Homosexuality & the laws of moral physics

ONE NEWS NOW [American Family News Network] - By Matt Barber - February 4, 2009 It makes front page news when conservative elected officials are accused of selling-out to monolithic corporate lobbies like "Big Oil" or "Big Tobacco." Yet the media rarely take notice when liberal politicians toe the line for extreme ideological special interests. Case in point: Within minutes after swearing in, President Obama had the White House website updated to declare his unconditional support for every demand of the politically powerful and very well-funded homosexual lobby (a.k.a., "Big Homo"). By announcing to the world his pro-"gay" agenda, Obama has thrown gasoline on smoldering culture war embers, generating a firestorm of controversy. But amid the heated national debate over both religious liberty versus newfangled "gay rights" and the sanctity of natural marriage versus so-called "same-sex marriage," something occurred to me. Either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality -- period. I know -- pretty black and white, right? Evangelical Christians are habitually accused by the left of being too "black or white" on most of the highly polarizing moral issues which affect public policy and shape our larger culture. And so, in an effort to marginalize the so-called "religious right" and diminish its influence in society, evangelicals are pejoratively stamped "fundamentalist" by those who fancy themselves among the enlightened and view the world, instead, through delightfully murky and accountability-free shades of gray. But despite the best efforts of "gay" activists, secular humanists, and religious leftists to muddy the moral waters, absolute truth -- like a nautical buoy pulled below with rotting rope -- has a way of heaving to the surface with a profound splash once the tenuous line snaps. It's a matter of moral physics. Of course, "fundamental" simply means "basic" or "important." Hardly negative features from where I stand. In fact, it really is fundamental, isn't it? I mean, either the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, as maintained throughout both the Old and New Testaments, or it's just a nifty old text full of creative tales and loose philosophies no more relevant to our daily lives than a Tony Robbins self-help book. If it's the latter, then today's liberal elites have it right. The Bible should be taken with a grain of salt, enjoyed simply for its literary and historical value, or ignored altogether. However, if it's the former -- if the Bible really is the inerrant, inspired Word of God as it purports to be -- then wouldn't it be in the best interest of every man, woman and child to pay close attention to what it has to say? Shouldn't we make every effort to live life according to its express principles for our own sake and for the sake of others? So, what does the Bible have to say about human sexuality? Specifically, what does Scripture say about homosexuality? Again, it's fundamental. Homosexual behavior, like adultery, fornication, incest and bestiality is, under no uncertain terms, classified as sexual immorality in both the Old and New Testaments. The historical and biblical records are unequivocal. In order to reach a contrary conclusion, people like President Obama, who rationalize that the Bible somehow affirms homosexual behavior -- or at least remains neutral on the subject -- are forced to cast aside any pretense of intellectual honesty and engage in gold-medal mental gymnastics. So, for the sake of national unity, let's clear up any confusion about marriage and sexual immorality once and for all, shall we? And afterward, I expect all you leftists who've been badmouthing us "fundamentalists" to apologize, 'kay? First of all it was God, not Jerry Falwell, who both created and defined the institution of marriage. Conversely, it's pro-homosexual extremists who wish to radically redefine it. In fact, Christ, in His own words, reaffirmed the true definition of marriage, saying, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6 NIV). Evidently, Christ failed to clear His marriage definition with Barack Obama and Big Homo. Notice that -- rather conspicuously -- He did not say: "At the beginning the Creator made them gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT). For this reason a male, female or shemale will leave his, her or whatchahoozie's father and mother, father and father or mother and mother and be united to his or her wife -- and/or husband -- and the two or more will become one flesh. Not that there's anything wrong with that." Despite fairly successful attempts by self-described "gay" activists to equate behaviorally driven "gayness" to immutable and neutrally defined qualities such as race and gender, the reality is that being "gay" has absolutely nothing to do with what someone is, and has everything to do with what someone does. It's all about feelings and behaviors. Behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology have universally rejected as both immoral and destructive. Just a few examples: Leviticus 18:22 commands us, rather unambiguously, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Romans 1:26-27 warns, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Christ's Apostle Paul rhetorically asked in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Fortunately, as untold thousands of ex-"gays" can attest, God's Word also offers hope and freedom from the homosexual lifestyle. 1 Corinthians 6:11, says, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." To the delight of truth seekers -- and to the consternation of "gay" activists everywhere -- the mere existence of ex-"gays" brings the biologically incongruous and politically motivated "born that way" house of cards crashing down. It further undermines Big Homo's already frail justification for demanding special rights based on aberrant sexual behaviors. That's why ex-"gays" are so hated by the left and so viciously maligned by homosexual activists. So, again, President Obama, as a self-professed Christian, needs to be reminded that either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality. If the homosexual lifestyle is just another "sexual orientation," then what possible justification can there be for opposing other biblically condemned "sexual orientations" like fornication, adultery, polygamy, incest, pedophilia or bestiality? If one is moral, all are moral. Then again, if one is immoral, all are immoral. This means that "gay affirming" churches, which engage in what I call "a la carte Christianity" (take what you like, leave what you don't) are really just "sin affirming" churches. And "gay friendly" politicians, like Barack Obama, who push an anti-Christian homosexual agenda, are really just "immorality friendly" politicians. It really is that black and white -- that fundamental. We're either with God on sexual morality, or against Him. We just can't have it both ways. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=408758 FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.