In the never-ending war for free speech, I’d like to make my own contribution. Not with any hope that it will settle anything once and for all, but that it may strengthen the resolve of those who wish to hold their ground in the principled defense of the traditional definition of marriage and related battles.
First let’s consider in simple terms the offense that has been taken by the gay and lesbian community at calling homosexual practices “unnatural” and a “perversion.”
What is the biological purpose for the reproductive organs? To reproduce. So the natural function of those organs is for the act of procreation. Using them in ways that cannot result in the reproduction of the species is “unnatural” because it is using your anatomy for a purpose other than its biologically determined role.
Yes, by following this line of reasoning there are many sexual activities (including heterosexual activities) that are, strictly speaking, “unnatural.” Those activities are also frowned on to varying degrees by many, if not most, religions. This in no way undermines the original argument. Just because you have a certain impulse to do something with your anatomy doesn’t mean that it is “natural” (in the sense that it is socially acceptable) to act on that impulse. If that were so, then murder, suicide, bulimia, etc., etc., could also be considered “natural.”
Calling homosexual activity a “perversion” is a more religiously toned statement that carries an implied moral judgment, but what is wrong with that? A religion is within its rights to label anything it wants as a perversion and to preach against its practice whether it be homosexual behavior or the use of electricity (think Amish). Should we force the Amish to teach their children about all the options that electricity gives people so they can choose their lifestyle from what we would consider a more educated perspective?
If the government was not the slightest bit involved in the institution of marriage (not to mention education), then I doubt mainstream Christianity would make much of a fuss if a few sects began solemnizing gay marriages, but that is not the case. The government, and not any church, is the real authority behind marriage; that makes gay marriage a very sticky issue.
The LDS church is well aware of the complications caused by this intersection of government power and religious practice. In the 19th century, several of its members were imprisoned for not adhering to the traditional definition of marriage by entering into plural marriages (polygamy). Asserting government policy as being superior to freedom of religion, the LDS church was compelled to adopt the government-established standard of marriage.
The government did it before, so what’s to stop them from doing it again should gay marriage get the force of law behind it? As George Washington understood all too well:
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Christians have good reason to be opposed to the legalization of gay marriage. Freedom of religion is being eroded at an ever-accelerating rate (along with many other rights) and nothing good can come from surrendering them in the name of “common ground.”
Sympathizers to the gay and lesbian community will often claim that they just want their gay son/daughter/friend/etc. to be “happy.” That line of reasoning infers that happiness is dependant upon having sexual relations with someone you find physically attractive.
Most of God’s laws consist of NOT indulging our lusts. Specifically, individuals are NOT supposed to have sexual relations with anyone to whom they are not married (i.e. adultery), regardless of how unattractive they may find their spouse. Arranged marriage has at times made this more common a phenomenon than it may be today, but God never seemed concerned that someone might need to learn to love another human being without the help of romantic feelings.
The so-called “seven deadly sins” (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride) are impulses that all humans have to one degree or another. Giving into those desires as opposed to following the laws of God can be considered deadly--to the soul. Why should this principle apply differently to homosexuals than it does to heterosexuals? We all struggle with various temptations, I don’t see why the temptations faced by homosexuals should be considered irresistible. If all else fails, there’s always celibacy. I’ve been practicing it for 31 years now and while I hope to end that streak at some point (with marriage, mind you) my life would still be worth living if I didn’t.
Oh, but it’s genetic. So is alcoholism. So are violent tendencies. So are a lot of things we are inclined towards, but don’t necessarily do.
If you don’t believe in God or the Bible, or want to join or create a religion that does not consider homosexual behavior sinful, then go ahead. But to simply ignore the clear condemnation of such activities in the Bible, or assume they are obsolete without even bothering to claim authority from God to make such a theological policy shift, and act like others are hateful for still giving the Bible weight is nothing less than ridiculous.
Get the government out of marriage and out of the schools, and I’ll be more than happy to let gays marry in whatever religion will allow it of its own free will. Until then, in order to protect my right of religious freedom I have little choice but to oppose gay marriage and all legislation that approaches it.

Posted By Scott Arland

Official K-Talk Blog

We the Peasants of the United States, in expectation of a perpetual increase, seek to escape justice, ensure eternal taxation, expand the empire, promote corporate welfare, and secure the blessings of debt and corruption to ourselves and our politicians, do mock and undermine the Constitution of the United States of America. [updated text of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America]

At this point you might be thinking that this is just another angry rant against how We the People have been marginalized, manipulated and/or oppressed. But when I use the term, “We the Peasants”, I mean much more than to simply draw attention to our current relationship with the ruling class. Instead, I want to draw attention to the fact that it is not “they” who have turned us into peasants, but we who have sought to become peasants and demanded that our public servants become our rulers. As former President James Garfield said:
"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption."
The government and its agents could not have achieved their current level of power, corruption, incompetence, etc., unless We the People allowed it. Often we have demanded it. How many times have we elected the lesser of evils? How many times has a person of character and principles been ignored because they are “unelectable” (i.e. not charismatic enough or simply belonging to the wrong political party)?
Pragmatism has brought us where we are today. Not willing to suffer a political loss for “our side” has led to us electing men and women of more ambition than nobility of spirit. In other words, when given the chance to vote, we elect the candidate who seeks to be king because he inspires us with propaganda, and we ignore the candidate who seeks to serve honestly because he is less pleasing to the senses. Now we are reaping our reward.
No men could be trusted more with the powers of government than our nation’s founders, and yet they limited the power they gave to themselves. Checks and balances were included to ensure that the government would not quickly exceed the bounds created for it. Why did they do such a thing? To protect this nation against its own people. As Daniel Webster insightfully stated:
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
Human nature is our own worst enemy, a concept that is contrary to the culture of our day. Self-restraint and self-denial have become something of a joke in the mainstream, as evidenced by the ridiculous levels of debt of the average citizen as well as the government. As John Adams famously said:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
How could a moral and religious people justify shouldering their children with 10--no 11--wait, wait...soon to be 12,000,000,000,000 dollars in debt(not counting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid obligations)?
For the Constitution to function properly, it requires that We the People desire a government that is not responsible for our standard of living, but only responsible to protect our rights. It requires that We the People are principled enough to take responsibility for our successes and our failures. If our government has been treating us like peasants, it is because we have been acting like peasants. If the government has not been held accountable, it’s because We the People have neglected our responsibility to hold it accountable. Just getting mad at “them” won’t solve anything, and can even make matters worse if the anger is acted on in unproductive ways.
Even if every corrupt and/or incompetent politician was removed from office today, who would take their place? More of the same because that’s who the majority of the people support (how do you think the current corrupt/incompetent politicians got their jobs?). Unless we reform ourselves, our values, and our desires so that our actions restore government to its rightful station rather than simply tearing it down (or providing those in power excuses to expand it further), any “uprising” would simply be a counterproductive peasant revolt.
Until we decide as a people to stand on our own, we will kneel before our government and deserve the moniker “We the Peasants.”

Posted By Scott Arland