The radical left has never hidden its hatred of such bourgeois institutions as marriage, family and church. And they are much more open in their stated aims to see such things destroyed. No beating around the bush by using weasel words like “tolerance” and “acceptance”.
Nope, the cultural Marxists have always wanted just one thing: to fully destroy the West, and they have always known that the churches and families stand in their way – these things must be destroyed in the name of the revolution. Thus when the Bolsheviks swept to power in Russia in 1917, one of the first items on the agenda was to abolish marriage and family, along with organised religion.
As but one piece of evidence, consider this remarkable account written by a Russian babushka way back in 1926. It is a devastatingly incredible article and so entirely relevant to the situation we find ourselves in today. She begins her chilling account this way:
“The question whether marriage as an institution should be abolished is now being debated all over Russia with a violence and depth of passion unknown since the turbulent early days of the Revolution. Last October a bill eliminating distinctions between registered and unregistered marriages and giving the unmarried consort the status and property rights of the legal wife was introduced in the Tzik, or Central Executive Committee. So much unforeseen opposition to the proposed law developed that the Tzik decided to postpone its final adoption until the next session, meanwhile initiating a broad popular discussion of the project.
“Since that time factories, offices, clubs, and various Soviet organizations and institutions have passed resolutions for and against the bill, and the halls have not been able to hold the eager crowds that thronged to the meetings in city, town, and village. One must live in Russia to-day, amid the atmosphere of torment, disgust, and disillusionment that pervades sex relations, the chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy that hover over the Russian family, to understand the reasons for this heated discussion, for these passionate pros and cons.
“When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, like every other ‘bourgeois’ institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with a will to destroy it. ‘To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did,’ declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist and active participant in the recent discussion. So one of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term ‘illegitimate children.’
“This was done simply by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it, and now the Soviet Government boasts that Russia is the only country where there are no illegitimate children. The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary in the event of a separation, provided she has no other means of livelihood.
“At the same time a law was passed which made divorce a matter of a few minutes, to be obtained at the request of either partner in a marriage. Chaos was the result. Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka.”
Wow, ring any bells yet? And of course the sexual revolution of the 60s was merely an imitation of what the Soviets were doing decades earlier. But for all this “emancipation” and “liberation,” the family unit eventually had to be restored:
“The new sex relations have also raised certain problems in the cities. During the winter of 1924-1925 some of the older Communists accused the younger generation, especially the students, of indulging in too much dissipation, of squandering health and vitality in loose connections; they blame the girl students for practising frequent abortions. ‘You must be either a student or a mother; under present-day conditions you can’t be both,’ declared one mentor to the modern Russian women students. The latter indignantly replied that love was almost the only cheap amusement left to them and demanded that they be given at least the same opportunity for free abortions that factory women enjoy. Moreover, they retorted that not all the older Communists could serve as a model of pure living.
“Some members of the League of Communist Youth, an organization which now numbers between a million and a half and two million young men and women, regard the refusal to enter into temporary sex relations as mere bourgeois prejudice, the deadliest sin in the eyes of a Communist. Some of the provincial branches of the League went so far as to organize ‘Down with Shame’ and ‘Down with Innocence’ circles; but these were sharply condemned as rowdy aberrations in the official report on the activities of the League at the last Congress of the Communist Party.
“Both in the villages and in the cities the problem of the unmarried mother has become very acute and provides a severe and annoying test of Communist theories. In the early stages of the Revolution the Communists held the theory that children should be reared and cared for by the State. But it soon became evident that the State, especially in war-torn and impoverished Russia, was financially quite incapable of assuming such a heavy burden of responsibility. The figure of ten thousand foundlings, reported for thirty-two provinces of the Soviet Union over a period of six months, illustrates the danger that the present large number of vagrant homeless children may be swelled because of the inability or unwillingness of parents to provide for the offspring of temporary connections.”
So here we have the whole lot: the destruction of marriage and family; easy divorce; sexual liberation and promiscuity; abortion on demand, and social problems galore. Are we talking about the West today or Russia of the past?
Will we never learn the lessons of history? Or are we doomed to forever repeat its mistakes? And just in case a few folks have not yet made the connection here, let me point out the fact that the sexual suicide we are witnessing in the West today has not come about by accident. Indeed, it has been a fully deliberate, orchestrated and planned assault.
Don’t believe me? Fine, don’t take my word for it. Let the current day crop of Marxists tell you in their own words. Consider this very revealing article found in the Communist Party of Australia’s official newspaper, The Guardian. In its most recent editorial it said this in part:
“As a pillar of the capitalist system, the church sees marriage – as it defines it – as an institution vital to its continued power, indeed to capitalism itself. Thus for many decades – into the 20th century – churches opposed any changes to divorce laws that made it easier for couples to end their relationship.
“If you strike blows against that pillar, challenging that power, there will be a reaction, as there is, from the Vatican all the way down to the pious hypocrites in Australia’s parliament who publicly espoused that gay marriage was against their beliefs. The creed that a person’s religion is a private matter between the individual and his or her faith is always shattered when it comes up against the political, as it always does.
“To put it in context, in an interview on ABC radio in the lead up to this year’s Sydney Mardi Gras an organiser of the event called the gay rights movement in general a liberation movement: liberation movements take many shapes, sizes and forms. These things form the basic political nature of the struggle for same-sex marriage.”
There you go folks – we have here a straight line from the atrocities of the Bolsheviks in the early 1900s to the ongoing war against everything decent in the early 21st century. The Marxists never die; they just morph into new forms. But their overriding objective remains the same: to destroy the church, family, marriage, morality, and the West.
So when are we going to wake up to the war we are in? Or are we going to sleep through this revolution as well, only to eventually wake up to find out that it is all too late to even utter a whimper against all the destruction and carnage which has transpired?
8 Replies to “Telling the Truth About Destroying Marriage and Family”
“So when are we going to wake up to the war we are in, or are we going to sleep through this revolution as well”?
Thanks Bill for the further exhortation, and I’m sure many of us are fighting SSM tooth and nail.
In the UK it is worth noting for the record that our government has deceitfully deprived the electorate of any real say in the matter of introducing SSM.
In its own on line “consultation” which it offered to the public there was no opportunity at all for them to agree or reject in principle the introduction of SSM, only a facility to answer questions on the PROCESS of implementing SSM. But to move on.
As we know, the real menace takes the form of bland assurance that “religious” marriages will be untouched by SSM, when in effect it will radically change, by law, our centuries old and biblical understanding of what marriage is.
You and your readers may find the following extract from David Holloway’s (evangelical Christian pastor from UK) excellent comment on the issue as helpful as I do for he gets to the heart of the issue:
“At the heart of the problem is a new understanding of the essential nature of marriage. In the “Ministerial Foreword” of the Government’s Equalities Office, Equal civil marriage: a consultation, Theresa May and Lynne Featherstone (UK government ministers advocating SSM) write:
“We recognise that the personal commitment made by same-sex couples when they enter into a civil partnership is no different to the commitment made by opposite sex couples when they enter into a marriage.”
This implies that “a personal commitment” is sufficient for defining the essentials of marriage. This could not be more wrong! But it goes back to the gay, same-sex marriage advocate, who was one of the first to define down marriage to include homosexual couples, Andrew Sullivan. He wrote: “In the contemporary West marriage has become a way in which the state recognises an emotional commitment by two people to each other for life. And within that definition, there is no public way, if one believes in equal rights under the law, in which it should legally be denied homosexuals [italics mine].”
But several things need to be said in contradiction. First, the new proposals of the Government and of Andrew Sullivan that want to exclude procreative sex from the definition of marriage, is like defining Nissan simply as a commercial business but not making cars essential to Nissan. And to exclude procreative sex, as is being argued, because some couples are childless, is like excluding winning medals as essential to the Olympic Games, because some athletes go home medalless.
Universally and fundamentally marriage is about socially approved sexual intercourse. That is why to “consummate” marriage is traditionally to have sexual intercourse (defined as penile-vaginal penetration). A failure of such consummation has been a ground for “nullity” – the denial that a marriage has taken place. So people do not assume that what is most distinctive of a newly-wed couple is that they are now “having an emotional commitment”, but that they are now “having sex” with one another and still for many, thank God, having it as a new experience.
True, given the permissiveness of current Western morals and education, others have not reserved sex for marriage and with damaging consequences. It is therefore understandable why there are those among the secular Western-educated elite who define marriage without any idea of sex. But in the interests of a minority, then to impose this definition on the majority with its damaging consequences is very wrong.
This homosexual minority together with heterosexual amoral elites have bought into, what John Haldane, professor of philosophy at St Andrews University, calls the argumentum ad consummationem.
It goes like this. “Major premise: sexual attraction and love are determinants of human happiness and should be consummated where sincerely felt. Minor premise: you cannot choose to whom you are sexually attracted, and you cannot choose with whom you fall in love. Conclusion: whether or not they are chosen, attraction and love should be consummated where
sincerely felt.”
And Haldane comments: “this simplistic syllogism (uncritical in its use of choice, love, sentiment, and sincerity) provides the rational foundation for a culture of often unrestrained, promiscuous, and unfaithful – yet indulgently sentimental – coupling. And it undergirds the push for same-sex marriage on both sides of the Atlantic.”
He is so right, especially when marriage is seen simply in terms of individualistic adult fulfilment. But marriage is important for bringing children into the world in a secure environment with a mother and father from whom they came and whom they can love and be loved by. This is for the good of the wider society.
Furthermore, we all need to remember that marriage is an institution. But an institution not only has a relatively stable pattern of rules and structures to meet social needs; it also takes on a life of its own and to some degree controls those active within it. So the great value of marriage as an institution is that it gives stabilising support to the married couple and also to the children of the marriage family. That is why we need to strengthen the institution of heterosexual, life-long monogamous marriage.
Instead it is being threatened by our “divorce culture” and, now, by its being defined down to the level of essentially non-procreative homosexual emotional relationships.
But we do not have social institutions to support purely private emotional attachments. Social institutions have a public and social good and the public and social good of marriage is child rearing. ”
There is more quality comment in the article which cannot be quoted here – but I believe his point about the SSM advocates wishing to “exclude procreative sex from the definition of marriage,” is a central one.
Graham Wood, UK
This is a good article, and the detailed comments by Graham Wood were also well worth reading.
I found that there is also some good material to help Bible-believing Christians think through the subject written by Dr Robert A. J. Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and available from his website.
David Haslam
Thanks David – yes Gagnon is terrific.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
“Like falling dominoes, the collapsing family led to the fall of social order, culture, and then the economy, unleashing a tidal wave of crime, corruption, sexual debauchery, and chaos. When Stalin came to power, he took immediate steps to restore order. The family and ethics were restored, abortion and divorce made difficult to obtain, and sodomy, gender-bendering, etc. were re-criminalized. In taking these steps, Stalin destroyed the Bolshevik’s ‘revolution,’ for which they hate him to this day.”
Leaving aside what we see with our own eyes and appealing instead to the Bible, something which homosexuals frequently do without blushing in an attempt to justify their relationships and behaviour, we read that the first man, Adam, was uniquely created to have a personal relationship with his creator, but as far as his life on earth was concerned he was alone. There was no other Adam who had evolved supposedly from amoeba and who would have kept him company.
We read that he was put into a deep sleep and woman was created from his side and that when he awoke he was delighted with what he saw and she with him! They were both uniquely different, not interchangeable, but yet of the same kind: mankind.
We then read that the responsibility of creating yet more men and women ceased to be with their Creator but fell on them. Go forth and multiply! The Bible says that they became one flesh, out of which came more male and female kind who were fusions of their genes, chromosomes, personalities, and other family characteristics. (Look! He has his grandfather’s nose). But this was no mere mechanical act. The Bible says that God ordered this coupling in such a way that the man and woman would be joined exclusively at the deepest level, in mind, body and spirit and that only death could separate them.
The Bible also says that the man’s responsibility is great indeed for he must love the woman, nourish and cherish her because she is in fact his own body. Long after Moses had put Genesis down on papyrus, under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ himself quoted from it:
Matthew 19: 4-6, Jesus said “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Hence when God joins one man and one woman together in marriage, it is His act, not theirs. God makes their marriage indissoluble and protects it from every danger that may threaten it from within and without.
But man’s motivation for looking after his wife is driven by more than the consideration that she is part of his body. His task is to present his wife spotless and pure before Christ:
Ephesians 5: 25-30 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church — for we are members of his body.”
A husband’s duty is to present his wife to God as the Church, Christ’s bride, will one day be presented to Him. For two gay men, calling themselves husband to one another is leading them both to sin. The wages of which is death and for which there will require an accounting.
Ephesians 5:23 also says, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
The gay lobby would regard a husband’s role of protecting his wife as enslavement of the wife. The gay lobby would see that it was their duty to destroy the headship of the husband over the wife and thus consider herself a God, answerable to no one except herself. This is subversion and a call to mutiny.
David Skinner, UK
The current political will to redefine marriage on the grounds of equality does have frightening echoes of the Bolshevic agenda to destroy marriage and family in 1920’s Russia. This revolution was deemed a failure so why are we repeating the experiment?
There is also a parallel in the Bolsheviks’ abolition of “illegitimacy”. By making everyone equal so that no one feels like a “second class citizen” if their relationship fails; but making everyone equal doesn’t address the problem of the emotional damage all round, inflicted by broken sexual relationships, it only “cooks the books”. This seems to be more about awarding status. We need to think about how relationships can succeed.
Same sex couples want equal marriage to have equal status with heterosexual marriage, but the tendency of activists to vilify people who conscientiously disagree with them is unlikely to confer much status other than that of foul-mouthed bully.
I think there is a case for upholding the integrity of natural law in that marriage is a life partnership of a man and a woman. Governments are leading the way in redefining marriage but we are witnessing the effects of corruption and short term thinking by governments. In the UK we uncovered Members of Parliament fiddling expenses on an industrial scale, international banks have adopted practices more suited to the casino and are barely capitalised, the financial watchdogs failed to do their job to prevent the financial disaster unfolding, and the Eurozone is in crisis. What worked once when integrity and trust were central to policy has now become corrupt and is going backwards. It is common knowledge that you can make a name for yourself simply by changing an existing procedure.
Same sex marriage takes no account of children who will inevitably become tangled up in the assortment of relationships that could become legal once a precedent is set. In the UK the Government consultation document on the redefinition of marriage makes no mention of the words “children” “husband” or “wife”. The rights of future generations of children as yet unborn, or those who have not yet learned to speak, or those too young to understand what is going on, will be trampled over roughshod as all the talk is of equal relationship rights of people who regard themselves as deprived, be they same sex, heterosexual or single parent. Children are the real victims. As they become aware that they are missing one of their true biological parents, resentment at the interloper will inevitably grow, as experienced by step-parents. Surely it is in all our interests to lay the foundations for stability in relationships for future generations.
The state of Queensland recently in its legislature voted to downgrade same-sex civil partnerships and to remove access by same-sex couples from surrogacy arrangements. This focuses on the rights of children, which must be ring-fenced and someone must “have a say” on their behalf in this unseemly struggle for the status of marriage.
We all need to wake up as we are being led slipping and sliding into a big glue.
Rachel Smith
So called ‘gay marriage’ is an audacious and deliberate attempt to destroy the most intimate and personal relationships binding family and national life together. Not only does it deny the unique difference between male and female but relationships, such as husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter, instead of diversity, it will reduce the human race to zombie partners A,B,C,D…., progenitors 1,2,3, egg and semen donors 000x783T//W. Children will be reduced to mere commodities, trophies and human shields, not knowing who they are or from whence they have come.
There will be nothing to stop the remaining letters of the LGBTs, the bisexuals and Transsexuals from demanding their rights. Bisexuals in order to give full expression to their marriages will have to be made up of three partners. And the children of transsexuals will be forced to have either a mother who was originally a man or a father who was originally a woman. Incestuous marriages will be no problem, with regard to the danger of producing genetically deformed children, just so long as all the partners are of the same sex – unless that is they resort to IVF and surrogacy using unnamed men and women, where there is the possibility of a close relative of the opposite sex donating either sperm or an egg.
Indeed, consummation and fidelity will not be required. It will be possible to make tailor-made ‘marriages’ where there is no sex involved. Or it will be possible to have ‘marriages’ where there is neither personal relationship or children involved – only sexual passion; and finally it will be possible to have marriages where there is no personal companionship or sexual passion – just cold procreation and insemination. Indeed, it will be possible for someone to have all three marriages on the go at the same time. The Jerry Spring Show will soon be normality.
There are those using the same arguments as the gays to have their relationships ratified and embraced by the public. Those in polygamous, polyarmorous, incestuous, paedophile, bestial and necrophile relationships- even those involved in sexual relationships with themselves and objects like buildings – are claiming that they too are in committed, consensual, healthy, rich and nourishing relationships. Perhaps Teresa May, the Home Secretary believes if that these relationships are also legitimised then they too will strengthen marriage and make society more cohesive, stable and secure?
God is not mocked.
David Skinner, UK
All these people need healing – at least enough that they can get to the point of being clear-headed enough to repent. Among our other works we need to pray, as needed, for the people around us (and ourselves) to be healed.
“So when are we going to wake up to the war we are in, or are we going to sleep through this revolution as well”?
Thanks Bill for the further exhortation, and I’m sure many of us are fighting SSM tooth and nail.
In the UK it is worth noting for the record that our government has deceitfully deprived the electorate of any real say in the matter of introducing SSM.
In its own on line “consultation” which it offered to the public there was no opportunity at all for them to agree or reject in principle the introduction of SSM, only a facility to answer questions on the PROCESS of implementing SSM. But to move on.
As we know, the real menace takes the form of bland assurance that “religious” marriages will be untouched by SSM, when in effect it will radically change, by law, our centuries old and biblical understanding of what marriage is.
You and your readers may find the following extract from David Holloway’s (evangelical Christian pastor from UK) excellent comment on the issue as helpful as I do for he gets to the heart of the issue:
“At the heart of the problem is a new understanding of the essential nature of marriage. In the “Ministerial Foreword” of the Government’s Equalities Office, Equal civil marriage: a consultation, Theresa May and Lynne Featherstone (UK government ministers advocating SSM) write:
“We recognise that the personal commitment made by same-sex couples when they enter into a civil partnership is no different to the commitment made by opposite sex couples when they enter into a marriage.”
This implies that “a personal commitment” is sufficient for defining the essentials of marriage. This could not be more wrong! But it goes back to the gay, same-sex marriage advocate, who was one of the first to define down marriage to include homosexual couples, Andrew Sullivan. He wrote: “In the contemporary West marriage has become a way in which the state recognises an emotional commitment by two people to each other for life. And within that definition, there is no public way, if one believes in equal rights under the law, in which it should legally be denied homosexuals [italics mine].”
But several things need to be said in contradiction. First, the new proposals of the Government and of Andrew Sullivan that want to exclude procreative sex from the definition of marriage, is like defining Nissan simply as a commercial business but not making cars essential to Nissan. And to exclude procreative sex, as is being argued, because some couples are childless, is like excluding winning medals as essential to the Olympic Games, because some athletes go home medalless.
Universally and fundamentally marriage is about socially approved sexual intercourse. That is why to “consummate” marriage is traditionally to have sexual intercourse (defined as penile-vaginal penetration). A failure of such consummation has been a ground for “nullity” – the denial that a marriage has taken place. So people do not assume that what is most distinctive of a newly-wed couple is that they are now “having an emotional commitment”, but that they are now “having sex” with one another and still for many, thank God, having it as a new experience.
True, given the permissiveness of current Western morals and education, others have not reserved sex for marriage and with damaging consequences. It is therefore understandable why there are those among the secular Western-educated elite who define marriage without any idea of sex. But in the interests of a minority, then to impose this definition on the majority with its damaging consequences is very wrong.
This homosexual minority together with heterosexual amoral elites have bought into, what John Haldane, professor of philosophy at St Andrews University, calls the argumentum ad consummationem.
It goes like this. “Major premise: sexual attraction and love are determinants of human happiness and should be consummated where sincerely felt. Minor premise: you cannot choose to whom you are sexually attracted, and you cannot choose with whom you fall in love. Conclusion: whether or not they are chosen, attraction and love should be consummated where
sincerely felt.”
And Haldane comments: “this simplistic syllogism (uncritical in its use of choice, love, sentiment, and sincerity) provides the rational foundation for a culture of often unrestrained, promiscuous, and unfaithful – yet indulgently sentimental – coupling. And it undergirds the push for same-sex marriage on both sides of the Atlantic.”
He is so right, especially when marriage is seen simply in terms of individualistic adult fulfilment. But marriage is important for bringing children into the world in a secure environment with a mother and father from whom they came and whom they can love and be loved by. This is for the good of the wider society.
Furthermore, we all need to remember that marriage is an institution. But an institution not only has a relatively stable pattern of rules and structures to meet social needs; it also takes on a life of its own and to some degree controls those active within it. So the great value of marriage as an institution is that it gives stabilising support to the married couple and also to the children of the marriage family. That is why we need to strengthen the institution of heterosexual, life-long monogamous marriage.
Instead it is being threatened by our “divorce culture” and, now, by its being defined down to the level of essentially non-procreative homosexual emotional relationships.
But we do not have social institutions to support purely private emotional attachments. Social institutions have a public and social good and the public and social good of marriage is child rearing. ”
There is more quality comment in the article which cannot be quoted here – but I believe his point about the SSM advocates wishing to “exclude procreative sex from the definition of marriage,” is a central one.
Graham Wood, UK
This is a good article, and the detailed comments by Graham Wood were also well worth reading.
I found that there is also some good material to help Bible-believing Christians think through the subject written by Dr Robert A. J. Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and available from his website.
David Haslam
Thanks David – yes Gagnon is terrific.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
“Like falling dominoes, the collapsing family led to the fall of social order, culture, and then the economy, unleashing a tidal wave of crime, corruption, sexual debauchery, and chaos. When Stalin came to power, he took immediate steps to restore order. The family and ethics were restored, abortion and divorce made difficult to obtain, and sodomy, gender-bendering, etc. were re-criminalized. In taking these steps, Stalin destroyed the Bolshevik’s ‘revolution,’ for which they hate him to this day.”
http://herrickreport.com/newsovietunion.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=zeMZGGQ0ERk
David Skinner, UK
Leaving aside what we see with our own eyes and appealing instead to the Bible, something which homosexuals frequently do without blushing in an attempt to justify their relationships and behaviour, we read that the first man, Adam, was uniquely created to have a personal relationship with his creator, but as far as his life on earth was concerned he was alone. There was no other Adam who had evolved supposedly from amoeba and who would have kept him company.
We read that he was put into a deep sleep and woman was created from his side and that when he awoke he was delighted with what he saw and she with him! They were both uniquely different, not interchangeable, but yet of the same kind: mankind.
We then read that the responsibility of creating yet more men and women ceased to be with their Creator but fell on them. Go forth and multiply! The Bible says that they became one flesh, out of which came more male and female kind who were fusions of their genes, chromosomes, personalities, and other family characteristics. (Look! He has his grandfather’s nose). But this was no mere mechanical act. The Bible says that God ordered this coupling in such a way that the man and woman would be joined exclusively at the deepest level, in mind, body and spirit and that only death could separate them.
The Bible also says that the man’s responsibility is great indeed for he must love the woman, nourish and cherish her because she is in fact his own body. Long after Moses had put Genesis down on papyrus, under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ himself quoted from it:
Matthew 19: 4-6, Jesus said “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Hence when God joins one man and one woman together in marriage, it is His act, not theirs. God makes their marriage indissoluble and protects it from every danger that may threaten it from within and without.
But man’s motivation for looking after his wife is driven by more than the consideration that she is part of his body. His task is to present his wife spotless and pure before Christ:
Ephesians 5: 25-30 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church — for we are members of his body.”
A husband’s duty is to present his wife to God as the Church, Christ’s bride, will one day be presented to Him. For two gay men, calling themselves husband to one another is leading them both to sin. The wages of which is death and for which there will require an accounting.
Ephesians 5:23 also says, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
The gay lobby would regard a husband’s role of protecting his wife as enslavement of the wife. The gay lobby would see that it was their duty to destroy the headship of the husband over the wife and thus consider herself a God, answerable to no one except herself. This is subversion and a call to mutiny.
David Skinner, UK
The current political will to redefine marriage on the grounds of equality does have frightening echoes of the Bolshevic agenda to destroy marriage and family in 1920’s Russia. This revolution was deemed a failure so why are we repeating the experiment?
There is also a parallel in the Bolsheviks’ abolition of “illegitimacy”. By making everyone equal so that no one feels like a “second class citizen” if their relationship fails; but making everyone equal doesn’t address the problem of the emotional damage all round, inflicted by broken sexual relationships, it only “cooks the books”. This seems to be more about awarding status. We need to think about how relationships can succeed.
Same sex couples want equal marriage to have equal status with heterosexual marriage, but the tendency of activists to vilify people who conscientiously disagree with them is unlikely to confer much status other than that of foul-mouthed bully.
I think there is a case for upholding the integrity of natural law in that marriage is a life partnership of a man and a woman. Governments are leading the way in redefining marriage but we are witnessing the effects of corruption and short term thinking by governments. In the UK we uncovered Members of Parliament fiddling expenses on an industrial scale, international banks have adopted practices more suited to the casino and are barely capitalised, the financial watchdogs failed to do their job to prevent the financial disaster unfolding, and the Eurozone is in crisis. What worked once when integrity and trust were central to policy has now become corrupt and is going backwards. It is common knowledge that you can make a name for yourself simply by changing an existing procedure.
Same sex marriage takes no account of children who will inevitably become tangled up in the assortment of relationships that could become legal once a precedent is set. In the UK the Government consultation document on the redefinition of marriage makes no mention of the words “children” “husband” or “wife”. The rights of future generations of children as yet unborn, or those who have not yet learned to speak, or those too young to understand what is going on, will be trampled over roughshod as all the talk is of equal relationship rights of people who regard themselves as deprived, be they same sex, heterosexual or single parent. Children are the real victims. As they become aware that they are missing one of their true biological parents, resentment at the interloper will inevitably grow, as experienced by step-parents. Surely it is in all our interests to lay the foundations for stability in relationships for future generations.
The state of Queensland recently in its legislature voted to downgrade same-sex civil partnerships and to remove access by same-sex couples from surrogacy arrangements. This focuses on the rights of children, which must be ring-fenced and someone must “have a say” on their behalf in this unseemly struggle for the status of marriage.
We all need to wake up as we are being led slipping and sliding into a big glue.
Rachel Smith
So called ‘gay marriage’ is an audacious and deliberate attempt to destroy the most intimate and personal relationships binding family and national life together. Not only does it deny the unique difference between male and female but relationships, such as husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter, instead of diversity, it will reduce the human race to zombie partners A,B,C,D…., progenitors 1,2,3, egg and semen donors 000x783T//W. Children will be reduced to mere commodities, trophies and human shields, not knowing who they are or from whence they have come.
There will be nothing to stop the remaining letters of the LGBTs, the bisexuals and Transsexuals from demanding their rights. Bisexuals in order to give full expression to their marriages will have to be made up of three partners. And the children of transsexuals will be forced to have either a mother who was originally a man or a father who was originally a woman. Incestuous marriages will be no problem, with regard to the danger of producing genetically deformed children, just so long as all the partners are of the same sex – unless that is they resort to IVF and surrogacy using unnamed men and women, where there is the possibility of a close relative of the opposite sex donating either sperm or an egg.
Indeed, consummation and fidelity will not be required. It will be possible to make tailor-made ‘marriages’ where there is no sex involved. Or it will be possible to have ‘marriages’ where there is neither personal relationship or children involved – only sexual passion; and finally it will be possible to have marriages where there is no personal companionship or sexual passion – just cold procreation and insemination. Indeed, it will be possible for someone to have all three marriages on the go at the same time. The Jerry Spring Show will soon be normality.
There are those using the same arguments as the gays to have their relationships ratified and embraced by the public. Those in polygamous, polyarmorous, incestuous, paedophile, bestial and necrophile relationships- even those involved in sexual relationships with themselves and objects like buildings – are claiming that they too are in committed, consensual, healthy, rich and nourishing relationships. Perhaps Teresa May, the Home Secretary believes if that these relationships are also legitimised then they too will strengthen marriage and make society more cohesive, stable and secure?
God is not mocked.
David Skinner, UK
All these people need healing – at least enough that they can get to the point of being clear-headed enough to repent. Among our other works we need to pray, as needed, for the people around us (and ourselves) to be healed.
Louise Le Mottee