It is November of 2008, and a few, but very loudly vocal, people are attempting to stir up trouble for everyone else. As one of the mostly silent majority, I feel compelled to not remain totally silent. I would rather be giving attention to something else, but these militants who want to destroy morality and tradition will not simply go about their business. Their “in your face” approach is made possible because nearly all news media are giving them special attention and encouraging their actions.

Even after many years of the confrontational actions of some homosexuals, I am still surprised by the level and intensity of their demands. Trying to change the meaning of the word “marriage” has now become their most sacred charge. Why? It is not to gain any rights. It is a way to gain special recognition, perhaps in their own eyes to raise their status, and to flaunt their deviance. Mostly I think it is an effort to belittle or cheapen the significance of marriage; that is, marriage as it has been known for thousands of years throughout thousands of societies and cultures.

Marriage is a simple concept. It was established by God and described simply as a man and a woman leaving their fathers and mothers to form a lifetime commitment to each other. This includes the highest and most beautiful of physical experiences, the sexual union. The sexual union is meant for their mutual pleasure and for the propagation of the human race. It is that simple.

There are a few specific instructions God has given us about marriage and the sexual union. These include not committing adultery and not having sexual relations with animals, with those of the same sex, with parents, and with siblings. For thousands of years people have not seemed to have a hard time understanding these instructions. They didn’t always live by them, but they understood that when they went against them, they were doing something wrong.

Now, along with many other humanist attempts to turn men away from God, there is a movement that says, “We declare same-sex sexual relations to be not only OK, but to be something extra special. We know there are only a few of us, but we expect everyone to honor our deviation from the original design and intent of creation. We want our relationships to be glorified.”

With the passage recently of Proposition 8 in California, and similar measures, that have been passed in 30 other states, we are hearing claims that homosexuals are the victims of discrimination, that they don’t have the same rights as others, that supporters of maintaining the forever existent definition of marriage are hateful and bigoted, etc. Well, it is not the supporters of Prop. 8 who appear to be hateful or angry. It is those who opposed it and now refuse to accept the vote. Those who are featured in the newspapers, on the broadcast news, and on Internet news and blogs are seething with hate and anger. I have not heard any hateful or angry words from marriage supporters.

When the four justices in California discarded the previous vote, in effect re-defining and perverting marriage, those who were bothered by this did not rise up with the hate and anger now spewing from the other side. They did take action. They held a second vote; a vote less likely to be able to be discarded by just a few people. They calmly supported the effort to pass the proposition; educating and persuading their fellow voters, most of whom already understood the importance and value of traditional marriage.

More could be said about the whole area of right and wrong, good and evil, Godly verses humanistic standards, etc. But that is not my purpose. There is one aspect of this issue that has received very little attention or discussion in what I have read and heard. However, it is highly significant and surely worthy of some consideration. It is the matter of what must logically follow if we allow for a new definition of marriage. In fact, even without re-defining marriage, this must be considered.

In addition to homosexuality, there are other deviations to consider. If we, as a society, decide that homosexual relationships (specifically sexual relations, not just close friendships) are acceptable, then we must expect to include the other deviations. Homosexuals will say that their attraction to those of the same sex is simply the way they are. To them it feels natural. I accept that. I appreciate the fact that this makes it challenging to live within God’s instructions. They desire to have sexual relations with each other. It can be a struggle to avoid doing so.

Likewise, there are many who have a strong desire to have sexual relations with children. This too is unacceptable behavior. In our society this usually refers to relations with those below the ages of 14-17, depending on the state. This has come to be a standard starting about 40-50 years ago. Historically, and still in many other societies, the courtship and marriage between girls of 14 or older and men of various ages were and are not uncommon. This was true in the USA at least up through the 1940’s. During the next 10-20 years, in most parts of the country it did became uncommon.

Let us just consider the younger children. There is wide agreement that sexual relations between a grownup and young children is simply wrong. I don’t know what basis the humanists have for this, but most people simply accept it. So the person who desires such a relationship also has the major challenge of avoiding acting on this desire.

Another forbidden sexual relationship is with those of one’s immediate family (other than husband and wife). I have no doubt that, if you add up all the brothers and sisters, parents and children, aunts/uncles and nephews/nieces, and even grandparents and grandchildren who desire a sexual relationship, the number is much larger than the number of homosexuals. I have not seen or heard of any movement on their part to have society approve their sexual relations or allow them to marry. Yet, surely, if this is granted to homosexuals, it will have to be granted to brothers, sisters, etc.

There are other possibilities. Based on the position of the homosexuals, we should approve of bestiality and necrophilia. Of course, there can also be no defense for not allowing multiple spouses. After all, even God did not object to that.