Same Sex Marriage

blackfamily1

This article sets forth my opposition to the homosexual agenda. My aim is not to condemn them and their supporters as persons. I leave such judgement, if any, up to Jesus Christ. My aim is to judge and reject any legitimization and normalization of homosexuality. God in Romans 1 and elsewhere in the Bible clearly establishes homosexuality and its derivatives to be sinful.

CBE Computer Services

Simply put, Christians, especially organized churches, and society in general are to love the homosexuals as persons
but tell them they are engaged in sin worthy of repentance. It is not a question of whether God or we love them. It is obvious that God loves them and we ought to love them also. It is a question of whether their behavior is sinful and should not be accepted. Clearly, biblically speaking, their behavior is sinful and blatantly unnatural. We are to accept the person but reject rather than legitimize such sinful behavior. In Jesus, God offers forgiveness to those who biblically repent.

It is certainly possible that in some cases homosexual tendencies arise out of some genetic or hormonal abnormality or other defect. Yet, this is also true of other things like heart defects, mental retardation, etc. Certainly we do not call the latter normal but rather we seek cures, minimalization, or other fixes to such conditions. The same should be true of any homosexual tendencies that one suspects arise out of genetic/hormonal abnormality or defect. All abnormalities arise out of the effect of sin upon the human race. Yet, one must be cautious about concluding that all homosexual tendencies arise out of genetic or hormonal abnormality or defect; certainly some are environmental and/or experiential such as physical, sexual, emotional/romantic or other abuse by the same sex or other sex.

In no case should those who have homosexual tendencies be bullied or ostracized or treated unfairly even though we should not legitimize such behavior. This is true regardless of the suspected cause or source of the homosexual tendency.

A same sex romantic partnership is a romantic relationship between people who are of the same sex. The term homosexual conveys this relationship. When the persons are female, it is also sometimes called lesbianism.

Some also refer to these romantic partnerships as civil unions or same sex marriages when the persons desire to view themselves as married. Some use the term domestic partnerships.

Some redefine marriage as having a civil status (civil marriage) rather than a religious status (religious marriage). The question is whether this redefinition or extended definition justifies a Christian accepting the marriage as legitimate.

It is true that words have many flavors of meanings as evidenced by numerous entries in a dictionary. Moreover, the meaning of a word may change over time. Thus, the context in which a word is used largely determines its meaning. For example, consider the word Governor in Matthew 2:6 where it says “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.” Certainly, the word Governor as used in Matthew 2:6 has a different connotation than that of the Governor of Kentucky.

Yet, the core problem and objection is the relationship itself and the expected physical and emotional interactions of the involved parties. The problem and religious objection is not so much with the use of the word marriage. Indeed, a fundamental characteristic of marriage is that at the very least two bodies actually or at least potentially come together physically. This coming together may come short of sexual intercourse of some form due to medical or other problems. Nevertheless, the expectation is that at some point these two bodies will physically come together in some form.

Thus, both religious and civil marriages are fundamentally the same and are to meet biblical principles regarding marriage or union of two people. Thus, we cannot accept civil marriage as legitimate when they do not meet biblical standards or principles.

Homosexuality is a PRINCIPLE God speaks about under both the Old and New Covenant. Genesis 1:26-28, Genesis 2:18-25 and Romans 1:21-32 specifically speak against people of the same sex being sexually involved. Romans 1 testifies that homosexuality is unnatural and heterosexuality is therefore natural. Romans 2:1 warns against MALICIOUS judgment to the point of condemning another but not to discerning righteousness.

It is instructive that the phrase same sex as used by many tells us that the sex, male or female, can be sufficiently determined; indeed they cannot be both. Now then, I am aware that there may be individuals who are so biologically abnormal that their sex may not be readily observed and/or determined. But these are extremely relatively rare cases; such conditions are properly considered for both spiritual and medical correction on a case by case basis. The majority of the time same sex romantic partnerships that are topics of concern/discussion do not involve such biologically abnormal persons.

I realize there are people who may be in environments that cause them to make a conscious choice of which way to go. That is what is so dangerous about legitimizing the behavior. I fear that some impressible people will choose the wicked way of homosexuality instead of the righteous way of heterosexuality.

Marriage is an institution established by God. It is not a human invention. God rather than human governments determines its definition and validity as revealed in the Holy Bible, the Word of God, the sword of the Holy Spirit.

In considering the issue of “same sex marriages”, it is important to recognize the distinction between a biblical marriage and a legal marriage. A biblical marriage is one recognized by God but not necessarily by human governments. A legal marriage is one recognized by human governments but not necessarily by God.

A legal “same sex marriage” is not a biblical marriage; it is therefore not recognized by God even if human governments recognize it. The reason is clear and compelling: Through biblical principles, God says sexual relations or any romantic relationship between persons of the same sex is sinful and prohibited (Romans 1). Such behavior is such an abomination that God notes it in his decision to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:5-7; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 1:7); yet in Jesus, God offers forgiveness to those who biblically repent. Indeed, not only does such a relationship violate biblical standards, it also clearly and profoundly violates that which is natural and scientific. Clearly, male and female bodies complement each other with respect to sexual organs. Male bodies don’t complement male bodies; female bodies don’t complement female bodies (Genesis 1:27-28). It is biblically, morally, and naturally invalid to call same sex romantic relationships, including civil unions and domestic partnerships, godly marriages. Indeed it is a sin beam in contrast to a sin mote (Matthew 7:1-5).

Homosexual individuals/couples lifestyles are clearly opposite to the notion of a proper biblical family. The U. S. Declaration of Independence, precursor to the U.S. Constitution, says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. It is a self-evident truth that homosexual lifestyles contradict the natural use of the human body; we don’t need scientific research to tell us that. Such a lifestyle has no inherent inalienable rights to parenthood or any romantic relationship; indeed, God has not given any such rights to those who engage in such a lifestyle. Ask yourself this question: Would God have ever told Moses to write in the Mosaic Law that men could marry men because they loved each other? Of course not since not all love is righteous love. For example, adultery rooted in love is an unrighteous love. So then any law that legitimizes same sex marriage based on love is an unrighteous law rooted in an unrighteous love.

As is the case for all who commit sin, we are to love yet warn the homosexual that they are engaged in sin and need to repent.
Is this not what Jesus did regarding the adulterous woman when he said go and sin no more (John 8:11)? It is not a question of whether God or we love them. It is obvious that God loves them and we ought to love them also. It is a question of whether their behavior is sinful and should not be accepted. Clearly, biblically speaking, their behavior is sinful and blatantly unnatural. We are to accept the person but reject the sinful behavior. We are not to legitimize such behavior in any instance.

Loved “girl-/boy-friends” and cousins of an unmarried person who paid into a government fund are not eligible to receive Social Security and similar government benefits. Similarly, a member of a homosexual relationship should be legally ineligible to receive such benefits on behalf of the other unless the government opens such benefits to whomever any person designates. To change the benefit policies so as to add only same sex couples is to validate their sinful behavior.

All Christians have an obligation to speak out and stand against this societal attempt to declare such behavior as okay. Christian ministers, especially bishops/pastors/elders/overseers have even more of an obligation. Silence is betrayal as it assists Satan in convincing the weak and the unknowing, especially children, to call good evil and evil good.

Furthermore, some societal entities first instinct seems to be to stand against homosexuality but such entities seem to increasingly succumb to secular pressure. Perhaps, they increasingly succumb because they feel they have no one strongly standing with them in their desire to represent and encourage moral purity. The church should be by their side boldly, publicly, loudly, without compromise.

Christians who fail to openly stand against cultural tendencies to legitimize “same sex marriages” betray the Christian faith and the integrity of the male and female gender.

We are not to legitimize same sex behavior in any instance; unfortunately, this has become the tendency in television shows, other media, and even in some church pulpits and pews. Some have gone so far as to see same sex issues as civil rights issue equivalent to women seeking appropriate women rights and Black Americans seeking freedom from slavery and laws and attitudes, including interracial marriages, that discriminate on the basis of gender and/or race.

The term “civil right” has a very broad meaning in usage. Its definition and scope depend on context and the person(s) using it. In general, a civil right is best viewed as a right granted by the government (Federal, State, Local, etc.). Such a granted right may or may not be a right granted by God. If it is a right granted by God it is a legitimate civil right. If it is not a right granted by God, it is not a legitimate civil right. The question at hand is not whether same sex marriage is a “civil right”. The question at hand is whether it is a legitimate civil right. In our Declaration of Independence, we find the following words:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It is a self-evident truth that gay, lesbian, and homosexual lifestyles contradict the natural use of the human body; we don’t need scientific research to tell us that. Therefore, such a lifestyle has no inherent inalienable rights to parenthood or any romantic relationship because the Creator has not given any such rights to those who engage in such a lifestyle. So to
say that gay couples have an equal right to marriage is true only when that marriage is proper. No same sex marriage is proper.

Being black is not a sin, being a woman isn’t a sin and interracial marriage isn’t a sin; but being a homosexual (lustful thoughts, words, and/or deeds) is a sin and the result of sin. So then, these same sex issues are not civil rights issues in truth and righteousness. That is to say, same sex marriage civil right is not a legitimate civil right in the eyes of God even if governments declare it a civil right. Those who portray such wickedness as civil rights issues betray the memory and life of those who fought and died for righteousness.

In President Obama 2013 inauguration speech, he says: “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” It is true that homosexuals should be treated like anyone else under the law but he misapplies the role of love even under the law. Indeed, even under the law, the rightness of a relationship between two people is not based solely on their love for one another or societal love for them. Laws that forbid adultery between two people that love one another proves that point. Let us all help him and society to understand that Jesus said that our love for one another is to be rooted in our love for God first and foremost (Matthew 22:35-40). That includes our laws. Love for God should overrule a man’s unrighteous romantic love for another man.

All of us including government officials, politicians, lawyers, and judges should ask ourselves a fundamental question: Does God expect our every decision and action to glorify God not Satan, to please God not Satan, to obey God rather than man, to love God more than man? If so, how can any Christian support any law that legitimizes or validates any sin? How can a lawyer or judge or other official pull off his Christian coat or the mind of Christ when he sits down at his office or court desk? Although God and our Constitution may give a person some measure of freedom to sin, no one has the right or liberty to ask our Government or another to go along with that sin? Let us interpret the Constitution so as to glorify God and not Satan, good and not evil (Psalms 148:11, Matthew 22:34-40; 28:18-20; Acts 5:29)! It can be done!

Some have asked the question as to how Rev. Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. would have spoken on the issue of gay rights. It would be presumptive of any to state with precision what he would have said. Yet, his record gives us some insight into his position on homosexuality.

First, some cite the fact that a reportedly open homosexual (Bayard Rustin) worked with King at SCLC. Some say this is proof that he supported gay rights. But working with a homosexual is certainly not the same as endorsing homosexuality. Certainly supporting their right to work and contribute their skills to the betterment of society is not the same as supporting a right to same sex marriage.

King wrote an Advice for Living Column for Ebony Magazine from 1957 to 1958. In a January 1958 column as found on the Stanford University website (stanford.edu) Rev. King answers a question by a boy who had homosexual urges. The question and answer follows:

Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that lead to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that lead to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.

So we see that Rev. King agreed with the boy that he had a problem to be confronted and resolved. Rev. King tells the boy to seek help from a psychiatrist. Rev. King describes the homosexual urges as probably not innate but probably culturally acquired. From the above we can conclusively say he saw homosexuality as a problem to be resolved rather than accepted and celebrated. From that we can reasonably conclude that Rev. King, the preacher, would most likely not endorse same sex marriage.

Any decision to support or not support “same sex marriages” should be rooted in spiritual integrity, natural use of the human body, and Christian righteousness rather than cultural sin. For those who have supported same sex marriages, repentance is always in order. As in the case of the alcohol prohibition constitutional amendments (18th & 21st), those who have sanctioned it can un-sanction it. Those wedded can be unwedded. It is not too late to stop it.

On June 26, 2015 the US Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage in America. Justice Kennedy in delivering the Court’s opinion wrote: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex…”

Notice that Justice Kennedy begins with a false statement. The Constitution does not promise a person the liberty to define and express his or her own identity for every purpose and require others to accept that declaration. Even our founding fathers knew that to be a falsehood. For example a black slave did not have the constitutional liberty not to be imported into the USA until a certain date according to Article 1, Section 9. He could not say I declare my liberty to identify myself with the free white men of America starting right now and require them to let him go free. Certainly, God does not give any person the liberty to say whether he is male or female and require others to accept that declaration. He has the liberty to say it. But others have the liberty to reject it just as the white man had the liberty to reject the Black slave’s declaration.

But now there are some significant differences between the Black Slave’s self-identification and the homosexual self-identification:

Being black is not a sin nor is it against nature (unnatural)


Being a homosexual in lustful thought, word, and/or deed is a sin and unnatural


Being a slave master in the sense of American Slavery is sinful and unnatural


Legitimizing sin to include homosexuality practices is sinful and unnatural

Kennedy also writes: “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
Well, recognizing legitimate rights of Blacks and Women raised the dignity of humankind especially Blacks and Whites as well as the nation in general. Recognizing illegitimate rights and legalizing same sex marriage lowers the dignity of humankind and the nation in general.

The Supreme Court Justices who voted in favor of legalizing same sex marriage could have easily righteously interpreted the Constitution to support not legalizing same sex marriage. They simply had to do as Jesus teaches when he says: Love God first and foremost even above loving oneself and others (Matthew 22:34-40) and seek you first the kingdom of God and his righteousness…(Matthew 6:33).

America is in a state of flux regarding this matter. This means that the battle is still raging for both sides of the issue.
The nation is not only engulfed in continuing the fight against same sex marriage; but we also must fight to determine whether transgenders can unilaterally decide which bathroom (male or female) and similar facilities they will use. There is therefore a call for Christians to enjoin the battle. This battle is part of s long term spiritual war that is intensifying. Stand fast in the work of the Lord (I Cor. 15:58)!

Comments by National Leaders on Same Sex Marriage and Related Matters

The attitude which our national leaders take on the issue of same sex marriage matters. Their attitude matters because they have great influence on the population at large. These national leaders certainly have done great work in some areas. My purpose here is not to honor nor dishonor their overall performance. My purpose is to note their position on the same sex matter as ascertained at the time of this writing. They may have changed their mind to some degree or another. If so, it is their responsibility to make that clear so the public record is updated. Below is information on selected leaders and organizations.

National Baptist Convention USA, Inc. On Same Sex Marriage


Position Statements – Policy Statement and Guidelines to Chaplains Regarding Same-Gender Couples – January 24, 2014,
and A Statement on the Same-sex Marriage Issue, Voting and Christian Responsibility – June 21, 2012

Southern Baptist Convention On Same Sex Marriage

On “Same-Sex Marriage” And Civil Rights Rhetoric – 2012

On Same-Sex Marriage” – 2003

Resolutions Search

Progressive National Baptist Convention

No information regarding same sex marriage was found on the PNBC.

President Obama on Homosexuality

As noted on on the whitehouse.gov website, President Barack Obama honors and expressed pride regarding basketball player Jason Collins coming out gay. His comments are given below as an

Excerpt of President Obama News Conference – April 30, 2013.

The President had planned to conclude the conference but was asked and stopped to answer a final question which was concerning Jason Collins.

“Q Jason Collins? Do you want to say anything about it?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I’ll say something about Jason Collins. I had a chance to talk to him yesterday. He seems like a terrific young man. And I told him I couldn’t be prouder of him. One of the extraordinary measures of progress that we’ve seen in this country has been the recognition that the LGBT community deserves full equality — not just partial equality, not just tolerance, but a recognition that they’re fully a part of the American family.

And given the importance of sports in our society, for an individual who has excelled at the highest levels in one of the major sports to go ahead and say, this is who I am, I’m proud of it, I’m still a great competitor, I’m still seven foot tall and can bang with Shaq — (laughter) — and deliver a hard foul — and for I think a lot of young people out there who are gay or lesbian who are struggling with these issues, to see a role model like that who is unafraid, I think it’s a great thing.

And I think America should be proud that this is just one more step in this ongoing recognition that we treat everybody fairly, and everybody is part of a family, and we judge people on the basis of their character and their performance and not their sexual orientation. So I’m very proud

The video is available at Video of President Obama News Conference – April 30, 2013

Rev. Jesse Jackson on Same Sex Marriage

The Rainbow PUSH Coalition Applauds Prop 8 Ruling – February 8, 2012

Rev. Al Sharpton on Same Sex Marriage

Statement from Rev. Al Sharpton Regarding President Obama’s Support of Same-Sex Marriage
– May 9, 2012

NAACP on Same Sex Marriage


NAACP Passes Resolution in Support of Marriage Equality

NAACP Speaks Out for Marriage Equality

Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC)

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others founded SCLC. SCLC does not seem to have an official position on same sex marriage. However, my article entitled Same Sex Romantic Relationship (see below link) contains information concerning Rev. King’s viewpoint on the issue of homosexuality.

References.

Anyone who do not understand the homosexual community has a strategic satanic plan to attack the religious beliefs of law abiding citizens need only read the following article with both spiritual and intellectual honesty rather than a perverted emotionalism.

1. NY Farmers Fined $13K For Declining to Host a Same-Sex Marriage End Their Legal Fight



« (Previous News)
(Next News) »



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *