Abortion opinion has shifted in the past thirty years from majority approval or indifference to majority dissent because more Americans are aware that abortion kills a preborn baby. Technology has given us a window to the womb. Take a look at the GE 4D Ultrasound. The images are astounding. If the media ever tell the truth about homosexual behavior, public opinion will change. Homosexuals know this, so they are working overtime to get laws on the books that will eventually negate any later shift in public opinion.
Stephen Hendricks, vice president of PRIDE, a Montana homosexual “rights” advocacy group, has argued for homosexual marriage for some time. His latest entry was published on January 9, 2009 in celebration of “National Freedom to Marry Day.” He writes: “Fortunately, prejudice is starting to [crumble]. Polls show 75 percent of Americans think gay marriages will eventually be legal. About a third want it to happen, a third don’t and another third don’t care. (Among college students, three in five think gays should be able to wed.)” The reason there has been a shift in opinion is because the mainstream media refuse to define and describe what homosexuality actually is as a lifestyle. The euphemism “gay,” like the use of “pro-choice” for killing pre-born babies, masks what homosexuality really is. It doesn’t take long to get young people to reject homosexual behavior. I’ve accomplished it in less than 15 seconds. Aversion to abortion, the holocaust, and lynching are made more real when people see the images of the behavior or hear them described as defined.
Hendricks attempts to refute anti-homosexual arguments. Most of them are standard-issue in the homosexual community. Here are some of them with my rebuttal:
Anti-Homosexual Claim 1: “Marriage has always been the way it is; you can’t change it just to fit the times.”
Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “Gay marriage is perfectly in keeping with the evolving nature of the institution. Once blacks couldn’t marry whites, Jews couldn’t marry Christians and wives were property of husbands. Such features changed as notions of equality did.”
Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: Notice that Hendricks assumes the validity of marriage. Why is marriage legitimate in the first place? He never says. He must assume the biblical origin of marriage in order to reject it. Hendricks borrows the biblical institution of marriage to deny the biblical definition of marriage. Animals don’t marry; they only mate. So why should the human animal be bound by such outdated religious restraints? If you’re going to use the word “marriage,” it’s necessary that you account for its origin. Hendricks doesn’t; he can’t unless he appeals to the Bible’s creation story.
Hendricks then moves on by discussing the “evolving nature of the institution.” Of course, if evolution is true, then he’s right. Marriage can be anything we want it to be. But if we begin with the biblical origin of marriage, then there’s nothing evolutionary about it: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4–6). In biblical terms, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. There’s nothing in the Bible that says blacks can’t marry whites. Marriage prohibitions were based on ethics and religious affiliation not ethnic or racial considerations: “Shall we again break Thy commandments and intermarry with the peoples who commit these abominations?” (Ezra 9:14). Paul states it like this:
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? (2 Cor. 6:14–15).
There are no biblical laws that state it’s a crime for Christians and Jews to marry. If such laws exist, it’s only because man has created them. In some cultures, wives are considered property, but not in the Bible where the definition of marriage is found. If, as Hendricks says, marriage is an evolving institution, then what would make any of these man-made prohibitions wrong?
Anti-Homosexual Claim 2: “Homosexuality is immoral; the Bible condemns it.”
Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “In the Bible, the book of Leviticus does say gays should be killed. But the Bible would also have us kill women who have premarital sex and men who masturbate, and it forbids tattoos, working on Sunday, eating shrimp and playing with pigskin (in other words, football). With good reason, America is a democracy not a theocracy.”
Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: This is a loaded one. I’ll start from the bottom and work my way up. America is a republic not a democracy. If America were a democracy, then if 51% of the people wanted to prohibit homosexual marriage, then homosexuals would have to live with the democratic consensus, like the vote against homosexual marriage in California! But, of course, we know the homosexual community didn’t go along with the voice of the people. They intimidated those who supported Proposition 8 and have turned to the courts to overrule the vote of the majority. It’s the homosexual minority that believes in a theocracy, a theocracy where man is god. This was much in evidence at this year’s Miss USA Pageant where Miss California stated that she did not believe homosexual marriage was right. One of the judges, a flaming homosexual named Perez Hilton, stated that Carrie Prejean most likely lost the crown because of her heresy. She had blasphemed.
Footballs are not made from pigskin, and even if they were, only religious observant Jews might be prohibited from handling the ball. There are no civil sanctions against handling pigs or their skin. The prohibition against eating shrimp is also religious and does not carry civil sanctions. The Bible does prohibit work on the Sabbath and the Constitution acknowledges this (Art. I, sec. 7). Sandy Koufax made the personal decision not to pitch in Game 1 of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur. I don’t see how the Sabbath an argument against the Bible since the Bible also prohibits murder, rape, incest, bestiality, kidnapping, theft, perjury, and other acts that remain on our law books. Would homosexuals call for these laws to be rescinded in order to normalize sodomy? Given an evolutionary worldview, none of today’s crimes should be considered unlawful.
Tattooing the body is prohibited, but again, there are no civil sanctions against it (Lev. 19:28). There is no death penalty for masturbation. Onan was struck down by God because of defiance (Gen. 38:8–9). The issue of premarital sex is more complicated. It’s more accurate to say that a betrothed person who engages in premarital sex could be executed if found guilty in a court of law. Joseph did not intend to claim this right (Matt. 1:19). By this law, the Bible certainly means that adultery is a serious act that has larger social ramifications. Contrary to what Hendricks claims, the Bible does not say “gays should be killed.” Public acts of sodomy are condemned with civil sanctions (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:18–32). The main purpose of these laws is to keep homosexuality closeted.
Anti-Homosexual Claim 3: “Gay Marriage doesn’t lead to children, the purpose of marriage.”
Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “Wrong on both counts. States give marriage licenses to straight couples who don’t or can’t procreate. And like many straight couples, gays raise children thanks to adoption or sperm donors.”
Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: The State does not know whether heterosexual couples can or can’t procreate. The question is never asked. The State does know that homosexuals who engage in same-sex sex will never be able to conceive. Hendricks is equivocating in the way he uses “lead to children.” It’s a biological fact that homosexual sex will never lead to children. (I have a great line for this truth that I can’t put in print.) Given what we know about male and female anatomy, the vast majority of heterosexual couples will be able to conceive and have children. Men and women are anatomically suited to procreate. They were made that way by God. The fact that homosexuals have to use extraordinary means in every case to make children a part of their manufactured family—artificial insemination—is good evidence that there is something biologically wrong with homosexual marriages.
If a child keeps hammering a square peg into a round hole after he’s been shown that the round peg goes into the round hole, we must assume that his intellectual abilities are somewhat diminished. Does it ever register with homosexuals that maybe God is telling them something when they get life-threatening diseases because of their sexual practices and can have no children no matter how hard they try? Like Dr. Frankenstein, homosexuals take God’s design of marriage and manufacture an artificial monster from its parts.
Anti-Homosexual Claim 4: “If gays marry, next people will want to marry horses or children.”
Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “The equine argument is a Montana favorite, as it was for foes of interracial marriage. But marriage gay or straight is a contract between two consenting adults. Nobody proposes changing this.”
Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: No one right now proposes changing this like no one 20 years ago thought there would be any consideration of homosexual marriages today. Homosexual groups have been trying to lower the age of consent. If your son or daughter can marry at the age of fifteen or sixteen, then what will stop homosexual marriages of the same age? The definition of consenting adult can change. “Consenting adult” would also include the marriage of sister and brother, mother and daughter, father and daughter, father and son, and any other combination you don’t want to think about (1 Cor. 5:1).
If homosexual marriage is based on the evolving nature of the institution and the free-will consent of adults, then what arguments will be used against bigamy and polygamy? Once homosexual marriages are sanctioned by law, anything goes. Yes, even the marriage of horses (most likely dogs) and children will not seem out of the realm of possibilities. A woman from San Francisco (surprise) with an “object fetish” married the Eiffel Tower. We don’t know if the tower consented. “Objectum-sexuals are people who fall in love with inanimate objects, like building, cars, and Hammond organs. And I don’t mean appreciation of good design, I mean l-o-v-e.” Then there’s Armin Meiwes who advertised on the Internet for someone willing to be killed and eaten. The relationship was consensual and sexual, “a contract between two consenting adults.” Should the courts legalize such behavior even if non-cannibals don’t agree with the relationship?
Anti-Homosexual Claim 5: “Gay sex is disgusting.”
Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “So are, to many people, some ‘straight’ sex acts. It’s not the state’s job to intrude in the bedrooms of consenting adults.”
Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: Yes, homosexual sex is disgusting and dangerous. The fact that some heterosexuals might engage in similar practices does not make them right. Furthermore, no one I know is proposing that the bedroom should be open for police to inspect, for heterosexuals or homosexuals. If homosexuals practiced their perversion only behind closed doors, few people would object. God will ultimately judge them. Homosexuals aren’t content with only having the bedroom. They have taken their perversion into the classrooms, teaching that such practices are normal. There is nothing normal about what homosexuals do.
Anti-Homosexual Claim 6: “You can’t force a church to marry gays.”
Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “True, but irrelevant. Gays are asking for state-issued licenses. Religions will remain as free to ban gay weddings as they are to ban women ministers.”
Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: Maybe right now. The way “hate crime” legislation is moving, churches may find it difficult in the near future to say anything critical of homosexuality in general. In a December 11, 2002 decision, a judge in Saskatchewan, Canada, has ruled that a man who placed Bible verses about homosexuality in a newspaper ad was guilty of inciting hatred. What will happen when a minister refuses to marry homosexuals who have joined the church in an attempt to test the limits of hate crime legislation? Could a church lose its tax-exempt status? Could litigation costs bankrupt a small congregation and set a legal precedent for larger churches? If you want to know what the future will be like if homosexuals get their way, then read When the Wicked Seize a City by Chuck and Donna McIlhenny. The church’s baptism of fire began when their church was sued by their church organist who had been fired after it was discovered that he was a practicing homosexual. The homosexual movement is about intimidation.
The American Vision on Facebook
Anti-Homosexual Claim 7: “Why do gays need to marry anyway?”
Rebuttal by Hendricks: “Many basic rights and protections are conferred by marriage, like the rights to visit a hospitalized partner, receive family health benefits and inherit a partner’s property.”
Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: Property can be passed on to anyone. You don’t have to be married to inherit. In fact, you don’t have to be a human being to inherit. Foundations, charities, and schools receive millions of dollars every year through inheritance clauses in wills. Even pets can inherit. Fundamentally, marriage is not about certain economic rights and protections. Redefining the family and the nature of marriage for economic and personal reasons is off the mark and falls outside the jurisdiction of the State.
Hendricks is counting on the majority of Americans not being able to think clearly on this topic. The fact that he is willing to have his own poorly reasoned arguments published only goes to show how gullible and unthinking he considers most Americans to be on this topic. And maybe they are. Only time and the law will tell.