Acceptance of Homosexuality

This is "Acceptance of Homosexuality" point five in a six point case regarding the same-sex marriage debate. The case is outlined here.

Acceptance of Homosexuality - Point Five
The law should promote behaviors that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive.

Same-sex marriage activists want to define marriage as simply a private relationship between two, loving, committed parties. They think it’s unfair that heterosexual relationships are recognized when their relationships are not. This is a misunderstanding of why the state is involved in marriage at all.

The state does not endorse natural marriage because two people “love” one another. It endorses man-woman unions because they benefit the public welfare in the numerous ways we’ve seen (children, health, reduced social costs, etc.). Besides, if marriage is merely a private affair, as same-sex advocates contend, then why do they want the government involved at all? They do not need the government to do what they want to do. As I mentioned above, people who have homosexual desires can pledge fidelity to one another already—they don’t need state sanction to do so.

Acceptance of Homosexuality - The Main Reason
By their own admission, the main reason homosexuals want the government involved is to force acceptance of homosexuality on the public. I apologize for the repetition, but I cannot emphasize this enough. They want to change the law because they know that’s the way to change cultural attitudes about their behavior. In other words, state sanction will lead to social sanction. The approval of the law will lead to approval of homosexuality. Since many activists consider homosexual behavior their identity, any approval of homosexuality means approval of them as people. That’s what this is about. It’s not really about marriage but the validation marriage will bring them.

Acceptance of Homosexuality - Lawful?
But government doesn’t exist to validate the desires of its citizens when such validation would harm others or society. To the contrary—the main purpose of government is to protect its citizens from harm.

That’s why good laws endorse behaviors that are beneficial to the public welfare and restrain behaviors that are destructive to it. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, put it well. He wrote, “If men were angels no government would be necessary.” Since we’re not angels, government’s role is to discourage harm and encourage good. No society can long endure when its government reverses that duty.

Keep Reading!

Compliments of Correct, not Politically Correct, authored by Frank Turek. For more information, visit www.impactapologetics.com.


WHAT DO YOU THINK? - We have all sinned and deserve God's judgment. God, the Father, sent His only Son to satisfy that judgment for those who believe in Him. Jesus, the creator and eternal Son of God, who lived a sinless life, loves us so much that He died for our sins, taking the punishment that we deserve, was buried, and rose from the dead according to the Bible. If you truly believe and trust this in your heart, receiving Jesus alone as your Savior, declaring, "Jesus is Lord," you will be saved from judgment and spend eternity with God in heaven.

What is your response?

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

I still have questions






Facebook   YouTube   Twitter   Google+   RSS Feed




LEARN MORE