Homosexual community, gay marriage, sexual and family valuesWhy Are There Homosexuals? There are, of course, many psychological and physiological factors that would contribute to aboy’s orienting and identifying himself with homosexuality. There is no direct scientific evidence that homosexuality is inherited although some studieshave so indicated. These studies, upon closer investigation, have been refuted as being flawed. Sothe controversy rages with a lack of conclusive evidence. However, studies have shown there is arelationship, in male homosexuality, with a boy’s relationship with his parents, and in particular,his father, before the boy became a homosexual. When the boy feels that his father is rejectinghim in some way, either outright or by psychological distancing, he fails to identify his own gender.The same holds true when there is no father in the family during the boy’s formative years. Thissense of rejection by father and/or son is usually a mutual one, accompanied by a sense ofhelplessness by both parties. The lack of a healthy relationship of a boy with his father is a strong factor and can’t beignored. This leaves a boy lacking a male role model with which he can identify and as this sense oflack works out in his life as he grows, he seeks a bonding with another male which takes adifferent, physical and sexual bonding. Studies on young girls who become lesbians seem to be lacking in qualitative depth as moststudies on the subject draw their conclusions based upon studies of male homosexuals.Societal Values And Homosexuality There are a whole range of emotions displayed when the subject of “gay marriages” comesup. There are violent arguments for and against such a legal union. What is it about this subject that draws such vicious attacks and such vicious defense? Some people find homosexuality personally offensive to them. Some state moral and ethicalcodes which should be considered. Some say that the societal values have always reflected thefact that marriage is a union that can only be consummated by a man and a woman. There are varying definitions and descriptions of what a homosexual is, what a lesbian is andwhat the term “gay” means. Then there’s the subject of bisexuality. It’s difficult to realisticallyutilize these differing terms without arousing a variety of emotions. In this article I’ll take the “societal impact and value” approach and attempt to discuss it.When we mix our personal moral and theological values with the subject of “gay people” there isan emotional steam that arises and fogs our decision glasses to such a degree that we can’t evensee the pot from which it came.
In the broadest overview, if we push heterosexual relationships and marriage to an extreme inour societal values and totally exclude homosexuality from our consideration we can easily see theresults of such an exclusionary societal value and practice. In this heterosexual extreme, men andwoman cohabitate and/or marry with a consequent percentage of babies being born. Societycontinues with the population dying in their old age, but with new babies being born to take theplace of older retired and dying citizens. There are a lot of peripheral issues that could bediscussed here, but are not within the scope of this discussion. In this broad imaginary overview, if we now push homosexual relationships and marriage toan extreme in our societal values and totally exclude heterosexuality from our consideration wecan easily see the results of such an exclusionary societal value and practice. In this homosexualextreme, men cohabitating and/or marrying men, or women cohabitating and/or marrying womenthere would be few, if any, babies born. Any babies from such a union would have to automaticallyeither include adultery with a partner of the opposite sex to impregnate a woman, or artificialinsemination. Society would also continue with the population dying in their old age, but with few,if any, babies being born to take the place of older retired and dying citizens. There are also a lotof peripheral issues that could be discussed here, but are not within the scope of this discussion. Ifa true exclusively homosexual/lesbian cohabitation and/or marriage were practiced, there wouldbe no babies being born and within 100 years there would be no human beings left on this earth. Scary, huh? The next societal value to look at is the working dynamics of a marriage. Marriage between aman and a woman involves union in sexual intercourse, which is an important expression ofmutual love and also continues to keep our planet populated by the attendant pregnancy andmotherhood which accompanies such a union. Unfortunately, there is a problem in our currentsociety in that abortion of these babies has become an item of convenience for irresponsiblepersons who don’t understand that real “choice” must be made before engaging in sexualintercourse, not after they have become pregnant. This has had a tremendous effect upon oursociety and economy, but again, that subject is not within the scope of this article. Heterosexual sexual intercourse continues the cycle of humanity on this earth. This expressionof mutual love by a man and a woman serves a biological function to create new life. With thearrival of the new baby, a family, i.e., a male husband and a female wife, is then redefined as“baby makes three.” As more babies are born to the married male husband and female wife, thefamily becomes larger. In time the children of this union also marry and continue the procreationprocess by expressions of love. With more time, there is built up a familial unit of mother andfather, grandsons and granddaughters, great-grandsons and daughters, uncles, aunts, cousins,birthday celebrations, graduation ceremonies, recognition of wedding anniversaries,establishment of family traditions and etc. Moral and ethical values will have been formed andredefined and refined and practiced—all built around the mutual love, protection, safety anddesirability of the family unit. These values will be incorporated into the cultural values of thecontemporary society in which these families live.
This is all very basic, isn’t it? In the sexual union of men and men and women and women, there is no such biologicalfunction available. There is no life in such a union, only sensual pleasure. The cycle of continuinghumanity doesn’t exist. There is no baby, there is no larger family with moral and ethical valuesbeing formed, redefined, refined and practiced. There is nothing to contribute to the culturalvalues of the contemporary society in which these people (not a family) live. Again, this is all very basic, isn’t it? In order to have a baby, adultery and/or fornication may be resorted to. This is not anaddition to cultural values, it negates value. Artificial insemination may be utilized, which Iunderstand is not really a very loving physical act in itself. Only with a marriage between a manand a woman can artificial insemination be a source for true loving acts. At this point we have to ask ourselves what we really want as societal values, don’t we?Society’s approval of a moment of sexual sensual pleasure for its own sake? Is this a loving actbetween two men—or between two women? Is there really any purpose in this practice otherthan pure selfishness? There is obviously no value to morality, ethics or societal values, is there?There is no value in perpetuating the human race is there?Just The Facts ... On Homosexual Households The Family Research Council poses the question: “Are homosexual households ... simplyanother variant of human relationships that should be considered, along with marriage, as “part ofmainstream American society?”” The Family Research Council has compiled statistics from the National Center for HealthStatistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Census Bureau, Gay/Lesbian ConsumerOnline Census, U.S. Department of Justice, General Social Survey, the National Health and SocialLife Survey, statistics from the state of Vermont and Sweden (where civil unions of homosexualsare legal), and the Netherlands (where "gay marriage" is legal), and various sociological anddemographic studies. I urge you to visit their web page entitled “Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples toMarried Couples,” by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D. There you will find the article complete withreference material substantiating what I’m quoting here from that page. The Family Research Council states that “... the evidence indicates that “committed”homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:” “relationship duration” “monogamy vs. promiscuity” “relationship commitment”
“number of children being raised” “health risks” “rates of intimate partner violence” * relationship duration Male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most heterosexualmarriages and few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in heterosexualmarriages. A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found thatthe “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years. * monogamy vs. promiscuity: sexual partners outside of the relationship Their research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds to thousands of sexpartners in his lifetime. Homosexual relationships ascribe a radically different meaning to“committed” or “monogamous.” Many self-described ‘monogamous’ couples reported an averageof three to five partners in the past year. All couples with a relationship lasting more than fiveyears have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships and viewsexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and adopting monogamous standards asan act of oppression. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taughtthat monogamy in a marriage is not the norm and should be discouraged if one wants a good“marital” relationship. * relationship commitment Research shows there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate of4.5 percent cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 85 percent cited for married couples. Thisindicates that even “committed” homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity forthe faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.
Surprisingly few homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into legally recognized unionswhere such arrangements are available, indicating that such couples do not share the same viewof commitment as typified by married couples. Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands, where same-sex unions or marriages weremade legal, reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselvesas being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in thecase of the Netherlands, of same-sex “marriage.” This indicates that even in the most “gayfriendly” localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for thekind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter. As a typical example,79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions. InSweden, about 98 percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians do not officially register as same-sex couples. In the Netherlands, where “gay marriage ” is legal, only 2.8 percent of thehomosexual and lesbian population have registered their unions as “married.” In other words, 97percent of homosexuals and lesbians in the Netherlands chose not to get “married.” * number of children being raised Only a small minority of gay and lesbian households have children. Beyond that, the evidencealso indicates that comparatively few homosexuals choose to establish households together—thetype of setting that is normally prerequisite for the rearing of children. Only a small percentage ofpartnered homosexual households actually have children. Those that do may include biologicalchildren conceived in a previous heterosexual relationship. The evidence does not support theclaim that significant numbers of homosexuals desire to provide a stable home for children. * health risks The evidence indicates that homosexual and lesbian relationships are at far greater risk forcontracting life-threatening disease compared with married couples. Young gay men have becomemore likely to contract HIV from a steady sexual partner than from a casual one. Lesbians involvedin exclusive sexual relationships also are not at reduced risk for sexual disease. Homosexual and lesbian relationships experience a far greater rate of mental health problemsand suicide attempts compared to married couples and non-homosexual peers. * rates of intimate partner violence
Research indicates very high levels of violence in homosexual and lesbian relationships. 90percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggressionfrom their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one ormore incidents of physical abuse. The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearlydouble that in the heterosexual population. Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice confirm that homosexual and lesbianrelationships had a far greater incidence of domestic partner violence than opposite-sexrelationships including cohabitation or marriage.A Social/Political Agenda: Redefining Marriage In addition to the findings from their research the Family Research Council also state they “...present evidence from gay activists themselves indicating that behind the push for gay marriagelies a political agenda to radically change the institution of marriage itself” by pushing theparameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society. Former homosexual William Aaron explains why even homosexuals involved in “committed”relationships do not practice monogamy: “In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part ofthe compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to “absorb”masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners].Consequently the most successful homophile “marriages” are those where there is anarrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance ofpermanence in their living arrangement.” The article ends with this summary: “The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual andlesbian “committed” relationships are not the equivalent of marriage. In addition, there is littleevidence that homosexuals and lesbians truly desire to commit themselves to the kind ofmonogamous relationships as signified by marriage. What remains, then, is the disturbingpossibility that behind the demands for “gay marriage” lurks an agenda of undermining the verynature of the institution of marriage.”The Fantasy Of The Homosexual LifestyleComment: Apart from any theological arguments, or any morality arguments, the societal value of “gaymarriage” must be measured as a negative value by those who are responsible guardians of ourcontemporary society. When a man refers to another man as his “wife” or a woman refers to another woman as her“wife,” it startles reality, doesn’t it? What is being tacitly stated is that there is a make-believe“marriage” which, statistically, will be a relationship of short duration, with both people having
multiple sexual partners, that any commitment to such a “marriage” is lip-service only to satisfy anunstated heterosexual societal code, a horribly artificial and contrived method of incorporatingbabies into the “marriage” (in those very few instances where children are in such a household),an on-going scenario of mental health problems working themselves out in day to day living, manyof which will turn into verbal aggression and domestic violence. And all the while living in a shroudof fear of contracting deadly sexually transmitted diseases. Does this qualify as an ugly self-deceiving “let’s pretend” “fantasy” or not?Problems In The Heterosexual Community Before you get all self-righteous remember that the study by the Family Research Council isentitled “Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples.” It doesn’t simplyselect homosexual unions and then paint an all negative picture—it compares the “gay lifestyle”with the “straight lifestyle.” Both lifestyles have the same negative impact and values. What thestatistics and studies show is that in comparing the two different lifestyles these negative societalvalues statistically occur with more frequency and intensity in the homosexual lifestyle than in theheterosexual lifestyle. It’s not a case of either/or, rather one of both/and. Nobody comes upsmelling like a rose in the study. Heterosexual unions also have a problem with short term relationships, promiscuousbehavior, lack of commitment to the relationship, a rising abortion rate because children are notwanted, mental and physical abuse and domestic violence. Much to our shame, there is also a lack of responsibility in heterosexual marriages andheterosexual cohabitation without marriage. However, positive impact from positive societal values over many centuries puts social andpeer pressure upon those who value the role of the family unit as the core of our social values. Butwith the proliferation of both heterosexual and homosexual relationships impacting society withnegative values, the traditional values which our society values are being put at risk of beingwatered down and polluted so as to be meaningless. Longevity of relationships, monogamousrelationships, lifetime commitments, birthing babies and providing these growing future citizenswith a happy and safe domestic family environment, sparing them from situations that causemental health problems and exposure to deadly sexually transmitted diseases, verbal aggressionand domestic violence—these are all important factors for healthy family relationships and forchildren who are growing up and maturing. Because the liberal media and interests have managed to classify criticisms of the “gaylifestyle” as being “politically incorrect” in the minds of an ignorant and accepting public, it mustbe realized that something is wrong with the politics and the politicians and other special interestgroups who continue to attempt to foster negative social values where you and I live. Blindacceptance by the public of these logical fallacies puts blame for the state of things as they noware on them also.
These negative social values are also being promoted as being desirable for the heterosexuallifestyle by a liberal media. The homosexual or “gay” community is more than glad to add theirvoice to attempt to impact heterosexual society with negative values. A large percentage of TVseries and “specials,” popular songs, movies, books, commentaries and newspaper articles reflectthat fact. There are many alliances formed by those in the “gay” community and those whooppose traditional societal values for the purpose of destroying every trace of Western civilizationand American values in our society.Who Has A Hidden Agenda? In looking at the statistics and studies and conclusions to be drawn from them, there areseveral things that should stand out. The majority of the homosexual community is really quitecontent with their short term, promiscuous, relationships, devoid of any real commitment andavoiding the responsibility of raising children. They are also well aware of the risks involved inexcessive verbal and physical abuse and exposure to deadly sexually transmitted diseases, and thedomestic violence. In other words, they are content to “do their thing,” with one exception—they want theAmerican privilege to do their thing, in private, without persecution and harassment and beinglooked down upon as somehow inferior in our society. It could be called a desire for peacefulcoexistence. That description, of course, doesn’t fit the more radical among them. By the “moreradical among them” I mean those members of the “gay community” who blatantly perform sexacts in public places, who dress up as members of the opposite sex, who have surgical proceduresto attempt to change their gender, who promote the desireability of having sex with children andwho actively pursue especially perverted sexually deviant practices. Marked progress has been made in some quarters of our society in acceptance of thehomosexual person as a subculture of our society. Not everyone, of course, falls into thatcategory. There are also radicals among the heterosexual community who would use force againstthe homosexual community to adapt to and adopt heterosexual societal values and practices. But, a favorable climate for “coming out of the closet” was being felt by many in thehomosexual community, because these human beings, like the rest of us, want acceptance ofthemselves as a person. Admittedly, this is a difficult choice for homosexuals and lesbians to makeas it leaves them open and exposed to a lot of things. It’s equally as difficult for heterosexuals to “accept” the homosexual lifestyle so “acceptance”has to be modified, if not redefined. “Acceptance” of the homosexual person is established, butwith certain limitations in the mind of the acceptor. As this limited acceptance was being felt in some, but not all, levels of heterosexual society,the special interest groups become aware of a new tool, a new weapon, that could be used bythem to help bring about the demise of Western civilization and American societal moral values. The leftist liberals boldly and deceitfully put their plan into action.
So what happened? What happened is that those leftist liberals among us who hate theliberty and freedom of America and hate the Western civilization in particular has whipped themup into an evangelical frenzy to pro-actively force their heterosexual lifestyle upon the rest of us. To put it more bluntly, they have become confused and used and abused by those leftistliberals to advance the leftist liberal cause under the guise of “civil rights” for the homosexualcommunity. In fact, the homosexual community has every right that every other American has. They arefree to marry anyone of their choice of the opposite sex. To want to put a law into effect thatmakes it legal to marry a person of the same sex is not “equal rights.” That would be a “specialright,” wouldn’t it? When the homosexual community switched their tactics from simply attempting to gain ahigher degree of acceptance in the heterosexual community, and attempted to prove thathomosexual households are remarkably similar to heterosexual married couples and that there isno cultural or moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality they encountered aresistance they didn’t expect. And when our gutless, spineless, greedy, vote-hungry chameleon-like politicians thought thatthe homosexual community was a greater political force than they are, those same politiciansbegan to hypocritically cater to the homosexual community to gain favor with them [read: theycourted the homosexual vote]. Many, if not most, of those politicians still don’t have a clue. Why are the politicians so inclined? Because they, the politicians, have bought into theexaggerated lies of those who live the “gay” lifestyle and they think this group makes up 10% ormore of the population, which translates in their minds to 10% or more of votes, when, in fact,statistics show they only consist of from one to three per cent of the population. Encouraged by what they thought was political clout, the homosexual community becamebraver, looking to the more publically known among them to aggressively push the issue under thephilosophy that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The spotlight has gone full circle and the homosexual community has had their day, basking inthat very short-lived and artificially illuminated minute focus. But under the enlightened intensescrutiny of statistical studies, the whitewash has been flushed away from their attempts toconvince the citizens of this country that they, too, measure up to Western civilization andAmerican societal values and morals. This whitewash was provided by the monied interests of theleftist liberals who will continue to increase their efforts to stir up the homosexual community tothis pretense, and the homosexual community may, or may not, once again rally around theirmentors. Question: Who really has a hidden agenda here?
The leftist liberals will persist—they are determined to continue to advance their hierarchicalauthoritarian structure and cast the American way of life and Western civilization values down tothe bottom of their artificially constructed totem pole. Has the homosexual community finally realized that they are being used? Viciously and cruellyused by the leftist liberals agents? I can only suggest that the homosexual community take a closer look at the leftist liberals andcontrast them with the conservatives among us. Then determine who really has your bestinterests at heart in being a free American. Time will give us the answer ...Our Duty As Americans In Our Western Civilization There are many groups of people on this planet that continue to attempt to foster negativesocial values—values that are a threat to the family and all that it stands for. However, if we withdraw from these individuals who are in those groups then they willcontinue to pollute the traditional family values that we cherish. True salt and light is a 24 hour a day, seven day a week lifestyle that others will see as wecontinue to interact with them. Bunching together as a clique and excluding those with whom wedisagree will not affect their lifestyles, instead it will affect the quality of our lifestyles both directlyand immediately and in the long-term. We must never, ever forget Paul the apostle’s admonition in his letter to the Corinthians.Note particularly verse 11, in Pauls letter to them, chapter 6: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV): 9 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 homosexualoffenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit thekingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you werejustified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Paul says “And that is what some of you were.” Isn’t it time for us to quit our hidden agenda and our ugly self-deceiving “let’s pretend”“fantasy” with a much-needed whitewash flush?
And do what’s necessary to also get those in today’s contemporary society who fit Paul’sdescription in verses 9 and 10 from “are” to “were?” Related articles:•“Marriage is a family social institution for a man and woman” Marriage is a family socialinstitution for a man and woman who are husband and wife by commitment with children bornfrom heterosexual sex activities•“God Created Man ... Male And Female Created He Them” God created man ... male and femalecreated he them. Man and woman are sexual and a husband and wife are to enjoy sex andintercourse in marriage.•“Divorce-husband and wife marriage covenant broken by adultery” Divorce-husband and wifemarriage covenant broken by adultery-law of God, Jesus, Paul give other legal biblical reasonsspouse put away by divorcement•“Women Keep Silence, or Dont Lose Your Head, Please!” God says women and men are equal inthe Lord, but the spiritual headship principle of a husband is the biblical basis for family authorityin the home and ekklesia for husband and wife. Just as God and Christ are equal, but God is thehead of Christ: 1 Corinthians 11:3: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and thehead of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” This is better interpreted as “the head of the wife is the husband.” This article discusses biblicaltypes and antitypes, examples and clear scriptural instructions for scriptural spiritual headship of ahusband, why Paul the apostle insisted upon it, and the dangers of irresponsibility by the husbandsof the ekklesia. This spiritual headship must follow the biblical pattern of sacrifice for equality, surrender foruniting and servanthood for anointing. Paul reprimands Corinthian husbands in their ekklesias fortheir lack of understanding and practice of the male spiritual headship principle. This hashistorically been misunderstood and those verses pertaining to husbands and wives have beenincorrectly interpreted as Paul admonishing the wives of their assemblies. This article attempts todemonstrate how the priorities of the biblical spiritual headship principle affect every area of thekingdom of God and His Christ.