by Christopher Ziegler
“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.” —Masha Gessen, journalist and homosexual activist, Sydney, Australia, 2013
The LGBT lobby loves to paint their opponents with a broad brush called “The Homophobe.” “The Homophobe” is a cross-eyed dolt, a sheltered house wife, or, everyone’s favorite, a southern yokel.
The homophobe is understood to have a pathological aversion to gays, and this aversion has nothing to do with gays and everything to do with himself. If someone opposes the LGBT agenda, it must be because they hate homosexuals, and this hatred can only stem from a sheltered lifestyle or psychological derangement.
But here is an inconvenient truth: I am neither cross-eyed nor a house wife. I have lived my whole life in the “blue states.” Yet I am a steadfast opponent of what I see to be the LGBT agenda.
My opposition does not come from a lack of familiarity with people who self-identify as gay. I’ve known or been friends with several since high school. One of my house mates in England, where I lived for 9 months, self-identified as gay. I even once dated a woman who described herself as "lesbian." I do not have an aversion to people who self-identify as homosexual. My opposition stems from purely intellectual, not pathological, reasons.
Ironically, around the same time U.S. President Barack Obama’s views were supposedly “evolving” to accept same-sex marriage my views were moving in the opposite direction. But even though I saw homosexual acts in a new light, I was still not an opponent of same sex marriage. I figured that even if homosexuality was a sin, legal same sex marriage did little to change that fact one way or another. I was not eager to give my blessing to such unions, but I didn’t see how they could affect me or my faith.
The truth is that I wish I could still feel that way. But the events I’ve seen transpire in this country since 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court's United States v. Windsor overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act, no longer justify that complacency. When I first heard of that decision I was glad because I thought that finally the issue was “settled.” The homosexual lobby had won and gotten what they wanted. “Good,” I thought, “maybe now they’ll shut up.” Whether one was liberal or conservative, we should all agree that there were more pressing problems.
But it was not to be. There was a distinct change in the atmosphere of American culture after that decision. I felt it. Campaigns of bullying and intimidation started against high profile figures like the Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who was forced to step down after it became public that he had donated $1,000 to support the gay "marriage" ban in California. Suddenly there were lawsuits being filed in several states against family owned Christian businesses, many of which were bankrupted. And the even wackier concept of transsexualism was being forced down our throats. It was evident that public dissent on these issues would no longer be tolerated. I was honestly shocked by this turn of events.
The latest insult came this spring with the utterly hysterical and fact-free outrage over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. As I watched the disinformation and
sanctimonious propaganda spew from the mouths of celebrities and media figures, I began to ask myself, “Is this what fascism feels like?” It inspired me to write this The Myth of the "Gay Holocaust:" Lessons from the Nazi Experiment.
It is now obvious that the country has been deceived. The LGBT agenda was never really interested in marriage for its own sake. Rather, marriage was a just a trophy for them, a symbol of their normalization. If marriage had been their real cause, then their campaign would have ended there. Instead, it
was immediately wielded as a tool with which to force more compliance and political concessions. It is now clear to me that their real goal is to transform our culture.
In a few weeks, the Supreme Court will hand down another decision. If the court decides that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right, we can be sure that the homosexual activists will not declare victory and go home. Rather, this new “right” will be employed as a weapon to weaken the family, strengthen the federal government, and silence all dissent.
Christian schools and churches, which refuse to bless same sex "marriages," will be in violation of the constitutional “rights” of homosexuals. This will make them easy targets for persecution at the hands of activists. They will be denied tax-exempt status and many will be shuttered. Scripture may soon be branded as “hate speech.”
Ultimately, the LGBT agenda is gunning for nothing less than the triumph of godlessness. But why should this be? Why should gay sex and godless philosophy, or any philosophy, have something to do with each other?
I did not see things this way before, and I’m sure many people still do not understand the connection, including some of those who call themselves Christian. I used to believe that the Biblical prohibitions on homosexual behavior were just arbitrary and based on little more than ancient prejudice. But the condemnation of homosexuality actually runs deeper than this. To understand why, you have to understand how Christians see things.
For Christians, the human body is part of divine revelation. It is the finale of God’s creative work, and is thus the capstone and symbol for all of creation. Ours is the only religion where God took on human flesh. Christ’s bodily sacrifice is essential to salvation and we celebrate this in the Eucharist. The body also serves as a metaphor for the church, which is Christ’s bodily presence on earth today. Finally, we believe in the resurrection of the body and the essential unity of body, soul and spirit. Clearly, the meaningfulness of the human body is integral to Christianity.
So what is the meaning of the body with regard to sex? Every part of the body has a purpose, which is expressed in its function. The purpose of the eye is to see, the ear to hear, and the teeth to chew food, etc. Because we know that every organ has a purpose, we can be sure that our sex organs also have a purpose. The purpose of the genitalia of each sex is found in the genitalia of the opposite sex. Men and women “fit” together.
Because our bodies are complementary in this way, we can say with confidence that the purpose of the male body is the female, and that the purpose of the female body is the male. Each has what the other lacks. Only a man can give what the woman lacks and only a woman can give what the man lacks. The purpose of each sex is found in the opposite sex. In order to be fulfilled, each must give themselves to the other. This mutual self-giving is the meaning of sex, and its fruit is the creation of new life. We can be sure that this form of self-giving is the meaning of the body because it alone can bring a new body into the world.
Christians believe that the basic facts of our anatomy reveal a deeper meaning and purpose. Male and female bodies are complementary; same sex bodies are not. Male and female bodies are capable of generating new life; same sex bodies are not. The homosexual cannot deny these basic facts. His only option is to deny that these facts reveal any meaning or purpose. The meaning here is too restrictive on his appetites to be respected. He wants what he wants, purpose be damned.
He will say: “Yes, I know that opposite sex couples ‘fit’ together in a way the same sex couples never could, but so what? Who cares? We can use our bodies however we wish.” This notion that we can use our bodies however we wish contains an implicit denial that our bodies have a purpose which is meant to be fulfilled. It is in this denial of purpose, in the homosexual’s attempt to rationalize his (mis)behavior, that the battle of philosophies is joined.
 |
| Author Christopher Ziegler can be found @CZWriting on |
The LGBT lobby loves to paint their opponents with a broad brush called “The Homophobe.” “The Homophobe” is a cross-eyed dolt, a sheltered house wife, or, everyone’s favorite, a southern yokel.
 |
| The stereotype for the "homophobe," anyone who opposes same sex "marriage." |
The homophobe is understood to have a pathological aversion to gays, and this aversion has nothing to do with gays and everything to do with himself. If someone opposes the LGBT agenda, it must be because they hate homosexuals, and this hatred can only stem from a sheltered lifestyle or psychological derangement.
But here is an inconvenient truth: I am neither cross-eyed nor a house wife. I have lived my whole life in the “blue states.” Yet I am a steadfast opponent of what I see to be the LGBT agenda.
My opposition does not come from a lack of familiarity with people who self-identify as gay. I’ve known or been friends with several since high school. One of my house mates in England, where I lived for 9 months, self-identified as gay. I even once dated a woman who described herself as "lesbian." I do not have an aversion to people who self-identify as homosexual. My opposition stems from purely intellectual, not pathological, reasons.
In my
former days as a liberal, I was a supporter of same sex marriage. Actually, it
would be more accurate to say I was not an opponent. I was never “fired up” for
the cause, but if you had asked me just a few years ago whether I supported
same-sex marriage I would have said something like, “Sure, why not?” In other
words, I just really didn't see what all the fuss was about.
The truth is that I wish I could still feel that way. But the events I’ve seen transpire in this country since 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court's United States v. Windsor overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act, no longer justify that complacency. When I first heard of that decision I was glad because I thought that finally the issue was “settled.” The homosexual lobby had won and gotten what they wanted. “Good,” I thought, “maybe now they’ll shut up.” Whether one was liberal or conservative, we should all agree that there were more pressing problems.
But it was not to be. There was a distinct change in the atmosphere of American culture after that decision. I felt it. Campaigns of bullying and intimidation started against high profile figures like the Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who was forced to step down after it became public that he had donated $1,000 to support the gay "marriage" ban in California. Suddenly there were lawsuits being filed in several states against family owned Christian businesses, many of which were bankrupted. And the even wackier concept of transsexualism was being forced down our throats. It was evident that public dissent on these issues would no longer be tolerated. I was honestly shocked by this turn of events.
The latest insult came this spring with the utterly hysterical and fact-free outrage over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. As I watched the disinformation and
It is now obvious that the country has been deceived. The LGBT agenda was never really interested in marriage for its own sake. Rather, marriage was a just a trophy for them, a symbol of their normalization. If marriage had been their real cause, then their campaign would have ended there. Instead, it
was immediately wielded as a tool with which to force more compliance and political concessions. It is now clear to me that their real goal is to transform our culture.In a few weeks, the Supreme Court will hand down another decision. If the court decides that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right, we can be sure that the homosexual activists will not declare victory and go home. Rather, this new “right” will be employed as a weapon to weaken the family, strengthen the federal government, and silence all dissent.
Christian schools and churches, which refuse to bless same sex "marriages," will be in violation of the constitutional “rights” of homosexuals. This will make them easy targets for persecution at the hands of activists. They will be denied tax-exempt status and many will be shuttered. Scripture may soon be branded as “hate speech.”
I did not see things this way before, and I’m sure many people still do not understand the connection, including some of those who call themselves Christian. I used to believe that the Biblical prohibitions on homosexual behavior were just arbitrary and based on little more than ancient prejudice. But the condemnation of homosexuality actually runs deeper than this. To understand why, you have to understand how Christians see things.
For Christians, the human body is part of divine revelation. It is the finale of God’s creative work, and is thus the capstone and symbol for all of creation. Ours is the only religion where God took on human flesh. Christ’s bodily sacrifice is essential to salvation and we celebrate this in the Eucharist. The body also serves as a metaphor for the church, which is Christ’s bodily presence on earth today. Finally, we believe in the resurrection of the body and the essential unity of body, soul and spirit. Clearly, the meaningfulness of the human body is integral to Christianity.
So what is the meaning of the body with regard to sex? Every part of the body has a purpose, which is expressed in its function. The purpose of the eye is to see, the ear to hear, and the teeth to chew food, etc. Because we know that every organ has a purpose, we can be sure that our sex organs also have a purpose. The purpose of the genitalia of each sex is found in the genitalia of the opposite sex. Men and women “fit” together.
Because our bodies are complementary in this way, we can say with confidence that the purpose of the male body is the female, and that the purpose of the female body is the male. Each has what the other lacks. Only a man can give what the woman lacks and only a woman can give what the man lacks. The purpose of each sex is found in the opposite sex. In order to be fulfilled, each must give themselves to the other. This mutual self-giving is the meaning of sex, and its fruit is the creation of new life. We can be sure that this form of self-giving is the meaning of the body because it alone can bring a new body into the world.
Christians believe that the basic facts of our anatomy reveal a deeper meaning and purpose. Male and female bodies are complementary; same sex bodies are not. Male and female bodies are capable of generating new life; same sex bodies are not. The homosexual cannot deny these basic facts. His only option is to deny that these facts reveal any meaning or purpose. The meaning here is too restrictive on his appetites to be respected. He wants what he wants, purpose be damned.
He will say: “Yes, I know that opposite sex couples ‘fit’ together in a way the same sex couples never could, but so what? Who cares? We can use our bodies however we wish.” This notion that we can use our bodies however we wish contains an implicit denial that our bodies have a purpose which is meant to be fulfilled. It is in this denial of purpose, in the homosexual’s attempt to rationalize his (mis)behavior, that the battle of philosophies is joined.
The
significance of the complementarity of the male and female bodies can only be
denied at the cost of denying that the human body can reveal meaning. If the
human body has no inherent meaning or purpose, then neither does the rest of
creation. This removes any basis for discerning law in nature, which results in
the rejection of God’s authority. So, in order to permanently justify his
actions to himself, the homosexual winds up embracing moral relativism. But it
is not enough for him to adopt this philosophy personally and keep it to
himself. Ultimately, everyone in society must accept it, too.
So long as some people in our society refuse to adopt this view, the homosexual will continue to feel the rebuke of conscience. This is because, if the body expresses a purpose, then the act of sodomy is clearly at odds with that purpose. Anal sex is the elephant in the room. Can we really ever convince ourselves that sodomy can be an act of love? The answer, clearly, is “no.” This is proven by a very simple observation that proponents of same sex marriage never bring it up.
It is an impressive feat of sleight-of-hand that gay activists have successfully managed to obscure this aspect of their lifestyle during these debates. It is not hard to see why they’ve felt a need to do this. Anal sex greatly increases the risk of rectal prolapse, rectal perforation, chlamydia, microsporidiosis, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis B and C, syphilis, and HIV/AIDS.
According to “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the chance of anal cancer increases by 4,000 percent among those who practice anal sex. As author Robert R. Reilly says, “If one insisted on using a highway exit as an entrance, one would be told that this is
extremely hazardous to one’s health and safety and to that of others. Why is this so difficult to state when it comes to human anatomy?”
Sodomy cannot be an act of self-giving worthy of the dignity of marital love because it is selfish by design. There is something inherently unfair about the act. Of necessity, one partner is always going to be penetrated in a part of his anatomy that is not designed for penetration. Hence, sodomy is always an act of lust and is incapable of the mutual self-giving for which the sacrament of marriage was created.
Lust kills the love for truth in the soul. The Bible labels sodomy as an abomination because it is one of the chief acts of lust. Saying this is not hate speech. It is truth. The only real hate speech is the telling of lies. The idea that sodomy is the same as love is a lie. It is a lie about one of the most essential parts of our humanity: the meaning of our bodies. Our bodies were made for fruitfulness, not barbaric pleasures.
Declaring sodomy to be morally equivalent to coitus, and equal in dignity to marital love (“All love is equal!”) is a lie of grave moral consequence. It puts an act of lust on the same footing as the procreative act, and thus, for the sake of sexual pleasure, obliterates the reality of meaning and purpose in our bodies. It is the triumph of appetite over reason. It is the sacrament of godlessness.
As homosexuals gain more legal recognition their demands become increasingly brazen. This means our culture has a big problem on its hands which many are still refusing to recognize. Christian persecution has suddenly become a reality in our times, and not just in the Islamic world but in the secular west. For if this new philosophy is to prevail, the Christian one will have to be suppressed. Widespread sodomy and promiscuity cannot co-exist with the idea that man is created in the image of God. Hence, anyone who persists in holding this idea will be reviled for it.
Until this point the only tool the homosexuals had at their disposal was cultural intimidation. Christians were ridiculed and labeled as bigots and homophobes. This will certainly continue, but if the Supreme Court declares same sex marriage to be a constitutional right they will gain a more powerful legal tool. As philosopher Sergei Levitzky wrote, “The relativization of the absolute leads to the absolutization of the relative.”
Persecution is coming in the United States, and American Christians will have to remain strong. If they do, it will be because of an excess of love, not hate. On this topic, ex-gay porn star and author Joseph Sciambra writes that, “Refusing to partake in the physical and moral destruction of another human being is a basic Christian principle.” In other words, the refusal to bless same-sex unions is an expression of Christian love. To do anything else would be to help perpetuate a lie—to stab a lost soul in the back.
Sciambra, who is the author of the blog How Our Lord Jesus Christ Saved Me from Homosexuality, Pornography and the Occult tells us that there are many “trapped in homosexuality, who cry themselves to sleep every night—they are scared and alone, and they need our help.” He asserts that the best way we can help them is to continue to speak the truth boldly. The worst act of hatred we could commit toward them would be to throw in the towel, lay down our principles, and join the frenzy of selfish hedonism.
Real love means doing the difficult but necessary work. It often means tough love, not the fickle “tolerance” of those who follow the path of least resistance. The charitable work we must do today is to continue to uphold the importance of purity, chastity, innocence, chivalry, and marital love. For doing this we should expect to be ridiculed, but in ridicule lies the promise of reward. As Christ told us, “The world will make you suffer. But be brave! I have defeated the world!” (John 16:33)
Mr Ziegler has also written: The Battle for the Identity of Man: A House Divided
On the topic of same sex marriage you might also enjoy: Genderless "Marriage" Threatens the Foundation of Civilization."
or Same Sex "Marriage," Natural Law and the New Apocalypse
Don't miss the piece on the U.S. Supreme Decision legalizing same sex "marriage."
Same Sex "Marriage:" Another Chapter in Grimm's Fairy Tales
It is an impressive feat of sleight-of-hand that gay activists have successfully managed to obscure this aspect of their lifestyle during these debates. It is not hard to see why they’ve felt a need to do this. Anal sex greatly increases the risk of rectal prolapse, rectal perforation, chlamydia, microsporidiosis, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis B and C, syphilis, and HIV/AIDS.
According to “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the chance of anal cancer increases by 4,000 percent among those who practice anal sex. As author Robert R. Reilly says, “If one insisted on using a highway exit as an entrance, one would be told that this is
Sodomy cannot be an act of self-giving worthy of the dignity of marital love because it is selfish by design. There is something inherently unfair about the act. Of necessity, one partner is always going to be penetrated in a part of his anatomy that is not designed for penetration. Hence, sodomy is always an act of lust and is incapable of the mutual self-giving for which the sacrament of marriage was created.
Lust kills the love for truth in the soul. The Bible labels sodomy as an abomination because it is one of the chief acts of lust. Saying this is not hate speech. It is truth. The only real hate speech is the telling of lies. The idea that sodomy is the same as love is a lie. It is a lie about one of the most essential parts of our humanity: the meaning of our bodies. Our bodies were made for fruitfulness, not barbaric pleasures.
Declaring sodomy to be morally equivalent to coitus, and equal in dignity to marital love (“All love is equal!”) is a lie of grave moral consequence. It puts an act of lust on the same footing as the procreative act, and thus, for the sake of sexual pleasure, obliterates the reality of meaning and purpose in our bodies. It is the triumph of appetite over reason. It is the sacrament of godlessness.
As homosexuals gain more legal recognition their demands become increasingly brazen. This means our culture has a big problem on its hands which many are still refusing to recognize. Christian persecution has suddenly become a reality in our times, and not just in the Islamic world but in the secular west. For if this new philosophy is to prevail, the Christian one will have to be suppressed. Widespread sodomy and promiscuity cannot co-exist with the idea that man is created in the image of God. Hence, anyone who persists in holding this idea will be reviled for it.
Until this point the only tool the homosexuals had at their disposal was cultural intimidation. Christians were ridiculed and labeled as bigots and homophobes. This will certainly continue, but if the Supreme Court declares same sex marriage to be a constitutional right they will gain a more powerful legal tool. As philosopher Sergei Levitzky wrote, “The relativization of the absolute leads to the absolutization of the relative.”
Persecution is coming in the United States, and American Christians will have to remain strong. If they do, it will be because of an excess of love, not hate. On this topic, ex-gay porn star and author Joseph Sciambra writes that, “Refusing to partake in the physical and moral destruction of another human being is a basic Christian principle.” In other words, the refusal to bless same-sex unions is an expression of Christian love. To do anything else would be to help perpetuate a lie—to stab a lost soul in the back.
Sciambra, who is the author of the blog How Our Lord Jesus Christ Saved Me from Homosexuality, Pornography and the Occult tells us that there are many “trapped in homosexuality, who cry themselves to sleep every night—they are scared and alone, and they need our help.” He asserts that the best way we can help them is to continue to speak the truth boldly. The worst act of hatred we could commit toward them would be to throw in the towel, lay down our principles, and join the frenzy of selfish hedonism.
Real love means doing the difficult but necessary work. It often means tough love, not the fickle “tolerance” of those who follow the path of least resistance. The charitable work we must do today is to continue to uphold the importance of purity, chastity, innocence, chivalry, and marital love. For doing this we should expect to be ridiculed, but in ridicule lies the promise of reward. As Christ told us, “The world will make you suffer. But be brave! I have defeated the world!” (John 16:33)
 |
| Mr. Ziegler returns to the woods |
On the topic of same sex marriage you might also enjoy: Genderless "Marriage" Threatens the Foundation of Civilization."
or Same Sex "Marriage," Natural Law and the New Apocalypse
Don't miss the piece on the U.S. Supreme Decision legalizing same sex "marriage."
Same Sex "Marriage:" Another Chapter in Grimm's Fairy Tales
