new

10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and not compatible with Christianity.

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

While there are dozens of corporations that are on board with the homosexual agenda, the one company that has been particularly active in spending millions of dollars to legalize homosexual marriage is Starbucks. They have been so hellbent on pushing gay marriage that shareholders have called out the company for operating like a homosexual charity that happens to sell coffee. It should not also surprise you that they are big donors to Planned Parenthood, a eugenics organization that proudly profits from the sale of dead fetuses. For these reasons, I wonder if all heterosexual men should stop spending money on the company.

The day after the Supreme Court ruling that legally endorsed gay marriage in the United States, I was at Berlin’s central station waiting for a train to Poland. With time to kill, I decided to grab an espresso at its Starbucks. This is what greeted me at the entrance:

image

I paused, stared at the rainbow cup, and realized that by purchasing the espresso, I would be monetarily supporting Starbucks and their pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, and anti-heterosexual agenda. I went somewhere else instead, and since then I have tapered my Starbucks visits, even going to proletariat shops like Dunkin’ Donuts and 7-11 to get my coffee fix. I have been inconvenienced numerous times in seeking out an alternative venue, especially while in the United States.

The CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, is so in favor of anything homosexual that one has to wonder if he developed Starbucks as a vehicle to push this particularly sinister agenda, which began surfacing in 2011. His intentions became crystal clear in January of 2012 when he allowed a vice president to make a statement that began official support for the destruction of traditional marriage (PDF).

"We are deeply dedicated to embracing diversity and treating one another with respect and dignity, and remain committed to providing an inclusive, supportive and safe work environment for all of our partners."

This was further clarified when Starbucks backed attempts by degenerates to allow homosexual marriage in Washington State:

"Starbucks said in a statement Tuesday that it was “proud to join other leading Northwest employers in support of Washington state legislation recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples.”

“This important legislation is aligned with Starbucks’ business practices and upholds our belief in the equal treatment of partners,” the statement read.

Last year, Starbucks was among a group of 70 businesses and organizations that filed a brief in federal court opposing the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts the definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman."

Starbucks has not been shy to spend money on lawyers to get involved with the courts to specifically legalize homosexual marriage. Their corporate legal department was one of 379 to petition the Supreme Court to re-write the rules of traditional marriage and inevitably make it easier for two homosexual men to get married and adopt young boys.

When a prominent shareholder accused Starbucks of putting the gay agenda in front of business, Schultz told him that the gay agenda is more important than profit, and he can sell his shares if he doesn’t like it.

"Was Schultz taken aback? Not in the least. He responded, “Not every decision is an economic decision. Despite the fact that you recite statistics that are narrow in time, we did provide a 38% shareholder return over the last year. I don’t know how many things you invest in, but I would suspect not many things, companies, products, investments have returned 38% over the last 12 months. Having said that, it is not an economic decision to me. The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity. Of all kinds.”"

Many Americans think corporations exist solely to enrich their shareholders, but when it comes to the progressive agenda, ideology trumps profit.

If you had any doubt about Starbucks’ support of homosexuals above that of heterosexual marriage and tradition, take a look at company headquarters the day after the Supreme Court ruling:

There was also a press release where Schultz bragged about how far Starbucks has bent over to support homosexuals:

Being open, inclusive and forward-thinking is at the core of what Starbucks is about. Starbucks has been a longtime advocate for the LGBT community and marriage equality. The company filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013 and signed onto The People’s Brief earlier this year.

The shocker of the decade is that they’ve since become leading corporate activists for transsexuals. In the next five years they may even swap out their mermaid logo for something more fitting of their value system.

image

The cherry on top is Starbucks’ support for Planned Parenthood, an organization that earns profits by removing fetuses from the bodies of women before chopping them up for sale.

If evil comes in beverage form, it would have a Starbucks logo on it. If you are against the platform shared by feminists, social justice warriors, and liberals, I strongly urge you not to patronize Starbucks and its associated brands (Seattle’s Best, Teavana, Evolution Fresh, and Tazo Tea). Otherwise, every purchase you make at the chain goes into the pocket of a company that has vigorously used both marketing and legal means to push an agenda that goes against the values of decency and traditional family.

It’s hard not to feel a sort of hopelessness about the direction of Western culture. Traditional layers of society are being methodically removed for a degenerate experiment that seems to have a grand goal of destroying the family unit. Homosexual marriage was just one step over the past few decades that also included women’s suffrage, feminism, abortion, and birth control.

While our power is limited to reverse this direction, there are still things that we can control. One of them is to remove financial support of corporations that go against what we believe is right, a few dollars at a time. There are many more companies that support gay marriage, some of which we simply can’t avoid, but Starbucks was especially active and so they deserve to be punished for accelerating the decline of Western morals and tradition. I will do all I can to enact that punishment.