And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(Mat 19:4-6)
Yesterday, I sat in a Toastmasters meeting and listened to a speaker advocate the legalization of homosexual “marriage.” I put quotes around the word marriage, for the very definition of marriage confines this covenant to be between a man and a woman. Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines it as such:
Marriage
MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb 13
1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Mat 22.
2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev 19.
Homosexual “marriage” makes about as much sense as a “canine cat” or a “feline dog.”
One honorable gentleman stood up to oppose the young woman speaker during the question and answer portion of the meeting. He rightly pointed out the destruction carried out upon Sodom and Gomorrah when they engaged in this perversity. He also rightly acknowledged that in I Corinthians, the scripture says that those who engage in such practices shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Of course, she was quick to dismiss his comments with a reply about not being able to respond to biblical objections. Yet, the older gentleman was quite correct in his analysis of the situation. Do we, as a nation, want to test God even further by presuming to redefine the definition of marriage that He gave us? What’s even more disappointing is that I was quite certain that this particular woman had identified herself in the past as a believer in Jesus Christ. Yet, this speech reveals her lack of commitment to His cause, as well as her biblical ignorance. Unfortunately, her example is not all that uncommon.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
(2Ti 4:3-4)
I believe we are seeing this verse applied in full force today.
2 comments:
Marriage is a foundation in which 2 people share their love for one another. It is a way to show your devotion to that other person. It is an institution in which 2 people ebb and grow throughout their lifes, learning and living and growing. It is also a way for those 2 people who are in love to take care of each other. Not just in the emotional, physical aspect of the relationship, but also in emergency situations. It allows a partner to make pertinent life or death decisions if one should ever become incapacitated for whatever reason, and it allows those in the marriage to buy health insurance for their husband/wife and children.
Please take a moment and leave all your religious views aside and read through the above once more. We are all human beings and no one should be denied to care for the person they love in any way shape or form. It is not up to us to pass moral judgement on other peoples deepest feelings. No gay person ever told you they don't feel it's right for you to be able to make pertinent health decisions should your wife become unable to, have they? Have they told you that you shouldn't be able to cover her under your health insurance? What if for whatever reason, she had adopted children and you were told you weren't allowed to include them in your health insurance. I have always believed in equal rights, but this is the first time I have ever taken the time to find a way to express my views about this. I feel like I did a very good job at putting an objective view on this. What do you think?
I am not trying to attack you, but from what I have seen, you seem to have tunnel vision. I wonder if this post will ever make it to your blog?
As I read the previous comment, I thought for sure Lea was referring to my recent blog entry. She had to search my archives pretty deep to find this one. Some of the answers to her questions can be found in that post. However, I will take the time to respond to her comment. She says, “Marriage is a foundation in which 2 people share their love for one another.” I ask, “How do you know that?” Where did that definition come from? In the very same blog post in which she is commenting, I offer an 1828 dictionary definition. But even that is a fallible source. Let’s see the scripture’s definition of marriage:
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
-Matthew 19:4-6
So, those are Christ’s words. You may not honor the Lord Jesus Christ, but since He is the creator of the world and the very designer of marriage, I trust His Word in the matter.
The issue is not about being allowed to “buy health insurance.” If one sodomite wants to buy health insurance for another one, nobody is preventing that. They are just covered under separate policies. Just like a parent is free to pay for the health insurance of his 30 year old son, though the insurance company rules would forbid them sharing a policy. In fact, the legal relationship between a parent and an adult child is a very good thing to view when considering these things. By definition (scriptural, and cultural for the past 6000 years), marriage is between a man and a woman. It doesn’t matter how much one man loves another man…in my case, my love toward my son. When my son gets to be 21, I will not be allowed to keep him on my insurance policy. Is that wrong? Nope. That’s the way it is. But, let’s say my 21 year old son is unemployed and can’t afford health insurance. There’s no law that says I can’t mail his insurance company a check on his behalf.
However, when our country takes a perversion and equates it with the God ordained institution of marriage we are raising our fists in defiance to our creator. You ask me to “leave all my religious views aside.” I can not do that. You didn’t do that either when you objected to my article. You say, “It is not up to us to pass moral judgement [sic] on other peoples deepest feelings.” Pardon me, but your opposition to my blog post is a moral judgment on *my* deepest feeling. Your religion says that sodomy is an acceptable lifestyle. Your religion is intolerant of my opposition to homosexuality. You ma’am have “tunnel vision” to think that your way is right, and I am wrong. Yes, I have tunnel vision as well. But at least my tunnel is built upon the timeless principles of the Word of God. Your tunnel burrows under sinking sand on the beach.
Post a Comment