Tuesday, June 30, 2015

All that Glitters, Part 4:
Gay Marriage and Gold Paint

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
—Genesis 22:17-18

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7

When I started this series, I talked about the fool’s gold I had as a child. Nobody believed I had chunks of real gold, and I suggested I might have had better luck painting some smooth rocks with gold paint.


But we both know I wouldn’t have fooled anyone who had eyes to see. It would take a particular type of willful blindness to confuse painted rocks with actual gold. And though we would never make such mistakes when it comes to our material wealth, we seem anxious to make greater mistakes when it comes to eternal treasure.

The Supreme Court announced this week that marriage between homosexual couples is a fundamental right, and therefore cannot be denied, regardless of law, social construct, or popular will.

Many religious people have celebrated this decision as a triumph of love, tolerance, inclusion, diversity, or other positive attributes. Some have claimed the approval of heaven in this decision.

My purpose is therefore to examine this decision from a religious, rather than legal, perspective. Nobody is more surprised than me that I’m even writing this; I had planned to stay completely out of this issue. But I’ve also been equally surprised at the degree of support demonstrated among those who claim to believe in God, scripture, and the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith.

I want to make it clear that my opinion is based on scripture, not on any sort of hate. Clearly God requires us all to love each other, regardless of any other circumstance, and I love my brothers and sisters who identify as homosexual, whether they are married or single. 

But it is possible to love someone and yet have a disagreement of opinion. Those who accuse others of hate when none is present demonstrate their fundamental unwillingness to love their enemies. So even if you disagree with me, let’s still be friends. I mean you no harm, and hope you mean me none as well. Fair enough?

Why Marriage?

As anyone familiar with scriptures knows, marriage was instituted by God when he performed the first marriage between Adam and Eve. The male and female, joined together, were called “the image of God.” (Genesis 1:27) Any other relationship, no matter the type, does not reflect the image of God.

This union was designed to produce offspring—as noted in God’s first commandment to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28). The relationship God instituted thus continues the human race and supports God’s work and glory, which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39). His work and glory cannot be brought to pass without human reproduction. Therefore, God has established important laws to safeguard this power’s proper use.

The marriage covenant, meant to be between the man, the woman, and God, provides the most stable, safe, and committed environment possible for the production, education and nurture of the next generation. Thus, God’s law requires this covenant to be in place before the physical union takes place that may produce offspring. His law enshrines, secures, and stabilizes the continuation of the human race. Indeed, God’s highest blessings are provided through covenant, multi-generational bloodlines, which could not exist and remain organized without marriage and reproduction. (Abraham 2:11)

Because the act of creating life is so integral to God’s work and purposes, it has always held tremendous religious significance, echoing that first marriage in the Garden. For thousands of years, marriage was the province of religion, not government, and was protected by strict religious expectations and God’s commandments.

The idea that marriage is only about love is actually a recent innovation. Of course love brings God, man and woman together and is required for exaltation, but love alone does not make a marriage. In fact, it’s possible to live together for a lifetime in a loving relationship and never get married (and many do.) Love and marriage are two entirely separate things, though love is certainly an integral part of successful relationships, including marriages. To celebrate the Supreme Court’s legalistic decision as a triumph of love, is to confuse love with lawyers. And to claim that God is Love, so therefore any loving relationship is approved of God, is to contradict His word and misapprehend His very nature.

The highest expression of our love for God is to keep His commandments (John 14:15), and we are to love Him first, above everyone and everything else. (Matthew 10:37, Exodus 20:3)

Government Control

The regulation and taxation of marriage, in the form of licensing, is a relatively new innovation in human history, and an overreach by government into God’s realm. Government has coopted what has rightly been the province of religion for nearly all recorded history and scripture, and yet we look to government, not only to formalize marriages, but also to define the terms upon which they can take place, and force others to accept those terms, and even participate against their will, upon pain of punishment. Government has no business intervening in what God established. Man’s law is subservient to God’s law.

Heterosexual marriage, as the most effective social approach to propagating the species, has been favored by government, partly in recognition of the cultural norms originally founded on religion. Governments historically enacted laws against adultery and fornication, specifically to protect against illegitimacy and its resulting social ills and damage to children. Such laws originally reflected religious ideals, but are now largely repealed or ignored.

Marriage itself has enjoyed favored status under the law, not in honor of the love shared between two people, but in recognition of the need for stability in rearing children. The Supreme Court’s opinion states as much.

Ceding control of marriage to government necessarily also ceded to government the ability to define and re-define marriage as nothing more than a legal contract. The First Amendment was designed to prevent this mischief, but has been largely circumvented.

Fundamental Rights

By legal definition, fundamental rights come to mankind, not by the dispensation of government, but by natural law, which is to say, the provision of God. Because fundamental rights come from God, they cannot be abrogated by government. Therefore, we ought to be very careful what we define as a fundamental right, because once such a right has been recognized, it cannot be rescinded. The court has held that any two people have the fundamental right to a favored relationship called marriage, regardless of gender. In doing so, the court has, by extension, claimed that God instituted this definition of marriage by granting this fundamental right. Do not be deceived; God and the court view things differently.

The redefinition of marriage by 5 unelected judges completely dispenses with the meaning and purpose of marriage, and attributes an intention to God that defies His own word. God did not create this “fundamental right.” This is an entirely new social experiment, recently invented, and based on a completely fabricated explanation for the purpose of marriage. These 5 judges have overridden the history of humanity and invented a new “fundamental right” that has never been recognized before in human history. This fact alone ought to concern us greatly.

Inconvenient Biology

The inconvenient biological fact is that homosexual unions are reproductively desolate and cannot produce the next generation. Though children may come to such unions in other ways, these children—all of them—biologically came from a mother and a father, as God instituted. Homosexual unions still rely on heterosexual reproduction for children.


No matter how we choose to redefine words, we cannot redefine biology. Though we can, and will, pretend that being raised by two fathers is every bit as good as being raised by heterosexual parents, we will never remove the biological or spiritual need for a mother’s love.

Bruce Jenner can pretend he’s a woman, though he will forever biologically be a man. Rachel Dolezal can pretend she’s African-American, though she will forever biologically be caucasian. Some celebrate these delusions as courageous, even heroic. But a spray tan doesn’t change DNA and painting a rock doesn’t make it gold. It’s silly and foolish for us to play along with these delusions. We cannot redefine biology.

We similarly delude ourselves when we pretend homosexual unions are equivalent to heterosexual unions in God’s eyes and eternal purposes. They cannot contribute to God’s work and glory because they cannot become the image of God. Such shall be thrown down (D&C 132:13)

Opposition

The universe is built on balanced opposites. Said Lehi:
For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. (2 Nephi 2:11)
We find examples of this principle everywhere. Yin and Yang, light and dark, positive and negative, male and female. Even at the atomic level, the universe and all things in it stay together because opposite charges are kept in balance. Trying to drive two like-charged particles together without a balancing opposite charge results in instability and destruction.

Why this opposition? To bring about God’s eternal purposes:
And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. (2 Nephi 2:15)
And so, the marriage relationship between a man and a woman, established by God, is honored by him as the only way to bring about the progression we require to become like Him (and Her.)

Signs Above


Right on schedule, the Lord has written his testimony again in the heavens. If you look in the Western sky tonight just after dark, you’ll see Jupiter and Venus joined together as one, just above the horizon, sitting on the paw of Leo, the lion. Venus and Jupiter are the second and third brightest objects in the night sky. Jupiter is named for the King of gods, and Venus is named for the goddess of love and beauty. Joined together, male and female, they are held to the bosom of the mighty lion Leo, a representation of Christ.
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:11)
Incidentally, the closest bright star to the joined male/female pair tonight is Regulus, the “little king.” Not only does this name signify royal offspring of the great king, but also anciently referred to the process of using antimony to refine pure gold.

Universal Application

If everyone were homosexual, the human race would die in one generation. Humanity, therefore, depends on, indeed requires, that the vast majority of humans be heterosexual. To protect as a fundamental, God-given right something that would wipe out the human race if universally practiced and faithfully followed, is not only illogical, but completely insane.

The Supreme Court’s decision has therefore diminished marriage to mean merely a contract between two people. It recognizes nothing unique, important, or fundamental about heterosexual marriage or the continuation of the species; it contradicts God’s law, denies God’s nature, and frustrates God’s purposes in creating marriage. It ignores the biological realities of the human race. It declares all rocks are gold, and therefore gold is worthless.

If we hop on the bandwagon, mock God's rainbow sign, and declare how delighted we are with this decision, we are in fact rejecting God's word, covenant, and in the end, mocking God Himself. You can't have it both ways. It's gold or rocks. They're not the same.

Love, diversity, equality, inclusion, tolerance, and all the other positive principles invoked by religious people in support of this decision are noble attributes indeed, and can all be honored, while yet recognizing the structure of God’s universe and the wisdom of His plan. We only delude ourselves when we pretend homosexual marriage is honored of God.



And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

23 comments:

  1. Thank you for bringing so many things to light. I enjoy reading your blogs & have found much truth to your words.
    From another perspective in the link below is an article from a woman in Canada, back in April, who was warning America about what will happen if the Supreme Court did what they now have done.
    This decision has dire affects all around.

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for this post! I always enjoy reading your blogs. I think everything is falling apart fast & furious. I had read once that the only other time in the history of the world that homosexual marriages were performed was during the days of Noah. If that's true then I guess it stands to reason what may be coming down the road soon for this world.

    From another perspective of why this decision made by the Supreme Court about marriage is a bad idea read the article in the link below.

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

    ReplyDelete
  3. From the NAC:

    Article III. Section 1.

    Neither the united States in Congress assembled, nor any State of this Confederacy, shall have power to abridge, regulate, or license, a man’s right to take a wife, for men shall always be free to marry wives, without restriction and without permission from ecclesiastical or secular authorities, but, for the resulting marriage, whether confarreatio, or coemptio in manum, or usus, or any other form, with or without manus, and with or without a vow, every State shall issue certificates upon presentment of statements or affidavits by the man and his wife, which shall certify the marriage and its form, and such certificates, if available, shall be used in all marriage controversies at law, which controversies shall be judged according to the marriage form and the covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations or expectations that were made and entered into by the persons involved.

    Section 2.

    Neither the united States in Congress assembled, nor any State, shall have power to raise up a king over men, nor to exert kingly authority over them or their house, for it is not right to esteem one flesh above another, or that one man shall think himself above another, but every man alone shall bear rule in his own house; and as that which is governed by law is also preserved by law, whereas that which breaks a law, and abides not by law, but seeks to become a law unto itself, cannot be preserved by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment, every man shall have power to set his house in order, having his children and house in subjection to him alone with all gravity, even as unto a king, according to the bounds and conditions of his law, that this shall be a land of liberty, and that every man shall enjoy his rights and privileges alike, and that every man shall set in order his family, and that every man shall bear his part.

    Section 3.

    No State shall have power to divorce men who exercise their right to marry wives with manus, from their wives, nor shall the right and power of such men to issue a writ of divorcement, on their own authority, be abridged or regulated in any way, and such writs shall be binding and valid and final and unalterable decrees in the eyes of the law, so that the law shall view a wife so divorced as loosed from the law of her husband.

    Also, from the NAC:

    Article X. Section 5.

    As the decisions of the supreme court of the former national government were made according to that law which was the United States Constitution and its treaties, which law is no longer binding upon the States, nor upon the people thereof, neither shall such decisions be binding upon any of the States, nor upon their people.

    https://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/the-new-articles-of-confederation-nac/

    ReplyDelete
  4. I feel like the moral ground on marriage was lost long ago. This may be an oversimplification, but this is how I see it happened:
    1) The introduction of relatively safe, affordable, and available birth control removed the biggest deterrent of pre-marital sex, the stigma of out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
    1b) Legalized abortion finished the job. (Now unmarried heterosexuals can have non-procreative sex just because they want to, without life-changing consequences.)
    2) Artificial methods of family planning within marriage led to the perception of marriage as a place for emotional and sexual fulfillment without the expectation of or restraints imposed by pregnancy, and the responsibilities of an increasingly large family. Many people plan to wait some period of time after marriage before they are "ready" for children. So the marriage itself is not about children initially, or perhaps ever.
    3) The unique legal status of marriage has merit so long as marriage provides a social benefit with legal responsibilities as well as rights. Now that many marriages are "childless by choice", and many children go through multiple transitions in living arrangements due to divorce and remarriage or cohabitation, what does marriage really mean any more?
    4)Hint: sex outside of marriage is morally wrong, so a marriage might be the easiest path to repentance for people who don't want to change their behavior. Here is where the gay marriage issue comes in. We, as a religious society, seem to accept that sexual behavior is morally wrong unless it occurs within a lawful marriage. whether or not that behavior is procreative in nature. If moral and immoral are defined only by a state recognized marriage, then granting everyone the right to marry the person they love has become a human rights issue after all. I agree that changing human laws doesn't change God's opinion on right and wrong. I just feel like we gave up the moral ground long ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adrian, great post. I am amazed at the testimony in the heavens.

      Anon @5:05 - I agree with your synopsis. I think there are a lot of other things, as well. As Adrian pointed out the distinction between love and marriage, I would add that the modern definition of love is actually lust. I don't mean that in a general conference cliche way, either. The burning excitement one feels is not the foundation of a solid relationship, although it is fun and can be a positive thing if it co-exists with a relationship God has ordained. Modern society has forgotten what real love actually is: it is a measure of what one is willing to suffer for the benefit of another. So much in the last generation or two has eroded in that sense. Everything from movies to clothes to internet porn to whatever else. It's all about stoking lust to provide the illusion that it can be perpetuated. It can't. If a man lusts after another man, it doesn't provide grounds for any kind of homosexual behavior any more than a man lusting after a women or vice versa. Marriage is not about giving an outlet for lust. It is about two people contracting with God to suffer for one another's benefit to learn something about how God suffers for our benefit.

      Another group of shifts have been the traditional roles of men and women. Modern society, built on the economy of Babylon, has blurred the lines that have existed for thousands of years. When the distinctions are dulled, we all become the same.

      Delete
  5. Chapter 5 of Moses, verse 2. "And Adam knew his wife, and she bare unto him sons and daughters, and they began to multiply and to replenish the earth."

    ReplyDelete
  6. A side note on the letter from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve that will be read in LDS congregations this Sunday. The letter invites listeners to study the doctrine found in the Family Proclamation:

    "Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World.'”

    According to Jesus Christ's definition in D&C 10:67-68, however, there is no doctrine in the proclamation, only tenets. Indeed, claiming there is doctrine in the proclamation raises serious questions I would not want to thumb-wrestle the Lord over. I welcome your post, Adrian, but there are difficulties in the positioning of the proclamation as revelation instead of the position white paper that it is.

    67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

    68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church. (D&C 10:67-68)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jan

      I agree with point of view that the Proclamation on the family is not scripture as an entire document, one reason being that we have not raised our hands in common consent. However, I believe there are words of wisdom supported by scripture in that document.

      The scriptures are clear about the purpose of men and women, which are at the core of our existence as well as our redemption. God's glory is ultimately the continuation of seed.

      I agree with Anon and Rob's assessment of the ungodly condition that we find ourselves in relationship to God's intent to produce off spring for His ultimate edification.

      It seems to have all come down to the word "Love" and how one defines it and expresses it.

      In 1978, Dr. Scott Peck wrote a book called, "The Road Less Traveled." I have not found a simple and concise definition of the word love that I like better. "The will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth."

      He goes on to say, "Love is not a feeling. Many, many people possess a feeling of love and even acting in response to that feeling act in all manner of unloving and destructive ways. The fact we have a feeling toward another human being does not mean that we care a whit for that person's spiritual development."

      Everyone seems to have their own definition of love but the only one that really counts is how God defines it, although he never said, "This is what the word love means." Perhaps there is a clue in what he did say, "If you love me, keep my commandments."

      I believe that in the commandments gives us clues to his definition of love. As I search the commandments, most are relationship based such as, don't steal from one another, tell the truth to one another, don't lust after another person's body. Feed the poor among you, bear one another's burdens, have compassion toward other's circumstances etc.

      Society seems to have taken then the word "Love" to it's lowest common denominator which is sexual expression with who ever, and how ever with no regard for another's spiritual welling being or God's expression of love.

      I believe that the new ruling from the Supreme Court will have far reaching unintended consequences, which we presently cannot conceive.

      Adrian: Again, thank your for your insight and your talent of putting words and concepts together in such an understandable way. There is no doubt, the "Heavens are speaking" on this issue.



      Delete
  7. If Polygamy is not a true principle taught and practiced by Joseph Smith, then why did Joseph Smith say:

    "The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it, and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." 1.Joseph Smith, Contributor, Vol. 5, p. 259

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for asking about this quote. The answer I gave before was not very kind or patient. As you might imagine, I deal with a fair number of attacks, and it’s far too easy to become impatient. Please forgive my earlier tone, and my assumption that you were on the attack. I see now that I should have just as readily viewed your question as a sincere search for truth.

      Here’s the information I’ve been able to find:

      1. Joseph Smith suffers from many fictional quotes attributed to him after his death. The first few posts on this blog were devoted to checking sources of fictional quotes like these. It’s sometimes surprising what you find out when you dig into them.

      2. This particular quote was taken from a youth periodical called The Contributor that was published between 1879-1896. The periodical was devoted to stories, poetry, fiction, and general interest stories for Mormon youth.

      3. This particular quote appears in a lengthy, fictionalized and dramatized account by written by Horace Cummings.

      4. Horace Cummings was born in 1858, 14 years after Joseph Smith died. He could not have heard Joseph make such a statement. He has published a carefully crafted rumor, designed to prop up the then-practiced version of polygamy. Such was a common thing to do in those days.

      5. This fictional story was published in 1884, a full 40 years after Joseph died.

      So to summarize, we have a guy who never met Joseph, telling us what Joseph was supposed to have said, 40 years after he was supposed to have said it, and publishing it in a dramatized account of events the author did not witness. The result is to reinforce the practice of polygamy taking place in 1884, which was very different than anything Joseph ever said or did.

      In other words, this is not history. It's hearsay, and certainly not reliable. No serious historian would ever pin this quote on Joseph Smith. It's polygamy fan fiction.

      Delete
  8. To Rob, thank you for this:

    "Marriage is not about giving an outlet for lust. It is about two people contracting with God to suffer for one another's benefit to learn something about how God suffers for our benefit."

    To Jan, thank you for this:

    "In 1978, Dr. Scott Peck wrote a book called, "The Road Less Traveled." I have not found a simple and concise definition of the word love that I like better. "The will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth."

    To Adrian, thank you for all your words. I see more clearly now how the Venus/Jupiter conjunction did indeed have something to say about Man and Woman.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As part of a church news conference on non-discrimination and religious liberty earlier this year, Elder Todd Christopherson said, “Some even suppose that those standards will someday change. That is simply not true… The law of chastity has applied since the very beginning, when the Lord commanded a man to leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and to none else. Our doctrine, not just belief but doctrine, that sexual relations are only appropriate and lawful in the Lord’s eyes between man and woman legally and lawfully married is unchanged and will never change.”

    There's that word, 'doctrine', again, emphatically stated, calling into question the leadership's belief in the Lord's definition found in D&C 10:67-68. He who is more intelligent than they all has defined his doctrine narrowly and with profound consequences to those who attempt more or less in the name of doctrine. While they seem eager to say the right thing, does this suggest that what the leadership is saying here is only their claim to doctrine?

    The question of heterosexual unions and fidelity within those unions appears to be vital to the human race and probably the plan of salvation but doesn't fit the definition of 'doctrine' given by Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would add that Christ's Doctrine is also expanded and discussed in 2 Nephi 31-32 and 3 Nephi 11. Again the warning is given that His doctrine must not be added to or removed from.

      Delete
  10. The proper role of government is to enforce public contracts made by consenting adults. A man and a woman who join together in a domestic partnership implicitly enter into a contractual relationship of a public nature, including but not limited to:

    1. shared property and debt ownership
    2. shared guardianship of minors (whether from traditional procreation, IVF, surrogacy, or adoption)
    3. medical decision making when a spouse is incapacitated
    4. partnership status declarations related to tax and insurance laws

    The Supreme's Court decision states: "Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry."

    Translation: "The government must treat same-sex couples in the same way that opposite-sex couples are treated, with regard to all existing laws and implied spousal contracts."

    From one perspective, there is no problem here: consenting adults have the right to enter into public contracts, and the proper role of government is to record and enforce those contracts. Take this example:

    "Several societies in Africa have traditionally allowed non-sexual marriage between two women. These arrangements usually involve one woman taking the role of a man and marrying another woman to secure her inheritance, and are not seen as homosexual." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage)

    However, from another perspective, there is a very serious problem. The word "marriage" has been officially reembodied as a gender-neutral term. The contractual equality part of the issue could have been resolved without doing that. Here is one of the reasons why the word "marriage" was destroyed:

    "Many supporters of same-sex marriage argue that the use of the word marriage itself constitutes a significant social difference [when compared to using the word "civil union" or "domestic partnership"]. The California Supreme Court agreed, suggesting an analogy with a hypothetical that branded interracial marriages "transracial unions". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California)

    Thus, to avoid the appearance of unfairness or discrimination, the government has ceded the semantic ground, and given "same-sex marriage" a definitional existence out of thin air.

    "Same-sex marriage" is somewhat like saying "sugar-free real sugar". If there is not a husband (a male) and a wife (a female), the word "marriage" is the wrong word to use. At it's core this is not a religious argument, it is based on etymology and biology, but of course it does have religious impact.

    Other thoughts: You seem to be saying that laws against adultery and fornication were virtuous? If so, I wouldn't agree. As devastating as those sins are, they are not to the level of criminality and those laws were misguided.

    With regard to this statement of yours: "Ceding control of marriage to government necessarily also ceded to government the ability to define and re-define marriage as nothing more than a legal contract" -- I think that it somewhat misses the mark.

    The way the government titles certain contracts is of great social importance, but poor titles don't change the fact that the contracts need to be recorded and enforced by the government. The concept of a marriage licence exists primarily for two reasons: establishing that the age of consent has been satisfied, and the necessity of a public record of the implied contract that is taking place. I don't think the First Amendment has much to do with it (yet). Thus far, there is no law prohibiting heterosexual marriage.

    Overall I think your post is valuable and insightful. I'm not in agreement with everything, but I think you have some good points.

    Your Signs Above section with Jupiter and Venus -- I think that is inspired and powerful. I think that God has provided a timely and stunning counterpoint to those who are abusing the language and concept of marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate." Isaiah 24:5-6. What ordinance is more fundamental than marriage? Marriage is an ordinance established in the Garden of Eden by God himself. God's order of marriage is the everlasting covenant. I do not rejoice that we have changed and broken it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Adrian- as much as I thought your previous post (Chutzpah) was unnecessary and out-of-context, I thought this one was well-founded, well-reasoned and astute.

    "The Supreme Court’s decision has therefore diminished marriage to mean merely a contract between two people. It recognizes nothing unique, important, or fundamental about heterosexual marriage or the continuation of the species; it contradicts God’s law, denies God’s nature, and frustrates God’s purposes in creating marriage. It ignores the biological realities of the human race. It declares all rocks are gold, and therefore gold is worthless."

    This is one of the most logical approaches to this issue I have read. I hope you'll consider in this vein and leave the other stuff out! Good work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris, thank you for your honest feedback and advice. I appreciate you reading and caring enough to comment. There's yet more gold to discuss...

      Delete
    2. You are really a great writer. I hope to learn much more from you and those like you in the days to come. Thanks for caring enough to spend the time to study, research, and prepare these posts.

      Delete
    3. I pray I can do what the Lord wants done here. May He bless you in your journey as well.

      Delete
  13. Adrian, this a rare occasion in which I disagree with you from a doctrinal perspective. Perhaps coming from a slightly different paradigm of thought, I am happy to celebrate the rights of marriage being extended to same-sex couples and am happy to explain why.

    First, I should mention that I'm neutral on whether or not homosexuality is a sin. I have waffled on the issue over the years for various reasons (of which I feel there is no need to delve into), but suffice it to say that the revelation I personally received is that I really don't need to know the answer since I'm not gay. Indeed, even if the Lord Himself appeared to me and told me homosexuality is a grievous sin, what could I possibly use that knowledge for except to judge and point a finger? Additionally, through my personal revelation, I was told that the only thing I need to worry about with this issue is Christ's injunction to love others.

    Let's suppose I do fully believe that heterosexual marriage is God's immutable law and should be followed by all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation. Should I then try and play a part in forcing God's laws on others, be it through compulsion or, in the case of the same-sex marriage issue, through popular vote and legislation? If I believe that avoiding homosexuality and following God's law of traditional marriage is an important part to achieving salvation, should I do everything in my power to make sure others fall in line so they too can achieve salvation?

    To me, it all sounds too much like Lucifer's plan in the Pre-mortal Existance. His plan sounded pretty good; everyone on Earth would live God's laws (seems nice and peaceful) and would be guaranteed salvation. The only catch was forfeiting our agency so that we would be FORCED to live God's laws. We would be told what we could and could not do and compelled to do only the things we could do. 1/3 of our spirit brothers and sisters apparently thought this plan was more appealing of the two.

    Christ's plan, of course, was to give us our agency and allow ALL of us to choose our own paths, allowing each of us to grow, learn and progress in our own fashion. The gaps where we would undoubtedly fall short would be covered by our faith in Him and the grace and mercy of His Atonement. We voted for this and we probably understood the crucial importance of agency when we did, despite knowing that many of our brothers and sisters here on Earth would rebel and choose a path contrary to what the Lord desired for them.

    I imagine that the 1/3 likely thought the rest of us to be insane. Everyone living God's laws and everyone achieving salvation seemed so optimal to them; why were we voting to open the doors wide to sin and rebellion? Why would we even take a chance like that?

    I celebrate the legalization of same-sex marriage because I support the freedom for individuals to choose their own paths in life and to seek their own happiness (even when those paths don't necessarily conform to what I believe to be God's laws). I'm simply happy for my gay friends and family who have desired to marry their partners and can now do so.

    To wrap this comment up, I will say that I agree with you on one point; that the government probably shouldn't be involved in marriages in the first place. Clearly there are many different ideas from different cultures, religions, etc. as to what marriage is or what it means. It wouldn't make me sad at all if the government were to relinquish their authority over marriage and leave its definition up to each individual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ben,

      I appreciate you and appreciate your comment. But I still disagree.

      Defining the marriage relationship according to the biological realities of the species and the spiritual realities of the universe does not limit anybody's freedom of choice.

      I’m certainly not proposing that anyone be forced to marry. Everyone is at liberty to abstain from marriage.

      Rather, the issue is about redefining marriage to remove necessary qualifications for those who do want to enter into this unique and vital relationship.

      Suppose we did the same with professions. Why would we “discriminate” against those who choose not to go to medical school? They should still be allowed to call themselves doctors! Otherwise, we limit their freedom of choice, don’t we? Of course, it’s in society’s best interests to promote proper training for doctors, and its similarly in society’s best interests to promote the most successful and stable method of perpetuating the species.

      Nobody is “forcing” God’s law on others by recognizing the uniqueness of the marriage relationship. Similarly, all of the legal benefits of marriage can be obtained through other means, including civil unions, domestic partnership agreements, etc. So it’s not about obtaining absent legal rights.

      Ultimately, it’s about homosexuals desiring to be viewed in a certain way, when reality is otherwise. This end is achieved by redefining words and prescribing what is “politically correct” thought and speech, then penalizing what is not “appropriate” according to the new definitions.

      Homosexual activists then go on the offensive to force others to act against their own conscience in supporting and participating in homosexual wedding ceremonies, upon pain of punishment and economic loss. The force is all directed against God’s law, not in favor of it. Proposals began within hours to destroy businesses, churches, and professionals who choose not to participate in what they find morally wrong. Who, exactly, is trying to limit freedom?

      You said: “I celebrate the legalization of same-sex marriage because I support the freedom for individuals to choose their own paths in life and to seek their own happiness (even when those paths don't necessarily conform to what I believe to be God's laws). I'm simply happy for my gay friends and family who have desired to marry their partners and can now do so.”

      I fear your argument could be equally applied to polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, pedophilia, abortion, pornography, opiate drugs, murder, wanton environmental destruction, or any other behavior in which people want to engage without having “God’s law” “forced” on them. After all, they just want to be free to choose their own path and seek their own happiness, right? Who are we to tell them they cant?

      Homosexual activists quickly respond that these are entirely other behaviors and have nothing to do with their agenda or with redefining marriage.

      But it wasn't 48 hours after the SCOTUS decision when the first demand for a polygamous marriage license was made, with a lawsuit threatened if the license was not issued. All of the above behaviors are merely social constructs if we remove God’s law. Therefore, they can be changed at the whim of the courts, even against public will. If we can redefine marriage to be between two men or two women, why this arbitrary limit of two? You’re violating the free agency of those who want a 3-way marriage. Or 4-way. Or 2 men and 3 women. Same arguments apply.

      Our laws should promote the best good for individuals and society, balancing the desires of the individual against the needs of society. In this case, the SCOTUS has concluded that the desire of a very small minority to redefine the basic bedrock relationship upon which the entire human species depends, turns out to be more important than promoting the relationship that most successfully perpetuates the human family.

      I don’t see this as a cause for celebration.

      Delete