Introduction
Homosexual as a word was coined in order to deflect attention from the word of the time that was used, which was “sodomite.” The advocates of sodomy realized that they needed to move from the verb “sodomy,” which drew attention to the act to a noun like “Homosexual,” and later, “gay” which moved ones attention from the act itself to the identity of the person.
So, the word “Homosexual” was latched upon to divert attention away from the dirtiness of the act. Eventually “homosexual” had to give way to “gay” for the same reason that the word “sodomite” gave way to the word “Homosexual.” Now even the word “gay” has become dirty and so other terms are being sought out.
Notice here the language. New worldviews can be spotted by the way the language is changed or manipulated.
I.) Note that there is five stages by which a culture can be forced to accept deviance
a.) Tolerance of deviance
Here what is pushed is the virtue of tolerance. We might not approve of something ourselves but we are “big enough” to allow deviants in our midst. The purpose of tolerance is almost always to serve as means by which to buy time until that which is being tolerated is strong enough to force the toleristas to the next stage.
One way that a deviant behavior is normalized is by talking about it ad-nauseum. The advocates of deviance bring it up without fail. In the case of sodomy, the love that once dare not speak its name now won’t shut the hell up.
This reminds of Pope’s poetry,
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
Alexander Pope
b.) Acceptance of deviance
In this stage the toleristas not only ask for toleration but also of acceptance. This is the demand to come out of the closet and be accepted in families, churches, employment, etc. This is the stage where the societal taboo of the behavior is removed so that the deviance is seen as odd but not repulsive.
A great means to accomplish this is the usage of the sentimental story. Sentimentalism is told in order to demonstrate how mean and cold hearted are those who can’t be sympathetic to those who want to normalize sodomy.
There is seldom appreciation for how the mainlining of behavior that is associated with disease, drastically reduced mortality rates, and Man boy love is hateful towards people.
c.) Celebration of deviance
“Gay” parades anyone?
Rainbow ribbon day
d.) forced embracing of deviance
Those who once asked to be tolerated in their perversity are now told that if they will not embrace the deviant as normal they will not be tolerated themselves. Those deviants once in the closet, have gone from tolerated to being those who are shoving those who object into the closet. Having gained the ascendancy they will not tolerate those who object to the destructive character of their behavior.
e.) Punishment for those who oppose deviance.
Economic opportunities are cut off from those who object. Finally, “Hate laws” are passed. The sodomites have come out of the closet and the Christians are the ones pushed into the closet.
II.) The Alternative to Marriage?
A.) The New Definition of Marriage
According to Lawyer Ted Olson, the Supreme Court has said Fourteen times that “marriage is a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.”
By SCOTUS’s own definition twin brothers could marry each other since twin brothers could love one another and desire privacy, association, liberty and being with the person thy love etc. Indeed, by SCOTUS’ definition Incest no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage. By SCOTUS’s own definition a Pedophile should be allowed to marry his child little boy lover since even in that situation “marriage would be a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.” Indeed, by SCOTUS’s own definition of Marriage Pedophilia no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage.
B.) The New Definition of Marriage — By What Standard?
We would also ask the SCOTUS, “By what standard or authority does SCOTUS dare restrict marriage to just one person that someone might love”? By what standard or authority does SCOTUS dare suggest that multiple marriage partners don’t likewise desire to be married in the context of privacy, association, liberty?” SCOTUS must answer the basis of authority by which they limit marriage the way that they do.
What we are seeing now is the replacing of the previous Transcendent Authority for the definition of marriage to the new standard of consensuality among two or more people who have secured the power of the State to support their perversity.
Unelected judges, all over the nation, by legalizing sodomite marriage, in essence, have changed the definition of marriage merely according to their fiat word. They are attempting to legislate reality from the Bench. This is social engineering at its best. Human beings are treated as malleable and can be changed in any way the God State desires to change them.
We really should not be too surprised at this. Any people who allowed their judges to redefine life (Roe vs. Wade) were eventually likewise going to seek to redefine all of reality including marriage.
Via this Judicial malfeasance, unelected Judges have sent “the public a message from the God-State” that natural and traditional families are no different or unique than any other human arrangement and that the family as defined from a Transcendent authority, are not to be preferred over and above disordered non-families. Further, this criminal malfeasance by Judicial diktat has pronounced that any consensual relationship between two or more people, regardless of gender, based on the way those people feel about one another, ought to be called “marriage.” The God State, acting in a supremely religious capacity, has declared war upon and against the legislative authority of nature and nature’s God.
Criminal Judges have pushed aside the complementarity of men and women in favor of whatever “feels” right. Marriages are no longer rooted in a transcendent Authority, biology and human nature, and if there is no transcendent Authority by which to objectively define and identify marriage then marriage is open to any immanent authority’s definition of marriage as long as that immanent authority has the power of the Tyrant State behind it to forcefully implement it’s new subjective fiat definition of marriage.
In short the State can no more redefine marriage, sex, and family, any more then it can turn the moon into Green cheese. All because the Civil realm calls disorder, sin, and perversity, “order,” “righteousness,” and “normalcy” that does not make it so.
C.) Marriage and Children
There was a time when it was understood that one of the prime purposes, if not the prime purpose of Marriage, was the fostering, bearing, and raising of children. Here is the language from one Church’s reading for Marriage,
“Marriage was established to extend the human race, to advance the kingdom of God, and to enrich the lives of those entering this state. To fulfill these purposes, a husband and wife must be lovingly devoted to each other, sharing responsibility for the nurture of the children the Lord may give them as his heritage and as parties to his covenant.”
The possibility of bringing children into the world and raising them is now longer unique to marriage. Because children have been divorced from their mom and dad, marriage is no longer about permanent relationships between a man and a woman for the sake of their children and each other. It is only about how spouses feel about each other.
Such an attitude reduces marriage to one of convenience.
Now, there is no doubt that the children of heterosexual marriage have longed suffered from the instability of impermanent marriages. The ironic thing here is that it is the same worldview that weakened heterosexual marriages is now the worldview that is offering sodomite coupling as being normal for children.
However, all statistics indicate that sodomite and lesbian marriages are famously unstable.
A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[1]
In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[2]
In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[3]
As such, just as our social order, worked unto the destroying of children’s lives via the liberalization of Divorce laws in the 60’s-70’s so it is once again seeking to cause judicially innocent children to suffer its folly by creating sodomite families.
It should be noted here that the destruction of the family serves the interest of the God state. The God state is more secure the less competition it has. Strong family structure is a threat to the God state because it offers a different location for loyalty other than the God state. As such the God state has an interest in working to create weak family structures.
It would not be difficult to conclude given the trajectory of family law and tax law over the last 50 years that the goal of the law has been to destroy the traditional family. If one looks at the early history of Marxist Russia one can see parallels between the way they initially deconstructed family and the way we are currently deconstructing family.
State sanctioned Sodomite buggery (called “marriage”) is but another brick in that wall of destroying the notion of the Christian family. Sodomite marriage is not about creating more family. Sodomite marriage is about destroying the historic family.
Conclusion
Sodomy is an attack on
A.) The emotional and psychic integrated individual
Believe it or not the American Psychiatric association still labels Homosexuality as disordered. The LGBT individual is not right mentally. The very fact that they have the position on LGBT issues they have is proof that they are not well integrated in their character and personality.
B.) The Family
C.) The Nation
Most Importantly… GOD
We have not said much in this lecture about the centrality of God in all this. We have not done so because we don’t want people to think that somehow this is only an issue that religious people should be concerned about. However, at the end of the day this debate is all about what kind of God will we, as a people bow before? Will we bow before the Tyrant God state which is trying to create reality for us by its fiat legislation and Judicial decision or will we be a people who bow before the God of the Bible who spoke creation and reality into existence by His divine Word.
This debate is a debate between worldviews. Will Man be sovereign or will God be sovereign. Will man dictate reality by his fiat word or will God dictate reality by his fiat word. Will we bow to what God has done by deciding to give Eve to Adam for procreation or will we insist that we no better than God when we match people with the same reproductive organs in a complete redefinition of marriage.
1. Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.
2. M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality,” in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985): 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991): 124, 125.
3. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973): 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, “Understanding Lesbian Relationships,” in Homosexuality:Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
Very profitable read! Thank you.