{"id":474,"date":"2013-07-06T19:53:27","date_gmt":"2013-07-06T08:53:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/?p=474"},"modified":"2015-09-14T10:54:27","modified_gmt":"2015-09-13T23:54:27","slug":"a-referendum-on-homosexual-marriage-pt-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/2013\/07\/a-referendum-on-homosexual-marriage-pt-1\/","title":{"rendered":"A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt 1.)"},"content":{"rendered":"

[This article was begun some months ago when the issue of a referendum was first raised. Due to circumstances, it has been worked on in an ad hoc<\/em> fashion over that time. I feared that it had become irrelevant with Kevin Rudd taking back the Prime Ministership and that it may end up in the bin. However, Mr Rudd\u2019s change of heart on homosexual union and his statements of recent show that this issue is still very much alive. Some aspects may be dated. We now know that Tony Windsor will not be standing for re-election. However, it is hoped that the bulk of the article will still prove helpful. RM<\/span>]<\/p>\n

The issue of homosexual marriage refuses to go away.[1]<\/a> Why is this? The simple answer has to do with, a)<\/span> agitators who will not give up until they achieve their goal and, b)<\/span> Christians who will not engage in this fight in an appropriate manner.<\/p>\n

Those in favour of homosexual marriage managed to have a bill introduced to Parliament in 2012, which sought to rewrite the Marriage Act by changing its definition. After months of debate throughout society, the vote was taken and the democratically elected officials voted the bill down. Not only was the bill defeated; it was significantly defeated (98-42).<\/p>\n

Did this stop the agitators? No, it did not.[2]<\/a> Why did it not stop them? The answer here is twofold.<\/p>\n

First<\/span>, it must be understood, and we have made this point in previous articles<\/a>, that the vote taken by the Parliament was only a vote as to the definition of marriage. It was not an in principle vote against homosexuality. In other words, the vote was not a total rejection of homosexuality as an invalid and unacceptable lifestyle. Rather, it was a vote concerning the extent of homosexual recognition.<\/p>\n

Second<\/span>, because the aforementioned vote was not a complete rejection of homosexuality, the agitators have continued to be buoyed by Government policy and world events. We have highlighted the fact that the Gillard Government has made major concessions to the homosexual movement.[3]<\/a> In recent months, we have seen both the New Zealand and French Parliaments vote to accept homosexual marriage. The consequence of which was to once more fuel the issue here in Australia.<\/p>\n

Given the inability of our elected officials to deal satisfactorily and morally with this issue, we must ask, \u201cWhat now?\u201d The most recent proposal came from the Independent MP, Tony Windsor. His suggestion is that an additional question be added to the referendum planned to be held at the upcoming election.[4]<\/a> Naturally, the additional question would deal with homosexual marriage.<\/p>\n

This is a very simple plan. It is an effective plan. It is a definite plan. It is also a plan that has well and truly placed the \u201ccat amongst the pigeons.\u201d Thus far, we have seen some Christians support the idea[5]<\/a> and some Christians reject the idea.[6]<\/a> Certain political parties embraced the idea and then distance themselves from it. Social commentators have raised concerns about what effect a referendum and the associated advertising may have. Then, amusingly, certain homosexual lobby groups have shied away from the proposal.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cReferendum or no referendum?\u201d that is the question.<\/p>\n

As noted, I would agree with certain aspects of Mr Windsor\u2019s proposal. A referendum should put this issue to bed once and for all. The proposal is simple. The proposal is democratic. This proposal would tell us what the Australian people are actually thinking<\/strong> in contradistinction to what the news polls suppose we are thinking<\/em>. A referendum would put the issue beyond the reach of politicians and political speak.<\/p>\n

The question, however, that must of necessity be asked is, \u201cAre these aspects the right and only issues in this debate.\u201d The answer to that is a resounding, \u201cNo!\u201d Here, we enter the heart of this debate. Here, we must look at the issues that are being pushed aside by most, if not all, in this debate.<\/p>\n

1. Man\u2019s Logic v God\u2019s Authoritative Word<\/span>:<\/p>\n

One of the constant irritations in debates of this nature is the way in which Christians seek to argue logic and trend rather than God and His word. In The War was not Won<\/em>, I noted:<\/p>\n

I<\/span> know a good few Christian organisations who have fought hard in this and other battles. I do not in any way wish to detract from them or their work. However, I would posit that the events of recent years have shown us that the so called \u201clogical\u201d arguments are of little value. \u2026 We are witnessing a war based on definitions. Unless we come to the table armed with God\u2019s word, then we will simply be trading \u201clogic\u201d for \u201clogic\u201d or human\u00a0understanding for human understanding. The only thing that makes the Christian\u2019s argument impenetrable is the very fact that it is God\u2019s word! We have no magical ability bestowed upon us. Our faculties are not made magically better than other men. Our strength lies in the Word of God<\/span>.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

It is time that we Christians came to these arguments armed solely with God\u2019s word \u2013 the<\/em> sword of His armoury![9]<\/a> There is a place for secondary arguments; but they are just that, secondary. Such arguments must follow as an adjunct that witness to the truth of God\u2019s word. They can never be allowed to supplant the primacy of God\u2019s word either as the\u00a0foundation from which we speak or as the content of that speech.<\/p>\n

Allow me to attempt to elucidate. In theology we speak of \u201cNatural\u201d and \u201cPositive\u201d penalties when speaking of judgements upon sin. Berkhof explains:<\/p>\n

There are punishments which are the natural results of sin, and which man cannot escape, because they are the natural and necessary consequence of sin. \u2026 The slothful man comes to poverty, the drunkard brings ruin to himself and his family, the fornicator contracts a loathsome disease, and the criminal is burdened with shame and even when leaving the prison walls finds it extremely hard to make a new start. \u2026 But there are also positive punishments, and these are punishments in the more ordinary and legal sense of the word. They presuppose not merely the natural laws of life, but the positive law of the great Lawgiver with added sanctions. They are not penalties which naturally result from the nature of the transgression, but penalties which are attached to the transgression by divine enactments. They are superimposed by divine law, which is absolute authority<\/span>.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

It is fundamentally important that we grasp this point. When we as Christians wade into battle, we do so to glorify God and to stop sin. We go forth in the name of Jesus Christ and cry out, \u201cCease. Desist. Repent. Live!\u201d Concerned for the holiness of our God, we seek to stop every action that robs Him of His glory or besmirches His great name. The implication of this is that we are dealing with sins specifically proscribed by God as Lawgiver. Consequently, there is no logical link between the sin committed and the negative covenant penalty imposed by the sanction of God.<\/p>\n

Lost? Let me explain. What logical link is there between neglecting the worship of Jesus Christ, poverty and famine? What logical link is there between sexual promiscuity and exile (loss of sovereignty)? What logical link is there between familial adultery and childlessness? To our modern and Humanistic way of thinking, we would reply, \u201cNothing!\u201d However, if we explore God\u2019s word, we will see clearly that in God\u2019s Law these are the exact positive penalties attached to each of these transgressions<\/em>.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n

Whilst it is evident that there is indeed a system of cause and effect<\/em>, the effect is not a logical consequence. In terms of homosexuality, we may see that the natural penalty<\/em> of homosexual activity may be a divorce or the acquisition of a \u201cloathsome\u201d disease. What we do not see, what we refuse to see, is that the prosperity of our nation, its ability to produce, the stability of the seasons, the moral clime of the nation, the safety of our wives in their beds and our children on the street, and a myriad of things beside, are all linked to the acceptance or rejection of homosexuals and homosexual practice.<\/p>\n

Everyone is aware of the current agitation on Climate Change.[12]<\/a> Around the world there is a constant outcry about the dangers of Climate Change. I hear all sorts of reasons being advanced. Do you know what I do not hear? This admission: \u201cFor we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, since our youth even to this day<\/span>!\u201d[13]<\/a> We hear nothing in regard to the fact we are being punished and chastised for our rebellion against God.<\/p>\n

Australia is toying with homosexual marriage as is Britain and America. France and New Zealand have legalised it \u2013 as have other countries. Heretics are crawling out of the woodwork\u2014like the false prophets of old crying out \u201cPeace! Peace! When there was no peace\u201d\u2014telling us that homosexuality is a \u201cgift of God\u201d and that people are \u201cgay by divine right.\u201d[14]<\/a> This bemuses me. If all this is \u201cso right\u201d in the sight of God, why are our respective nations \u201cso messed up\u201d? <\/strong>If this is right before God then it constitutes righteousness<\/em>. God says He will look to the \u201crighteous\u201d and that He will bless \u201crighteous\u201d behaviour. So, where is the obvious covenantal blessing (positive command for our good) of God upon our respective nations?<\/p>\n

How do these false prophets explain Australia\u2019s drought? How do they explain New Zealand\u2019s earthquakes? How do they explain America\u2019s ever decreasing prosperity and plunge into unpayable debt? How do they explain the downward spiral of Britain from \u2018world power\u2019 to third-world war zone?<\/p>\n

The short answer is, \u201cThey cannot!\u201d At least, not without denying God as sovereign Lawgiver all over again and admitting that we are products of chance; that our prosperity and the rise and fall of nations is just a \u201cper chance\u201d or \u201chappenstance\u201d on the timeline we call history. (Oops! Sorry. My bad. Of course they do this. They call it Evolution, Humanism, and Post Modern Thought, to name but a few.)<\/p>\n

There is no human logic, research, or empiricism to be argued here. The only logic (right judgement) is to believe the revelation given by God and accept that, by God\u2019s standard, all is not \u201crosy in the garden\u201d; and this precisely because we have sinned and are therefore experiencing the application of the covenantal penalty to the covenantal transgression<\/em>.<\/p>\n

We can front our politicians with the so called \u201clogical\u201d. We can quote statistics. We can cite papers by PhDs. Yet none of these things says that the acceptance of homosexuality is an abhorrent deed that should not be practiced because it is an offence to Almighty God. None of these simply says, No![15]<\/a><\/p>\n

More importantly, none of these papers speak with authority<\/em><\/span>. None of these papers have the ability to command the consciences of sinful men and to tell them to stop suppressing the truth of God. None of these papers have the authority to either rebuke the conscience or liberate the conscience unto Jesus Christ. In short, none of these papers can transform<\/em><\/span>. That process can only be worked by Divine authority and that authority is God\u2019s word.<\/p>\n

Dr. Joe Morecraft III is absolutely correct when he states that arguments of logic and empiricism are a \u2018denial of the Christian faith.\u2019 Says he, \u201cKnowledge and morality are absolutely impossible unless we presuppose the truth of the Lordship of Christ and the Divine authority of the Bible over every area of life.<\/em>\u201d[16]<\/a> Spot on! However, beware the pitfall. We cannot have a half-baked cake. We cannot give mental assent only and say that we believe in accordance with Brother Joe and then forsake that principle for research and the words of men.<\/p>\n

It is for this reason that we must go into battle with the offensive weapon of the Lord \u2013 The Sword of the Spirit.<\/p>\n

Brethren, the first point is a very simple one. If we are going into battle with any expectation of victory, then let us throw down our piddly pen-knives and go armed with The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God;<\/em> For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart<\/em><\/span>.[17]<\/a><\/p>\n

2. Morality v Equality<\/span>:<\/p>\n

Beginning with the Word of God is essential for a successful Christian defence because it helps us to cut through the extraneous material thrown up by our opponents. The lens of God\u2019s word helps us to see through the smoke and mirrors. Armed with the Sword of the Lord, we are enabled to peel back the layers of lies and deceit and expose the true condition we face.<\/p>\n

In the battle regarding homosexual marriage, we must be sure of the true enemy so that we can apply the full force of God\u2019s word to that point. Taking on God\u2019s word and wisdom will ensure that we are not distracted and led from the path chasing tangential arguments and ideas.<\/p>\n

Of priority, we assert that the idea of homosexual marriage is an argument of morality<\/strong> and not equality<\/em>. Hence, from here on in, reference is made to homosexual union.[18]<\/a><\/p>\n

Homosexuality is illegitimate. Homosexuality is an abomination and a depraved activity. Homosexuality is condemned by God.[19]<\/a> Homosexuality is the pinnacle of man\u2019s rebellion against God and therefore falls under the full weight of His righteous wrath.[20]<\/a> So says God \u2013 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Therefore, any discussion in regard to homosexual practices or homosexual rights is first, foremost, and only<\/strong> a moral issue<\/em><\/span>!<\/p>\n

Yet, we do not hear this anymore \u2013 even from the Christians!! We Christians have become so focused upon the \u201clogical\u201d refutation of the particular point before us that we have forgotten the bigger issue. The question before us is not, \u201cShould homosexual union be legalised or recognised?\u201d but \u201cShould homosexuality be recognised or accepted?\u201d<\/p>\n

These are very different questions. The first merely feeds the rebellious desires of the homosexual lobby. The second places the homosexuals back in the closet and then pushes the closet of a cliff!! Oh dear! How un-PC of me. Well, in the words of Sgt Major \u201cShut Up\u201d, \u201cOh dear. So sad. Never mind!\u201d<\/p>\n

The longer we Christians (and our nation) refuse to acknowledge, preach, proclaim, and insist on God\u2019s order, the longer we will suffer the plague of homosexuality with all its attendant and destructive ills.<\/p>\n

As a moral issue, homosexuality can only be discussed under two words and from one perspective. Those two words \u2013 two very unpopular words today \u2013 are, \u201cRight\u201d or \u201cWrong\u201d. The one perspective is God\u2019s. If we begin at any other place, we have lost the battle before we have even begun.<\/p>\n

My friends, please understand this. As a moral issue, the discussion is only in regard to the rightness<\/em> or wrongness<\/strong> of homosexuality and nothing else. If we begin to discuss the ancillary, then we fight on the enemy\u2019s terms.<\/p>\n

Let me illustrate this point for you. Recently, I heard a discussion on this topic in the context of a proposed referendum. A female was interviewed as part of a panel. She began her discussion and in the space of no more than two sentences changed her language three times. She started with \u201chomosexual marriage<\/span>\u201d moved to \u201cmarriage equality<\/span>\u201d and then ended with the passionate \u201cAustralians just want everybody to be happy<\/span>\u201d.[21]<\/a><\/p>\n

In these two sentences there was a transitionary move from the moral \/ ethical<\/em>, to the cultural<\/em> \/ legal<\/em>, finishing strongly with the emotional<\/strong> \u2013 the modern god of happiness. Note this well, please. These transitions are used all the time. They are used to disarm and confuse. They are nothing short of Psychological Warfare. These terms are used to disguise reality and to deliberately lead people away from discussing homosexuality on moral grounds.<\/p>\n

Asking Joe Average whether he wants \u201ceverybody to be happy\u201d is a very different thing to asking him, \u201cDo you believe homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle?\u201d Yet, this is exactly what happens in order to bluff and beguile the average person on the street.<\/p>\n

Footnote four contains a link to the interview with Fred Nile on this issue. I would now encourage you to go and view that link. Note this same attempt on the part of the interviewer to use language that distracts from the real issues. Note how that language makes any who oppose seem to be \u201cDraconian\u201d, \u201chalf-witted\u201d, or just part of the \u201creligious lunatic fringe\u201d. Also note, please, how Fred Nile fails to indentify the real issue and continues to talk only of homosexual union.[22]<\/a><\/p>\n

At this point, we must also highlight the current desire to speak of \u201cmarriage\u201d as a mere tradition<\/em>. Again, by taking this route the proponents of homosexual union are trying to remove the topic from the realm of morality and place it into a cultural context. As such, marriage becomes no more than choice, culture, or habit. They attempt to move it from the realm of God\u2019s jurisdiction to that of Man\u2019s; from Divine commandment to cultural choice<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n

Brethren, the second lesson is also simple. We must come to this argument armed with \u201cThus says the Lord God<\/strong>\u2026\u201d because this is a moral issue<\/strong>. It is a case of right or wrong based in God\u2019s revealed Law-Word.<\/p>\n

This issue is not equality. The issue is<\/em> Morality<\/strong><\/span>!<\/p>\n

3. Democracy v Theocracy<\/span>:<\/p>\n

Here, we arrive at the real thought provoker. Here, we arrive at one of the greatest problems in the modern Church \u2013 Epistemological Hypocrisy. Wow! Big word. So let\u2019s explore.<\/p>\n

Epistemology is, in general, the \u201ctheory of knowledge\u201d. It looks at how<\/em> we know, why<\/em> we know, and what<\/em> we can know. It is fundamentally important that the Christian grasp and understand the significance of this. It is so because the Christian believes, or should believe, that one can know. The Christian does not believe that they are in an unintelligible world that has no reality or purpose and which is naught but a transient dream in the mind of the individual. On the contrary, the Christian believes in a world created by God. Therefore, there is knowledge of order, purpose, justice, morality, right and wrong.<\/p>\n

In contradistinction to this is our current world \u2013 the world of the \u201cPostmodern\u201d era. In this world, knowledge and the ability to know are questioned or denied. \u00a0The ramification of this is that the predominate philosophy of our day, the theory that guides the people in power, is one in which there are no absolutes and, therefore, no right or wrong. In such a world, democracy and the collective choice of the individuals is hailed as supreme<\/em>.[23]<\/a><\/p>\n

This brings us to discuss the Epistemological Hypocrisy of the Church. If we went to church this Sunday and conducted a straw poll on the questions, \u201cWhat is the Church\u2019s authority?\u201d and \u201cWhere do I find God\u2019s instruction?\u201d I am sure we would have high percentages tell us that it is God and the Bible. In short, Christians would affirm that their epistemology is based in God\u2019s revelation of Himself. This has led the Church, throughout history, to affirm that the Bible is the only rule of life and faith <\/em>for all<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The problem is that we have become Epistemological Hypocrites. What we affirm with our lips, we do not affirm with our actions. This was made clear two decades ago at a church I then attended. A group came to the church with a questionnaire. It had, I believe, twenty questions. Ten were asked positively. Ten were asked negatively.<\/p>\n

When asked the positive question regarding Scripture, the answer was around 90% in the affirmative. In other words, the majority of respondents believed that the Bible was our only source of authority. However, when the practical question was asked \u2013 a question along the lines of, \u2018When people ask for advice you give or seek guidance from \u2026?\u201d \u2013 the percentage of those who used the Bible plummeted dramatically.<\/p>\n

This is Epistemological Hypocrisy. We Christians say that we believe God. We say that we live by God\u2019s word. We say that we obey God\u2019s commands. We say that we desire obedience to God\u2019s Law. We go into our church services and pray lofty prayers asking God for guidance, for wisdom, for discernment. We are even emboldened to ask for God\u2019s blessing upon our obedience. Yet, we walk from the building and begin to implement that which seems good to us<\/em>. We enter into cultural and political debates armed with the toothpicks of human research rather than the Sword of the Spirit.<\/p>\n

This leads to the challenge. Christian, why do you support an unbridled view of democracy? Whilst it has become an unpopular view and a word to be shunned, the simple reality is that this world and our nation must be Theocratic<\/strong>.[24]<\/a> We must live under, by, and for the rule of God<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The best that a Christian should say is that he believes in Limited Democracy<\/em>. This is a view in which man has some ability to vote into being certain rules. Yet, intrinsically, it also sets up a very high and strong fence around a range of issues and sets a banner on that fence: \u201cGod has spoken. Man may not encroach!\u201d<\/p>\n

In regard to the question of a referendum, I object, not because I fear the outcome, but because God has spoken. Consequently, the issue of homosexuality and homosexual union is beyond the determination of man \u2013 either as an individual or as a parliament. This is the same with Euthanasia, Abortion, Taxation, Property Ownership and a whole host of things.\u00a0 God has spoken. Man\u2019s task is to listen and obey<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Here, then, is the quandary. The Church has fallen for the modern mood of Individualism. The idea of \u201chaving a vote\u201d and \u201cexpressing our own<\/em> opinion\u201d has become a joy to us (research v Word). We see this in the modern desire for choice<\/em>. Man simply wants to be free to choose his own destiny. This sounds okay, but at heart it is once more a return to the Garden and a grab for God\u2019s throne. It is to visit Psalm Two and see the kings and judges of the earth conspiring to throw off God\u2019s rule, and therein, God\u2019s Law and God\u2019s Christ.<\/p>\n

Sadly, the Church has become complicit in this gross sin. She has desired Her own path. As such, She has played the harlot. She has not remained faithful to Her Groom, the Lord Jesus Christ. In modern parlance, She has become a Feminist and joined the noisy chorus demanding freedom from Biblical headship.<\/p>\n

If we are to have victory, we Christians and the Church, must confess this sin and repent. We must live our epistemology consistently. We must deny Democracy and call for Theocracy. We must remember that we are not members in a club with voting rights, but citizens and ambassadors from a Kingdom. Our job is to live out and declare the message of the Great King<\/em>.[25]<\/a><\/p>\n

When we grasp this point. When we affirm, on the basis of a Biblical conviction, that we subscribe to a limited democracy<\/em> that sits below the Theocracy<\/strong>, then we will be more inclined to say, \u201cThus say the Lord God\u2026!\u201d and to understand issues from the point of God\u2019s morality and God\u2019s sovereignty.<\/p>\n

4. Homosexuality v Heterosexuality<\/span>:<\/p>\n

God\u2019s revelation shows that it is one man<\/em> and one woman<\/em> who are to be joined in a legal unification \u2013 a legal unification that we have termed as marriage<\/strong>. Even if we take into account the times we witness multiple wives in Scripture \u2013 something tolerated, not commanded or sanctioned<\/em> \u2013 it is exactly the same pattern, man with woman \/ women<\/span>! The number of the wives may change; their gender never does<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Here we must once more throw out the challenge by use of analogy. Your child is shown, by you, a picture of an animal. That animal is large, grey, four-footed, has a trunk, is equipped with tusks, eyes, mouth, and has very large ears.<\/p>\n

You now ask your child to name the animal. Your child studies the picture and jubilantly exclaims, \u201cIt\u2019s a donkey!\u201d Bewildered, you ask, \u201cWhy do you say it is a donkey?\u201d Contemplatively, your child replies, \u201cWell, it has large ears. It has a mouth. It has eyes. It has a tail and it stands on four legs.\u201d Continuing, your child confidently asserts, \u201cIt must be a donkey because a donkey has all these!\u201d<\/p>\n

You see, like the child, the homosexual and the homosexual lobby try to justify their perverted view of gender and sexuality on the basis of similarity<\/em><\/span>. Yet such is absolute nonsense. We would not let our child call an elephant a donkey<\/em> based on similarity. Rather, we demand that our child call an elephant<\/em> an \u201celephant\u201d based on its unique qualities that set it apart.<\/span> In essence, the label \u201celephant\u201d cannot be applied willy-nilly to any animal. The term brings to mind an exact representation. The label and the form go together.<\/p>\n

So it is in terms of marriage and sexuality. Marriage is a term that applies to the covenantal union of a male and female with the implication of all that God intended for and through that covenantal union. Marriage is the label. Male and female is the form. This is the majestic, mighty elephant \u2013 powerful, strong, and robust.<\/p>\n

In comparison, you have the donkey that is homosexuality. The similarities in form do not entitle it to appropriate to itself the label. It is that simple. Sharing big ears and having four feet does not transform a donkey into an elephant. Likewise, the fact that homosexuality is one side of the gender coin; that some travesty of sexual exchange may take place; that some type of relationship may be present, in no way qualifies this parody to appropriate the label \u201cmarriage\u201d.<\/p>\n

Form and label go together. Alter the form and the label does not apply. To use the label for a different form is theft. It is the path to confusion and anarchy.<\/p>\n

5. Life v Death<\/span>:<\/p>\n

At this point we are going to be, to the modern mind, rather provocative. No excuses are made. No apologies issued. These things must be stated.<\/p>\n

The Dominion \/ Cultural Mandate[26]<\/a> clearly shows that Marriage is God\u2019s design for life. God placed male and female together in covenant union \u2013 marriage \u2013 in order to be fruitful and bring God\u2019s rule over the earth. This design fit perfectly with God\u2019s blueprint for life. God planted seed in man. God deposited eggs within woman. He gave to the woman a womb \u2013 a secret place within her wherein God would knit life and bring forth posterity. \u00a0These create generational family. They provide nurture, care, love, and discipline. They train. They sacrifice. They live.<\/p>\n

Homosexuality cannot copy this pattern. Homosexuality is, by definition, barren and dead. Eggs without seed and seed without eggs. Life cannot be brought forth by these relationships without intervention or further depravity. Historically, nations that have embraced homosexuality have died out. One does not need to be a genius to figure out why.<\/p>\n

Homosexuality is death. Its form is death. Its label is death.\u00a0 Heterosexuality is life precisely because God gave a form that could be and is fruitful. God placed a man and a woman together \u2013 form. That form is called marriage \u2013 label. This form and this label are life.<\/p>\n

Now to be really provocative, but, nonetheless, truthful. Homosexual union is an impossibility<\/strong>. It is so because homosexuals are abominations proscribed under pain of death. The union which they seek is \u201cuntil death do us part\u201d.[27]<\/a> Biblical fact \u2013 their dead!! The dead do not marry. The dead cannot marry.[28]<\/a><\/p>\n

You will now tell me that such a statement is unpalatable. The slaves to modernism will tell me that such statements are harsh, unloving, intolerant, and not in keeping with Jesus\u2019 philosophy, and so on ad nauseum<\/em>. These are the same people who have rejected the term and concept of Theocracy<\/strong> in order to be comfortable in the modern world. These are those who simply reject the order God Almighty in His holiness has imposed.<\/p>\n

Remember, the issue is not equality<\/em> or happiness<\/em>. It is Morality<\/em> and Righteousness<\/em>. It is life or death; blessing or curse. It is nothing less than the Righteousness of God revealed as Law that flows from the essential holiness of His character<\/em>; the Law given to us in the totality of Scripture.<\/p>\n

When viewed correctly, the unpalatable and intolerable is found in those who would vindicate, approve, and accept that which God rejects as abhorrent!<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

God\u2019s Law-Word states:<\/p>\n