In reality, there have been many past civilizations that have fed from this wellspring of delusion and many have fallen to collapse as a result. We are not far from it. Today for instance, we find so many people of heterosexual tendencies often who hold no value in marriage for themselves, promoting same sex marriage and even cheerful when they hear of some state that legalizes such a union. At the same time they become so frustrated and puzzled when others oppose it. They stand perplexed at this opposition proudly expressing their supportive position suggesting it is only fair that same sex marriage be legalized and to oppose it is a denial of someone’s “rights”. They refer to the opposition as "homophobic" not realizing it is they who have no sense of what marriage as a covenant truly represents while belittling those who do respect the covenant, its purpose and the sincere commitment that is required to live up to it. Much worse, our court system has become so perverted that it is not uncommon to hear some judge defend same sex marriage or even suggest heterosexual marriage is discriminatory in itself. By what standard of nature, science or God do these people justify their positions? Or is it one more example of “its all good” as long as it doesn’t directly affect the person supporting it? How can we expect other nations to continue to have any respect for us when we no longer exhibit it for ourselves?
When a society goes so far beyond truth that even the standard dictionary publishers have to consider changing the meaning of a definition to fit what society’s devaluation of morality exhibits, serious reflection of “self” has past the point of necessity. What should be questioned is what “right” is being denied? Two people regardless of sexual involvement can enter into numerous forms of contracts legally without sexual preference being an issue. Marriage, regardless of the spin someone may put on it, is only legitimate by God, nature and science, between two members of the opposite sex. The marital commitment has been a loving commitment specific to the union between a man and women often recognized as finalized only after the consummation of the marriage through sexual intimacy. By its standard it has commonly been entered into with consideration to the possibility of procreation and has for thousands of years been acknowledged as a union sealed by God. Anyone can suggest otherwise but this is fact. But for those who boastfully voice their permissiveness by such permissive notions such as same sex marriage and insist such liberal ideas should be recognized as legitimate, I would have to ask by what principle?
Is it natural according to the historic state of the marital union? No! It is incomparable!
Is it natural according to God? No!
Is it legitimate according to the laws of nature? No!
Is it supported in any field of science? No!
In fact, it is a perversion of nature and every other legitimate form of truth. it would be rational for us as the most intelligent form of life on earth to keep in mind that regardless of faith beliefs, virtually every lower form of animal on the planet possesses the basic instinct to know that sexual interchange is intended between male and female within their species.
We have by our own permissiveness developed a society that virtually mirrors the society of Caligula in the first century. Should we be proud of that? History has always referred to the Caligula society as perverted and for 2000 years has labeled Caligula himself a mad man, perverted and insane. By our majority we are a Christian nation in a country built upon moral virtues founded in our belief in God but we no longer fit this description any longer. By our majority we have shown ourselves to be a culture morally deprived and indifferent when it comes to the kind of society we would want history to reflect in us.
By the majority we have abandoned God, self respect and respect toward others yet we are entitled to salvation because Jesus was crucified for the forgiveness of our sins and sin no longer exists. Really? Who among us has the righteousness to determine our having reached a definitive level of salvation? Wasn’t it Paul himself who told us neither he nor we are to determine our own righteousness and God alone can judge our hearts? Does it seem logical that Jesus would succumb to His passion, death, and resurrection to forgive us our past sins so we could become more sinful and perverted than ever before and yet retain our salvation? Or does that sound more like the notion of a defiant child who takes for granted the parent’s expression of loving forgiveness with that firm and final warning to amend our ways? No one is exempt from working out their salvation day by day.
Let us look in the mirror and determine for ourselves exactly who we are trying to convince and what it is we are attempt to justify in our lives. Then let us consider who we are kidding. Then let us pray.