You’ve no doubt heard this phrase made in recent days and years to vilify those who oppose gay marriage. Anyone who opposes gay marriage is said to be “on the wrong side of history.” The premise, of course, is that gay marriage has a long and glorious future ahead of it. It is the inevitable result of societal enlightenment and civil rights progress and never again will we return to the “dark ages” where heterosexuals hatefully barred homosexuals from the privileges they enjoyed. The statement, however, is ludicrous on the face of it. Let’s consider how.
First, it turns a blind eye to the fact that until some European nations started recognizing gay marriage in fairly recent history, no nation in HISTORY had ever done this before. Even if someone dredges up an exception here and there from Wikipedia, the point is still the same. Very few, if any, nations have ever sanctioned gay marriage until recently. So, by my calculations, heterosexual marriage has nearly six thousand years history behind it, while gay marriage has a decade or two under its belt in godless, clueless Europe and a couple of years now in godless, clueless America. Who is on the wrong side of history? To claim history as an ally, gay marriage advocates must truly engage in some sort of “fuzzy math.”
The second assumption undergirding the statement, “You are on the wrong side of history,” is that the latest human fad – “gay marriage” – can already claim the “wisdom of the ages” when no such time has elapsed for us to discover the coming consequences of this monstrous policy. We don’t even need several years experimentation to determine the stupidity of the gay rights agenda. God has already told us whether it is wise or not. I’m sure Sodom and Gemorrah were cities proud of their civil rights progress. Homosexuality was in high fashion. Homosexuals were the majority. They had won the right to practice their wicked behavior. They were bold. They had no fear of punishment by civil authorities, even if they raped two male visitors (who were angels). Clearly, the gay rights agenda had arrived and come into its own in Sodom and Gemorrah. Was Sodom and Gemorrah on the right side or the wrong side of history? I’m sure they thought they were on the cutting edge of societal evolution. But today, the Dead Sea stands as an enduring monument to Sodom’s progressivism. The dead sea region still contains large deposits of brimstone, a bright yellow mineral that is highly combustible. Genesis 19:24-25 tells us why this mineral is found there in such abundance: “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.” Clearly the Sodomites were on the wrong side of history, just as the Sodomites today are on the wrong side of history. God’s coming judgment on Europe and America will soon reveal what He thinks of our “civil rights” campaign.
A third assumption is that Europe and America are blazing the trail for civil rights progress, while other nations that have not yet seen the light are still lagging in moral darkness. The truth is that it is the reverse. It is moral regress and darkness, not enlightenment, that causes us to approve of sin. The other nations of the world who have not yet jumped on our progressive bandwagon are the sensible ones with respect to this issue.
The fourth assumption is that gay marriage is a civil right. It is perceived to be on par with the right of women to vote and the right of black people to have the same liberties as white people. But gay marriage is not a civil right. It is an abomination, just as homosexuality itself is an abomination. To compare the abominable behavior of homosexuals to women and black people is an egregious comparison and an insult to all women and blacks. It is not now, nor has it ever been, a sin to be a woman or to be black. God created women as women, and black people to be black people. But God has never created anyone to be a homosexual. This is another prodigious assumption that has not and never will be substantiated – namely, that homosexuals are born that way. The Creator of every human being happens to know how He created the human race and He has spoken on this matter: "Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices." (Ecclesiasted 7:29)
According to Rom. 1:25-27, God does not create babies to be homosexuals. Rather, he turns grown up idolaters over to the sin of homosexuality as a punishment on their idolatry.
“For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” (Rom. 1:25-27)
Unfortunately, the church lost the battle (but not the war) long ago when it ceased to define the issue in terms of sin. Homosexuality is a heinous sin. This is the reality. We should not even be discussing or debating gay marriage any more than we should be debating pedophile marriage. Pedophilia is a disgusting sin, period. To begin debating pedophile marriage would be to concede a vast acreage of moral ground. It secretly grants the right to be a pedophile, while pretending to discuss the pros and cons of marital contracts. The same is true with homosexuality. It is an abomination. Of course, gay marriage is evil. It is evil because the very act of homosexuality is evil. But we have long abandoned that argument, because it sounds too judgmental for our politically correct world. So, we are left to scramble for weak arguments that grant people the right to indulge homosexuality, while strangely denying them civil recognition. The church must recover her spine and call homosexuality (not gay marriage) the abomination that it is.
A Frenchman named Pascal Bruckner wrote a recent book entitled "The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse -- Save the Earth, Punish Human Beings." Although Bruckner is himself a liberal, he criticizes the "Green" movement as being a secular religion. He...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
There are only three ways the state can teach (or deal with) religion in public schools, none of which are appealing. This is excerpted from the 19th century theologian Robert Lewis Dabney: 1) To force the religion of the majority on the children...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
Robert Lewis Dabney on the impossibility of true education without moral instruction and the impossibility of moral instruction without Christianity. "To educate the mind without purifying the heart is but to place a sharp sword in the hands of a...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
Robert Lewis Dabney on the delusion of a religious neutrality in public schools. "The moral judgments and acts of the soul all involve an exercise or reason, so that it is impossible to separate the ethical and intellectual functions...Man...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
Most would say “Yes, of course God is smart. What a stupid question!” And yet many of the same people live as though God is not very smart. How so? By treating His Word as though it is nothing special. Some imply that God is not very...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
If ever a title needed clarification, this is it. The GIFT of cancer? Don’t I mean CURSE of cancer? No, I mean gift. Cancer is a gift. How could that possibly be true? 1) Cancer is a gift because it is a kind warning that death is coming. We...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
Many former drug and alcohol addicts testify to the usefulness of AA and the good they have received by the organization and by the group meetings they attend. That being the case, why should I criticize it? I do so because I believe AA...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
According to the apostle Paul, if Jesus was not raised bodily from the grave, everything is meaningless. Here are the ramifications: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; (14) and if Christ has...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
The decisions before the Supreme Court are simple. Sin is not a civil right. Case closed. The Supreme Court is taking up the case to decide whether California's ballot initiative of a few years ago -- Proposition 8, banning same sex marriage -- is...[ abbreviated | read entire ]