Nana Yaw Aidoo
The lgbtqia+ agenda is a worldwide agenda by the powers that be to normalize the sodomite lifestyle as a “valid” alternative to the universally tried and tested, traditional marriage. So powerful are the people behind this agenda that the Finnish MP, Paivi Rasanen, was recently tried in Helsinki for quoting what the Bible says about sodomy acts. God help us if they could do this to an MP. Notwithstanding, the lgbtqia+ agenda is a sinful and soul-damning agenda. It is so sinful that it leaves room for sins yet “unborn.” Consider that little plus sign beside the alphabet A. Like the Athenians who had an altar dedicated to “the unknown God,” the plus sign is as if to say, “We do not know all sexual perversions yet. Therefore we are leaving room for any one that might rear its head in the future.”
On the Biblical front, the pro-lgbtqia+ group has lost its case. The Bible says,
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators,…nor effeminate (homosexuals NKJV), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (sodomites NKJV),…shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor.6:9-10).
Therefore, it attempts to gain acceptance for the sodomite lifestyle by arguing from justice. “It is unjust for two consenting individuals, who have chosen the homosexual lifestyle” it says “to be prevented from joining themselves in civil unions.” Since justice is virtually a byword for fairness, the argument is that sodomites are not being treated fairly.
Friends, this argument is flawed for one simple reason. It places the same social value on sodomy and heterosexual unions alike when they simply do not have the same value. This as Spiegel noted, “is in itself a de facto denial of the special value of the latter” (85). While sodomite unions or traditional marriages perpetuate nations and strengthen societies by producing new human beings (is this not why the State has an interest in marriage and attempts to protect it?), homosexual unions have as their primary purpose, “…the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature” (10 Reasons). Both unions simply do not have the same social value and therefore not only is it wrong for both unions to be put on the same pedestal by the State, it is also wrong for the less valuable union to cry “injustice.”
To illustrate, it is like crying “injustice” because a colleague who works harder and is more valuable to the company than you would ever be, is paid more wages than you or is given due recognition. Crying “injustice” in this case is obviously wrong. Rather, what would be real injustice is receiving the same wages or recognition as your hard working colleague. It would be an injustice against your colleague to receive the same wages and recognition as you when his output and value to the company far surpass yours.
In like manner, heterosexual unions or traditional marriages are superior to and more valuable than sodomite unions because they benefit society in a way sodomite unions do not in that “…what they contribute to society is uniquely valuable, viz. the production of new human beings” (Spiegel 85). Thus, to place both unions on the same pedestal by allowing sodomite unions is an injustice against heterosexual unions or traditional marriages.
Spiegel summed up the argument this way:
Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for the existence of society as well as its continuation).
What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.
Civil ordinances which recognize same-sex marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.
To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.
Therefore, same-sex marriage is unjust (83).
Some might respond to the foregoing argument by saying that since homosexuals are not trying to stop heterosexual unions from taking place, we can give heterosexual unions their prominent place in society, whiles at the same time permitting homosexual unions. While this idea is tempting, it:
…raises practical issues…But the most direct way of meeting this objection might be to simply note that if same-sex marriages are permitted, then any extra endorsement of heterosexual marriage would be merely symbolic and therefore trivial. Only truly significant benefits accorded to heterosexual married couples are sufficient to justly honor the special social value of such unions. If the current social benefits of marriage are extended to sodomite couples, then it’s hard to imagine what substantive advantages or privileges could be reserved for heterosexual unions. For this reason it appears that any such ‘extra endorsement’ from a public policy standpoint, would amount to little more than damning with faint praise (Spiegel 88-9).
Friends, it is not unjust to oppose the sodomite lifestyle. Rather, its permission is an injustice against heterosexual unions or traditional marriages because to the extent that the sodomite lifestyle is permitted, “it constitutes an elimination of the special sanction of traditional marriage, as warranted by the unique and significant social goods that heterosexual unions provide” (Spiegel 89).
Now, to the one who has been overcome by the sodomite lifestyle. Christians are not your enemies. Love for our Lord and your soul would not allow us to encourage you in sin. Rather than persist in that which is wrong and sinful from all standpoints, why not allow yourself to be washed, sanctified and justified in the name of our Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11)? Jesus Christ will set you free indeed (John 8:36) if only you would believe in Him (John 8:24), repent of this and all sins (Luke 13:3), publicly confess your faith in Christ (Matt. 10:32) and be baptized unto the remission of your sins (Acts 2:38). God loves you.
Spiegel, James. “Why Same-Sex Marriage is Unjust.” Think, vol. 15, no. 43, 2016, pp. 81-90, Academia. doi: 10.1017/S1477175616000075. Accessed 11 Oct. 2021.
10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed. PDF file, TFP Student Action, 2013.