Letter to editor,
When one brings the Scripture into the public discourse I read and seriously consider what is proffered. The other day I was disappointed at what I read. For instance, it was stated that “…it is false to state, as a politician recently did…”, yet I read no demonstration of what the politician said as being false, only an assertion of it. Moreover, it was stated that it is not a fact that from the beginning it “has been ‘one man, one woman, life-time monogamy.”
With regard to what a particular politician said, I can’t comment. With regard to the second remark, however, I can.
When God created man he created them male and female, and it was God who brought them together. As the saying goes, there was no Adam and Steve, but Adam and Eve. From the beginning it was one man for one woman for life, and this fact is indisputable. Since that time, however, man has set his course upon his own destruction. This is not only illustrated shortly after the time of creation, but also seen in great men like King David. The notion of there being a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan is as far from the truth as Satan is from God. Though the comments of the one who submitted the thoughts did not ascribe to them such, it is often the case that many do.
If marriage is strictly a matter of legality and the community, then there is no rational reason to deny those who desire to have multiple spouses. None! On the other hand, if marriage is defined by God, then the matter becomes a moral issue and is taken out of the hands of the created. If the created insist upon its own definition, then it is nothing more than what one can read in Scripture when man corrupted the ways of God. For this they will be called to an account.
Same-sex marriages are, by necessity, self-defeating; they can’t perpetuate their physical existence except via artificial means, and their behavioral choices will always be contrary to nature. So, it may be the desire of the community to perpetuate moral evil, but what will God’s desire then be?
Submitted to Mattoon-Charleston Gazette 6.25.2012, printed 7.20.2012