Chuck Colson’s BreakPoint commentary today points out an important truth about marriage which homosexual activists desperately hope the public at large doesn’t find out about.
The entire homosexual agenda is based upon the hope that the central facts about homosexual behavior can be hidden from society at large. Homosexual activists have difficulty grappling with and accepting reality, but they are smart enough to realize that if people knew the real world of homosexual behavior, their agenda would be dead on arrival.
Success for the homosexual agenda depends on normal members of society not stopping to realize that homosexual behavior isn’t normal at all. That’s why homosexuals try to inflate the number of people who are afflicted by this disorientation, often claiming 10% or more of the population is homosexual when a survey conducted by Hunter College a couple of years ago at the behest of the pro-homosexual organization Human Rights Campaign found that only 2.9% of the population is homosexual. “Normal,” according to the dictionary, means “according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle” or “conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern.” Anything comprised of only 2.9% of the whole cannot rationally be said to be normal or conforming to the norm.
It also helps the homosexual agenda when people fail to realize that using our sex organs in a homosexual fashion isn’t natural or scientific at all. One need only look at the physical design of the male and female sex organs to realize they were designed to be used in a heterosexual fashion; even kindergarteners can figure out which piece of a given puzzle fits with the other part. When one considers a number of other scientific and biological facts about the complimentary manner in which they function together, this truth only becomes more compelling. When you remember that heterosexual behavior is the only sexual behavior behavior that produces a scientifically legitimate result (i.e. reproduction), the case really is clear: homosexual behavior is contrary to nature and science.
Homosexual activists hope that enough people out there will be completely unfamiliar with the doctrine of their own religion that they can successfully pass off the lie that homosexual behavior is moral and that God approves of this behavior. Of course, it doesn’t take a whole lot of research to realize that the doctrine of every major religion condemns this behavior as immoral, as a perversion of God’s design for human sexuality. The Christian Scriptures are plain in both Old and New Testaments that God disapproves of homosexual behavior and considers it a sin that can separate us from Him eternally.
The incredible health risks associated with homosexual behavior is another one of those inconvenient realities which homosexual activists and their apologists hope the public will not realize. Interestingly, the information is available in spades. Our own Centers for Disease Control has the information that homosexual behavior is 50 times higher among homosexual men than the general population. The same CDC has data which shows 72% of new male AIDS cases are associated with homosexual behavior–72% from a segment of the population comprising less than 2.9%! It is easy to see why a federal panel recently determined–despite the public whitewash over homosexual behavior–that the ban on blood donations by homosexuals should remain in place. Homosexual behavior also leads to escalated risk of other sexually transmitted diseases, anal cancer, hepatitis, staph infection, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence. Homosexual behavior can be very deadly. Any behavior this dangerous is something we should be warning the public about, not pretending is okay.
Homosexual activists also don’t want anyone to realize that this is a behavior, one that can be changed. If they can fool people into believing that homosexuals are born that way (despite any evidence whatsoever to back up their assertions, even after decades of fruitless searching for a “gay gene” or other behavioral study to indicate this behavior is beyond their control), then they consider themselves liberated from the responsibility for correcting their own immoral and self-destructive behavior. Drunks are not, drug users are not, liars and thieves are not…but homosexuals are supposed to get a free pass on their immoral behavior. Unfortunately for the activists, homosexuals have been changing their behavior for thousands of years, and homosexual continue today to break free of this dangerous lifestyle. Homosexuals can change if they want to change; if they don’t want to, they won’t change.
Critical to the homosexual agenda to counterfeit marriage is the assumption that any combination of people can come together to form a marriage. The science aside that indicates only a man and a woman are capable of joining their bodies together to form a marriage, as well as create the next generation of society for which societies recognize the institution of marriage, it is clear that there is no legal basis whatsoever for considering a homosexual union to be a real marriage. “Because I want to” or “because I feel like it” do not constitute a rational or legal basis. Simple, practical common sense also affirms this, as does the importance that marriage be preserved for the developing children who do desperately depend on the stable environment that only a marriage can provide. Marriage is about the family and the children, not about you and me and sexual fulfillment or a feeling of legitimacy.
There is not even a rational or legal basis for official recognition of homosexual unions, even as a facsimile or imitation of marriage. Yes, the two homosexuals may be engaging in sexual behavior. So what? Two heterosexuals engaging in sexual behavior is no rational or legal basis for calling them “married.” Yes, the two homosexuals might even genuinely love each other. So what? I loved a couple of women before I met my wife but we weren’t married because we lacked one of the several key requirements for marriage: no commitment of lifelong sexual and emotional fealty to one another. Two people having sex together does nothing useful for society. Two people loving each other does nothing useful for society. Two homosexuals having sex–in love or in lust–really does nothing for society. It doesn’t even honor the primary model of marriage and point to it as the standard as even childless marriages do. How does society benefit from one man sticking his penis in another man’s anus, or from one woman having oral sex with another woman? Answer: it doesn’t.
But back to Chuck Colson’s commentary, which is simply one more (but very important, nevertheless) truth about his debate.
The primary purpose for marriage is for a man and a woman to come together in a committed relationship to create and raise a family. If two people want to have sex with one another, they can do that without being married. If two people want to screw and screw each other exclusively, they can do that without trying to call their relationship “marriage.” Nevertheless, sexual fidelity is essential to the union of marriage.
As I mentioned previously, stability is critical to the healthy development of the children within that family. In order for there to be stability in a family, the husband and wife must be sexually faithful to one another. In other words, they must be monogamous, without expending their energies and emotions on an outside person, and without bringing outsiders into the close-knit unit of the family.
Unfortunately for the agenda of homosexual activists, monogamy is almost nonexistent in the homosexual community. It isn’t just me that’s saying this. A homosexual doctor recently wrote about the “gay party male” and the predilection of homosexuals to live dangerously and have lots of sexual partners. This has also been reported in Psychology Today, as well as a recent study by Colleen Hoff at the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University which found a staggering number of homosexuals who claim on one hand to be in “monogamous” relationships while on the other hand admitting to regular sexual liaisons with people outside their supposedly committed relationship. This dichotomy stems from the (all too characteristic) tendency of the homosexual community to “redefine” monogamy to mean whatever they want it to mean (e.g. if I tell my partner about my outside sexual encounters, that’s still “monogamy”).
Colson’s commentary is about this disturbing lack of monogamy in the homosexual community, and he cites an article from the New York Times entitled “Married, With Infidelities.” Interestingly, infidelity is one of the few reasons authorized by God for divorce. Therefore, the case can easily be made that if there is infidelity, there is no real marriage–certainly not without a sincere commitment to end said infidelities. A fundamental requirement for marriage is sexual fealty between the husband and wife. Without it, you have nothing but playing house and/or the occasional boffing session.
Words mean things. Words are the intellectual currency by which we exchange ideas and transmit meaning. There is no reason for sane, rational people to induldge anyone who wants to call a cat a “pidgeon,” a car a “shoebox,” an uncle a “mother,” an insurance salesman a “cement mixer,” sexual promiscuity “monogamy,” or a homosexual coupling a “marriage.” Redefining terms and thus counterfeiting them–especially for important concepts–cheats everyone.
Fortunately, while there is still too much infidelity in real marriages today, it isn’t nearly as bad as pop culture would have you believe. Says Colson:
86 percent of married women and 80 percent of married men have kept their vows. That suggests that the problem may lie with the 14 and 20 percent, not our expectations.
There is one group, as the article acknowledges, where monogamy is neither expected nor practiced: “the sizable group of gay men in open, or [semi-open], long-term partnerships.”
If you aren’t going to be monogamous (truly monogamous), you have no business undermining the institution of marriage with your irresponsible, self-centered behavior. Marriage is reserved for people who mean it, and are committed to providing something useful to society rather than leeching off society what they can get from it.
Sorry, while it’s true that heterosexuals have done a poor job of maintaining the sanctity of marriage with no-fault divorce and premarital sex, this is no reason to throw gasoline on the fire and try to finish off this important institution.
Rather, we should put our foot down and stop allowing homosexual activists anywhere to counterfeit this vital institution. Then we get our act together by ending no-fault divorce and teaching our young people (and older ones) to be sexually responsible and show some respect for the awesome power of human sexuality.
Some irresponsibility has never been a good argument in favor of even more irresponsibility.