment that reflects, supports, and sustains these values and behaviors.
The marital relationship between man and woman necessarily involves a complex mixture of accepting difference, complimenting and compensating for deficiencies, and appreciating the similarities. Men and women are largely similar at the level of fundamental physiology and survival needs such as heat, food, and shelter. On the level of body structure, we see a statistically greater muscle mass in men and specialization of women’s ability to nurse and care for dependent children. On the level of the affective, emotional, and spiritual, the male and female have needs and abilities that both compliment and contrast.
The thesis of this essay is that two members of the same sex cannot duplicate the full relationship complexity inherently present due to the distinctly different anatomy and spiritual essence of the sexes. Thus, no amount of compatibility matching can duplicate the relationship dynamic of the heterosexual couple. Women’s liberation and other movements have attempted to relegate the gender differences to insignificance, normal variance, or societal construct, and certainly individual cases can be found which give apparent credence to such claims. But, a statistical view of a broad spectrum of gender traits reveals averages of ability and need which diverge on many levels. (Note: the proof of this statement is left to the reader to validate or deny).
Heterosexual marriage has within it a statistically more complete expression of relationship possibility due to the presence of the parental gender polarity. Gender role modeling deficiencies are necessarily present in single parent and same-sex households. And, those who find themselves in such gender deficient parenting roles should take measures to compensate and provide the children role models by incorporating extensive exposure to friends, community, and extended family relationships.
Every environment produces an imprint and effect on the child’s psyche and behavioral patterns. And while not every child will be exposed to the perfect male and female role model, regardless of the parenting situation, there will be a change in the societal bias when the norm changes from a near completely two-parent heterosexual parent population, to single parent, communal, polygamous, or homosexual parenting. The thesis of this essay is that God has optimized the human psyche for proper development in the presence of the heterosexual parent family. And that the health of the societal expression rises up as a meta-pattern based upon the individual’s imprints of personality and character developed in the crucible of the family rearing experience. When a society trains its young in the God-ordained patterns of healthy thought, speech, and action, it maximizes the potential for the optimum of societal life-satisfaction, and the perpetuation of that society’s moral and behavioral heritage.
Those who defend homosexual marriage may note that same-sex companionship and parenting will necessarily involve a difference in personality, which will provide exposure and training to a type of personality spectrum, and this is true. Likewise, the homosexual couple may feel an erotic, and/or fraternal or sisterly type of love. But, the argument against implementing such a lifestyle as common or accepted is that the full-bodied experience of the distinct polarities of life simply cannot be duplicated in the one parent, and same-sex couple parent roles. As noted, such a deficiency in the parenting/rearing experience will produce a limiting effect on the child, but it can be compensated for to some degree by extra-familial relationships. I believe a culture must consider the effect such a deficiency will have on the full spectrum exposure to life’s polarities.
The apologists for homosexual marriage may argue that having people who are narrowly exposed to the spectrum of gender difference is a good thing because it provides another possibility to tolerate in the rainbow of human expression. Such an argument places toleration of suboptimal choice above choosing Right and Godly patterns in training humanity. Which brings us to the question of whether the government should be involved in such choice at all? And, the answer to this question is, “No, government should not be uninvolved in such choices.” But, the government is already involved in sanctioning holy heterosexual matrimony, and it should continue to stand on the side of righteousness, and codify morality in law. Government should not capitulate to false, but popular doctrines such as the secular humanist worship of tolerance as the highest virtue.
To go beyond the obvious problems and deficiencies of same-sex parenting, we must enter into the realm of belief, and then validate our beliefs based on evidence. One such belief concerns the spirits of guilt and justification that arise in the souls of those who practice homosexual coupling. If homosexuality is an offense against the absolute standards of a proper relationship established by God, then there should be evidence of such decree within the hearts and minds of those who engage its practice.
There are some who appear unfazed by the condemnation of conscience, and others who recognize the error and struggle with pulls of the heart to justify or repent. Humanity has a wide spectrum of response to the temptations to violate God’s law and dine at the table of rebellion and partake of the sweet but deadly pleasures served. Some ignore, deny, or simply isolate themselves from internal and external criticism. Others respond aggressively and take up the banner of the cause and become its agents and advocates. Such men take on the spirits of power and frame their arguments in terms of discrimination, equal rights, and tolerance. Some feel an internal sense of persecution as evidence of victimization by society’s moral censure. The activist may declare that this social injustice must be righted by mandating prosecution of all who criticize homosexuality by the vehicle of hate crimes legislation and societal sanction. The militant homosexual thus joins the pornographer, prostitution and drug decriminalization advocates as a willing pawn of spiritual forces that seek to dominate humanity by serving the flesh instead of spirit.
Many rational explanations can be offered in the natural realm supporting and opposing homosexual marriage, but the ultimate directive about how life should be lived to experience the optimum personal and social order lie in the pattern of perfection intended by God. Each man must come to his own peace regarding the nature of God and His intended pattern of perfection for mankind. I believe that the pattern is best organized by the scripture quoted above, as a trinity of relationship between God, self, and others. We must first establish a right relationship with God by looking to understand natural Law and love the Lawgiver for His justice and wisdom in establishing that Law. Loving self is natural, but by obeying His Law, I will maximize my potential benefit and minimize my potential pain in life. Likewise, if I love my fellow man as I love myself, and apply those same principles of Godliness to that relationship, I will teach the same standards I live.
Each day we are challenged with the proper resolution of moral dilemmas. Even the noblest man dedicated to righteousness will make choices which appear foolish in retrospect. But each trial will give the man dedicated to Truth an opportunity to learn more about the complex interaction produced by God’s law and circumstances, and to stand in awe and humility in the face of the perfection of God’s sovereign declaration of Law. In this manner, we progress from childish ignorance in various realms of life expression to mature, experienced, and wise navigators of the terrain of circumstances.
Charles F: “All of the special or legal protections of marriage are based upon this truth. By perverting the definition of marriage into a union of any two people based upon a love relationship changes, and ultimately damages the inherent protections for children, and for women. It is not easy to argue this.”
Thomas: The legal protections of marriage should be established to ensure that the God-given pattern of relationship that perfectly matches His nature is lived and propagated through the generations, into the individual, and throughout society. It is this spirit of obedience to the perfect Law and development of a love relationship with Him that He desires to create. His motivation is the maximization of joy for each person and the continuation of His way throughout humanity and history. All other paths, no matter how seemingly right and satisfying to the flesh or in the moment will prove deficient in comparison to His perfect plan and will. But, He has given us free will, and we truly can choose to follow the way of Truth, or the seductive calls of the flesh, demons, and temporal pleasure.
Some argue that there is no place for the State in a relationship sanctified only by God. And to a large extent, this is true. But practicality and the advance of evil necessitated the establishment of a Bill of Rights to overtly limit the encroachment of man’s almost irresistible tendencies to impose and encroach upon those freedoms God intended as inalienable rights. The State has entered the sacred realm of legislating proper and improper, allowable and impermissible behaviors, possibly for reasons of control, codification, taxation, regulation, or sanction. Regardless, the presence of the State in this domain has now opened the door to those who wish to redefine marriage to satisfy their own internal drive for possession of territory and validation that comes from State approval.
Thus, we now find ourselves in the position as a society required to make a moral judgment about the propriety of homosexual marriage, but we find ourselves frustrated because all the natural arguments for/against homosexual marriage can be countered by plausible defenses and attacks depending on the moral perspective chosen. I believe society must take a stand and decide upon which side of God’s law it will stand. The choice it makes will reflect the religious conviction of the society since all law is legislated morality. Thus, in matters of dictating behavior, we cannot avoid embracing or reflecting the society’s spiritual/ethical core unless we completely vacate the societal-governmental function of legislation. The more honest approach is to simply declare our moral bias and legislate in accord with our declared moral system.
America’s Constitutional Republic, when guided by the metaphors and teaching of the Holy Bible, is the closest to the ideal governmental system. The judiciary should be populated by righteous and Godly men who judge, legislate and execute based upon God’s law. We should consider ourselves as part of the Kingdom of Heaven, and realize we are all servants of the King, the Lord of all the Earth. Each man should bow only to the King, and all men should regularly read the Scripture, embed the principles in their hearts, and become familiar with and be obedient to the voice of the Holy Spirit. America was founded with God’s law as the implicit standard underlying all of the nation’s law. As such, the legislators, judges, and executive implemented the administration of that holy law in practical terms. We can still return to that pattern, but it will require a turning of the hearts of the people back to submission to God’s law.
If God removes his favor and grace from our country, we could find ourselves facing plagues, terrorism, war, and natural disasters, which may be the tipping point to institute martial law and/or authoritarian rule. We could be instantly thrown into a government of autocrats or oligarchs, where freedom is greatly limited. If we continue our rebellion against God and His Law, we could find that the cost is great, and the freedom we once enjoyed has evaporated. God gives the greatest freedom to His obedient children; rebels will find their freedom limited by government, circumstance, and nature. God gives freedom in accord with obedience much as a parent gives autonomy to the child who has shown himself faithful in embracing the parents’ life-rules.
I believe embedded within this particular issue is the battle for the soul and destiny of our nation. Upon this particular issue, we will choose or avert our destruction. Such challenges cannot be resolved by the belief or commitment of any single individual. Rather, the group spirit will prevail. If there is no broad and deep commitment to Godliness, if there is no passion and fire for holiness, if the society instead worships tolerance and individual expression above the absolutes of Godly standards, the society will succumb to the temptations of worshiping plausible humanistic doctrines. As such, we find ourselves needing to use the power of the State to defend against those who seek to impose an unGodly definition of marriage upon all of society. In so doing, we must overtly align or oppose ourselves with God, and in so doing will reap the harvest we have sown.
Charles F: “Opposition to Oregon’s Proposition 9, 20 years ago, was a step in the direction of incrementally changing our society toward the acknowledgment that homosexuality is a normal human variant, and as such should be treated no differently than any other normal human variant, such as race or religion, vis a vis social and legal presence and protections. No one, in the ’80s, would have accepted homosexual marriage in this culture. But, as with the imposition of tobacco restrictions, the incremental approach to implementation, coupled with a strong media campaign (movie, TV, etc.), has moved the culture toward the ultimate goal of accepting homosexuality as normal, a distinction to be seen or treated no differently than the difference between protestant and Catholic, black and white, or male and female. The social utopians of today believe we can all live side by side in peace and harmony if we accept all choices of belief and lifestyle as equally valid.”
Thomas: Proposition 9 defined Homosexuality as an aberrant lifestyle; its intent was to teach our children the distinction between Goodness and unGodliness and prevent the state from normalizing sin as a normal variant and acceptable moral choice. The fundamental reason for the OCA introducing this Measure was the recognition that society will change if it embraces as Right, True and Good, patterns of behavior that are antithetical to the inborn, God-established, patterns of maximal satisfaction of the human soul and psyche.
Oregon’s 1992 Ballot Initiative, Measure 9: “All governments in Oregon may not use their monies or properties to promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism. All levels of government, including public education systems, must assist in setting a standard for Oregon’s youth which recognizes that these behaviors are abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse and they are to be discouraged and avoided.”
The fundamental solution to turning back the tide of a societal embrace of homosexuality is a remaking of the societal philosophy, the group paradigm, the faith and worldview of the masses of people/citizens. As a nation, we have embraced relativism as the primary truth. Self-validation was exalted beyond reason and the revealed Word of God. The secular humanist religion has as one of its roots the premise that all moral perspectives are relative, except relativism. The self-centered perspective of life arising from relativism is part of the complex of philosophy and feelings that justifies the Godless worldview where self-gratification and tolerance of all personal preferences rise to the apex of goodness.
In the Old Testament, God allowed humanity to live through an era where He established the Law. This was not a time of grace, and during it, He commanded the stoning of homosexuals. When Jesus came, He ushered in an era of grace. This age is considerably more complex in its requirements to make a distinction. It involves choosing properly between allowing God to deliver vengeance, and selling a garment to buy a sword. Neither pacifism, self-defense, nor taking the enemy’s position by force can be used as a single approach to all of life’s issues. The current age is one where humanity must choose the proper path among a complex array of possibilities when presented with moral dilemmas.
In the Old Testament era, it appears that God considered the homosexual spirit, adulterous spirit, and idolatrous spirit as such virulent contagions that He prescribed death to those who embraced them. He prescribed death possibly because allowing men possessed by these spirits, if allowed to live in the society, they could easily infect and cause the destruction of the whole. This is a reflection of the inability of the immature heart to resist the pull toward wrong, destructive, and unGodly group concepts. We see in the Old Testament the story of the Children of Israel, and how they so quickly were seduced into worshiping false gods within a generation or two they experienced the horrific consequence of spiritual adultery. They likewise forgot the blessings of worshiping the True and Living God. The weak and immature society bends easily under the influence of intimidation, codependent approval, and false moral paradigms.
Again, God recognized the virility of the homosexual influence on the human soul, the ease of seduction into a relationship with same-sex partners, the temptation to oppose the conscience, and the tendency to impose unGodly morality upon those who criticize that spirit. God was attempting to raise up a people who followed His heart. His opponents in the quest for winning man’s heart were the very temptations He established and allowed as possibilities of life. God created the temptations of life to be so seductive that He required the elimination of those who practiced and embraced the deadly sins (adultery, murder, homosexuality, bestiality, idolatry, witchcraft, incest…).
The current era, the era of grace, requires that we resist these spirits, focus on doing good works, and trust in the miraculous move of God in blessing our works. We must remain vigilant against the encroachment of the spirit of homosexuality because of its infective virility. If we succumb to its siren song, we can expect a response similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Grace is unmerited favor, and grace will be extended only for a season if rebellion continues. A society first initiated in a sin temptation is given grace as it learns the cost and pain of the sin. But, when sufficient maturity comes, and society chooses the worship and practice of sin as accountable men, the days of grace are limited. When grace is used as a justification for license, the grace will eventually be withdrawn and we will learn the lessons of right living by the pain of discipline and release to the Devourer.
We have only a small window of time open before the homosexuals and their supporters have entrenched their positions and are emboldened enough to use fines, confinement, and guns to enforce their will. Reversal of the current trend depends upon a broad re-embrace of the populace of Right moral standards. The righteous must re-take control of the reigns of government and media and erect strong societal and moral boundaries around our institutions of power, law, justice, and information. As a society, we must unequivocally and overtly embrace the standards of Godliness and worship the God who established those standards. Those who support Righteousness must boldly give moral censure against those who rebel against Godliness.
But, such an uprising is unlikely. The rebels have masterfully usurped society’s moral structure by the constant barrage of media indoctrination in pro-homosexual toleration and relativism. We have embraced the paradigm of relativism and its corollary philosophy of secular humanism with such vigor as to establish and enforce its precepts as our national religion. We have violated the First Amendment proscription against Congress establishing a religion by a 1000 circumlocutions in the form of judicial activism that revoked the will of the people and established foreign legal precedent upon which our system of justice now rests. We have adopted new social mores by the constant media desensitization to sin, and indoctrination into moral approval and tolerance of unGodliness. In this, we have created a de facto religion of the masses, media, and power elite that has invisibly supplanted our Godly Christian heritage. Under the cover of the color of law, democracy, and freedom, we have fallen prey to the plausible logic of those who wish to validate their unGodly precepts as lawful expression under the intents of our Constitutional Founders.
Throughout this slide toward unGodliness, the underlying test has always been the challenge of every man and society to surrender fully to the Lordship of God. The delicacy of this test was embodied perfectly in the First Amendment, but it was successful in preserving our freedom of religion only as long as the society remained true to perpetuating its spiritual roots as a Christian nation. As a Christian people, living under the restrictions and rights given by our Constitution, we could be sure of a government which would not impose a religion on the people. But, the seed of destruction was planted in 1947 when the Supreme Court established by judicial fiat the extra-constitutional principle of Separation of Church and State as a new Constitutional principle, without passing through the proper process of amendment. Once established, the precedent and principle of Constitutional law were then used to judge and enforce group behavior, under the color of Constitutional law. Through this invading seed, the subconscious indoctrination of the masses has proceeded for generations through the school system as it preaches and frames the entire worldview in the philosophy of Secular Humanism.
The Founders gave us each the freedom to worship God, as the heart dictated, which is the same freedom God has given us. The Founders resisted the temptation to declare us to be a Christian nation because such an injunction left us open to the autocrats and theocrats who would rule based on doctrinal interpretation. It has taken decades for the enemies of God to dismantle the cultural momentum of our Christian heritage, but the full fruit of our folly has almost come to bloom.
The blessings of liberty can only be bestowed upon a moral, Godly, self-controlled people. Since the Founders did not declare us overtly to be a Christian nation they left the door open for the encroachment of subtle decay. They knew this possibility could come, as Adams declared that this Constitution is only suitable for a moral and Godly people. The enemies of God and rebels against the restraint of their passions engineered the decay of an entire society and its moral structure. Along that line is a quote by Aldous Huxley that gives illumination to the rebellion, “We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”
As a nation progressively removed from our Godly Christian heritage by the fallacious 1947 Everson vs. Board of Education declaration of “Separation of Church and State,” we have seen the erosion of our moral resolve to legislate, judge, and execute policy according to the principle and precepts of Holy Biblical Scripture. Faith in the precepts of Judeo-Christian Godliness has given way to tolerance. Our passive submission and impotent resistance to each judicial order have given victory to the judicial oligarchs. The societal tone has accommodated to each succeeding layer of moral degradation, and without detection handed power over to the homosexual-rights activists and their pawns. Without a champion who actually speaks the truth and convinces the people of their error, we will slouch toward Gomorrah with ever greater speed, until we finally recognize the bonds are cast too tight, and that peaceful release from the shackles is no longer possible. At that point, we will find ourselves in an oppression of epic proportion, or an unthinkable bloodbath in the suppression of Godliness, or the overthrow of the ideological tyranny.
Charles F: “But it is one thing not to stone or jail homosexuals for practicing homosexuality. It is another to accept homosexuality as a protected class of people. And yet another to change fundamental social constructs to accommodate the homosexual community’s need to be accepted as just another normal variation. To promote marriage as something different than it has been in the past, an institution designed fundamentally to bring the next generation into the world and protect and nurture them, protecting and honoring the special needs of women in that arrangement, will ultimately damage this ancient and honorable function, against the whims and fashions of an arrogant and self-centered culture.”
Thomas: The rise of homosexuality in our society is a multifaceted phenomenon resulting from the interaction of many motivations, goals, needs, strategies, and barriers. The proponents of homosexuality seek to establish it as a positively embraced normal variant. They may be motivated by the need for self-approval for actions that feel good but oppose the natural order. They may be motivated by the spirit of power to oppress those whom they consider unjust oppressors. The rebellion may be conscious or subconscious, it may be well organized or reflect a spontaneous drive within the individual heart. But, rebellion against the righteous principle will not go unnoticed by the forces of Heaven and nature. Forces opposing evil will automatically arise to direct the individual and group to restore a proper relationship.
God has established a spiritual hierarchy that automatically applies pressure on the human psyche to restore right behavior. The polarity of Christ and Satan battles, not for the fate of the universe, but for the souls of men. The fate of the universe was established as eternal when Jesus lived a sinless life, died into the world He created, and rose to life, having no Law that could be used against Him to justify retention by the chains of death. History has already been written to a large extent, with the forces that push the tides of men and nations. Within the degrees of physical freedom, men can exercise complete free will to choose a commitment to God’s way or rebellion against Him.
No man is destined for destruction, but Satan, as the accuser, has been given dominion of the realm of rebellion. His nature allows him to feel pleasure in inflicting pain, gaining control, and adding to his population of subjects and allies. Disobedience of Godly ordinance allows the release of demons, accusers, and spirits to torment the violator. God has established this negative feedback system as a method to bring an errant soul back to right relationship. But, the temptation of illicit pleasure, evil, rebellion, and Satan, serve the purpose of establishing a worthy opponent in the battle for men’s hearts. God’s joy is the fellowship and nourishing of those who choose allegiance, love, and worship of Him. His way is total freedom within the limits of His divinely established and Good Laws, all are welcome to come into His Kingdom to fellowship, and all can turn from the path they are on. But, not all choose to follow God’s way, and that is exactly the freedom that God has given every man.
Just as Satan loves the pain and illicit pleasures of sin and rebellion, likewise, man can develop the taste for pain, death, and blood. Following the flesh out of ignorance may not subject a man to the immediately required punishment of death, but the Law once violated has the right to take the sinner’s life. After the violation of God’s Law, every moment lived is only by grace. The Law given in Deuteronomy to stone the homosexual, adulterer, murderer, etc, is still the law, and it was a command that God gave to men to cleanse the land of these spirits. Thus, without repentance, the death penalty certainly still stands against the sinner in the heavenly realm.
Thus, men and societies must make a decision as to how the violators of God’s law should be punished. Those who would declare that mercy and tolerance should be given to all must consider the fact that scripture illustrates the severe consequences which come upon a nation which does not punish the guilty. We are forced to ask if we must still follow the letter of the law, and stone every sinner for every transgression. Such a system would certainly cleanse the world of the casual perpetrator, and those who follow the sins of a permissive society. The question is not the efficacy in expunging sin from the land, it would be effective. The question is whether obedience to the letter of the law is still required. It is my thesis that God desires obedience, not sacrifice, but we walk a fine line between giving grace and receiving punishment as a society for tolerance of sin.
If a man violates the law and is given grace either overtly, or by keeping his sin secret, the clock is ticking, and the forces acting upon him, and the nation, build with time and each additional violation. If a man chooses to repent, accept the sacrifice of Christ for his sin, and walk the path of right living and wisdom, he may escape punishment in this life and the next.
But, such a happy resolution is often not seen in the everyday world of adults who have hardened their hearts, become accustomed to, and self-justified in, their sin. Thus, the process of degradation of self and society begins and continues. Following sin’s pleasures can lead to pursuing greater violations to attain the same thrill, and various rationalizations justify the sinner’s plunge into rebellion. At some point, far down the road, he may feel and declare his alignment with Satan and hatred of God. When the pain is ignored, or the embarrassment of the sin does not allow confession and repentance, or the pleasure of sin dominates a man’s desire, the violator may find it easier to continue in sin than in renunciation.
The violator may feel the sting of guilt as a natural consequence of his sin. The natural forces placed on the errant soul give feedback to chasten and turn him toward repentance, but he may push against these corrective forces pulling him back toward right living. He may deflect the healing forces by using various strategies such as denial, blame, externalization, victimization, confusion, declaring injustice and remaking his worldview and life-philosophy, and self-validation based upon desire and feelings.
Returning to our examination of the temptation to engage in homosexuality, the soul tormented by his sin may seek to validate his choice and calm the demons by enforcing societal approval, or claiming victimization. He may see the pain as originating from societal disapproval rather than as an innate internal response to a violation of natural law. Some may respond to the inner torment by replacing the pain by the pleasure of exerting power and forcing others to submit. Some may simply hide their shame, attempt to self justify and appear righteous by their societal facade.
On the periphery of the homosexual-rights movement are the supporters of those who believe that all men should have the right to express themselves as they feel best. Such souls are the useful idiots making up the army marching passively behind the leaders, as they give them moral support by their silent approval. A following of the masses, the marginally informed, the ones persuaded only by sound bites, a friend, or the feelings of the moment, is necessary for a movement to prosper in a republic or democracy. Those in this category may give their benign support because of their confusion about the nature of God’s law, guilt over their own transgressions, or see their stand as a support for the virtues of freedom, equality, choice, privacy, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and tolerance.
Another group of pawns that follow along with the homosexual leaders is those who choose to follow the politically correct agenda because of fear. This group is silenced by the cost of speaking out; they are unwilling to suffer humiliation, loss of social position, or employment at the hands of those in power over them and their survival.
This heterogeneous group comprises the army and leadership of the homosexual rights movement. A complex combination of spiritual deception and the overt worldly pressures of enrollment and intimidation have together orchestrated a physical-spiritual coup. An entire society has transformed its spiritual allegiance and tone from Godliness and its blessings, in exchange for the temporal benefits of sin.