Homosexuals have entered the political arena and have an agenda for America which would radically alter our culture as we know it. In their desire for social recognition and approval, nothing is off limits. Same sex marriage, adoption by gay couples, inclusion in private organizations, access to all housing and every job, military service, and teaching school children that homosexuality is “normal” and acceptable are all part of this radical agenda.
Obviously, homosexuals live in our country and need a job, housing and other basic human rights. However, if their behavior really is as sinful and immoral as the Bible declares, then it is not right to force others to accept or condone this lifestyle.
Do not be deceived: their agenda does NOT exempt the church and Christian organizations. As we saw in the section on “homosexual theology,” gay activists seek the approval not only of government and society at large, but of the church in particular. Their laws WILL eventually be applied to private Christian organizations (as happened to Bob Jones University in 1983 when the Supreme Court revoked their tax-exempt status because their discriminatory practices (regarding race) were judged to violate “public policy”). These same standards will be applied to churches, para-church organizations, mission agencies, etc. These groups will be required to accept unrepentant homosexuals into membership and even hire them onto staff or face stiff penalties. Until such a time as this happens, Christian organizations will be labeled and marginalized as the only groups which the government allows to “practice discrimination.” To demonstrate how this works, California has now passed a law which forbids a public school from competing in extracurricular activities with any private Christian school which “discriminates” against homosexuals in its hiring practices! Translation: we can’t make you have homosexuals on your staff, but we will ostracize you and marginalize you if you don’t.
Each pastor and each church must decide before the Lord how involved they will be in issues relating to public policy. The purpose of this paper is not to discuss “if the church should be involved in politics.” However, it is vital that Christian leaders know how to think through and address the issues where the gay agenda impacts public policy. Therefore, we address the following arguments.
“What’s wrong with two consenting adults doing whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom? It doesn’t hurt anyone else.”
No one is suggesting that we have sex police checking up on what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom. The issue here is whether homosexual behavior must be kept private or whether we as a culture will endorse it and embrace it as being just as normal and proper as heterosexual marriage. Gay activists have no intention of keeping their sexual activity private. They parade down the street, flaunting their shame, and seek public approval of their behavior.
It should also be noted that private behavior does affect others in the community. One obvious example is the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s), which cost our country hundreds of millions of dollars each year and, in some cases, are spread to innocent victims (e.g. hemophiliacs, babies, etc.)
“Why do you want to prohibit two people from loving one another?”
No one is trying to keep anyone from loving another person. However, there are many ways to express love other than through sex. You can love a parent or a child without having sex with them. In reality, while two homosexuals might care for one another, the sexual practices most often engaged in by homosexuals are not loving – they are dangerous and abusive.
“There’s nothing wrong with gay marriage. Who are you to say that two people who love one another can’t get married?”
If the only criteria for marriage is that two people love one another, than perhaps we should allow a brother to marry his sister, a step-father to marry his step-daughter or a 45 year-old man to marry a 14 year-old girl – all as long as they love one anther. And why stop at two people? What’s to stop a man from marrying several women as long as he loves them all? And how can we leave out the bi-sexual? Shouldn’t they be allowed to marry both a man and a woman at the same time? Obviously, such ideas are considered extreme (just as gay marriage did 20 years ago), but there must be some criteria for a society to condone marriage beyond simply that “they love one another.”
Of course, the Bible defines marriage as “a man and his wife” (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5). From the beginning of creation, it has been between a “male and female” (Matthew 19:4).
Western culture (and for that matter, nearly every culture which has ever been), has held to this same standard. From a secular point of view, governments have realized the necessity of establishing families for the raising of children. The family unit, consisting of a husband and wife raising children has been the basis through which societies reproduce and civilize their offspring. For society to recognize the legitimacy of that family unit and hold them accountable to stay together and rear their children is necessary for the survival of any society. Many governments have also conferred economic benefits upon the family unit in order to allow the family time and opportunity to fulfill its responsibility of properly rearing children.
Of course, homosexuals, being biologically unable to reproduce with one another, do not require the privileges and responsibilities of marriage. What is really being sought here is public approval of homosexuality -- the declaration that a homosexual relationship is just as legitimate as a heterosexual relationship.
"We (homosexuals) are victims of discrimination. All we want is equality, to be treated like everyone else.”
Advocates of same-sex marriage claim that there are literally hundreds of benefits that they are denied which married couples enjoy. Again, as was explained above, most of these benefits are conferred in order to strengthen the family and allow it to fulfill its responsibility of raising decent, civilized children.
Beyond marriage, homosexuals would be hard pressed to demonstrate how they, as a group, have been the victims of wide-spread discrimination. The Supreme Court has generally held that for a claim of discrimination to be upheld and to establish a specially protected class, three criteria must be met:
- Averaged as a whole group, the class must have suffered a history of societal oppression evidenced by lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education, or cultural opportunity
But in fact, surveys indicate that homosexuals, on average, have more education than the average American and may be the most affluent sub-group in our country. They earn more, spend more and travel far more than the average American. - Averaged as a whole group, specially protected classes should exhibit obvious, innate, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics, like race, color, gender, national origin or disability, that clearly define them as a discrete group
Homosexuals come in all shapes, colors, sizes, etc. In fact, unlike a person of a racial minority, if a homosexual chose to keep his homosexuality a secret, he could do so. In fact, most homosexuals do keep their sexuality a private matter. - Specially protected classes should clearly demonstrate political powerlessness
Homosexuals have some of the most well-funded and powerful Political Action Committees (PACS) in Washington DC. They have enjoyed access to the White House and many other branches of government, as well as tremendous acceptance and affirmation of their agenda by the mainstream media.
By these criteria, it would be hard to make a case that homosexuals are victims of wide-spread discrimination and in need of special government protection.
It should also be pointed out that every time the government grants a right to someone, they run the risk of taking away the rights of another. For instance, anti-discrimination housing laws for homosexuals mean that a landlord who has deeply held religious convictions against homosexuality must still rent out their property to a gay couple who wants to live there. An employer who believes that homosexuality is wrong behavior which exhibits a lack of character cannot deny a homosexual a promotion to a very sensitive and responsible area of employment, even if he believes this character defect could be damaging to his business. With this danger in mind, we should be careful about granting special civil rights to new groups of people unless they can demonstrate a history of suffering from unjustified discrimination.
“Should we be in favor of hate crimes legislation?”
Laws are made for people who do wrong things, not for people who think wrong thoughts or say unacceptable things. While we certainly do condemn hateful and bigoted speech, it becomes very dangerous when the government begins to regulate and prosecute people for what they say. Hate crimes legislation in Canada has led to prosecution of a man who simply placed an advertisement in the newspaper quoting the Bible verses concerning homosexuality. Christian radio and television in Canada are not allowed to criticize homosexual behavior because of hate crimes legislation. When Matthew Shepherd was cruelly robbed, tortured and left to die, gay activists claimed that evangelical Christians created a “climate of hate” which led to this violent behavior (even though there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the criminals were Christians, church-goers or views of Christian television. They were, in fact, delinquent youths with a history of trouble with the law). More than any incident in recent memory, the Matthew Shepherd murder has led to a push by gay activists for hate crimes legislation. It is obvious by their comments that, should they get their wish, they will use these laws against Christian leaders and churches which speak up against this sinful behavior and seek to have their criticism censored by law.
