Considering how much attention"gay rights" is receiving, I found it interesting to read this article. It was written by Larry Chouinard and published in the September, 1977 edition of The Christian Courier. That paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Wayne Jackson. Something tells me that when Mr. Chouinard wrote this piece, he probably never imagined the Supreme Court of the United States would even be considering something like "gay marriage." Much can and needs to be said against this sin that has become acceptable to so many in society. The words below are as true now as when they were first written.
Within the past few years, crucial ethical decisions have been facing the American people. Former standards of behavior have been replaced by extreme liberalization of moral conduct. Questions of right and wrong have been replaced by the standard of sensual satisfaction. "If it feels good, do it" is the slogan for many in this pleasure mad society. With no sense of direction or shame, the doors have been opened wide to allow the entrance of every form of moral abuse. The remarkable aspect of this entire movement is its failure to see both the inconsistency and the logical end of its efforts. In the name of democracy, members of this movement argue for unlimited freedom in sexual activity; yet they fail to learn from history that such philosophical ideologies, while impressive on paper and influential on campus, spell disaster for a nation.
In order for a society to function, the populace must obligate itself to certain restraints for the welfare of the whole. When a nation is made up of self-centered minorities seeking only personal gratification, it is destined to splinter and collapse. The inconsistency of the new morality is evident when one considers the strange alliance of ideologies that characterize liberals. It is amazing that the same people who believe that the death penalty is inhumane, campaign long and hard for a woman's right to kill an innocent baby before it is born. By what standard does the one offer compassion and mercy to a murderer and rapist, yet turn a deaf ear to the pitiful cries of an infant mercilessly thrown into a garbage can because the mother decided she does not want the baby?
Why is it that the same people who protest the appearance of violence on television think nothing of the corrupting and misleading influence of pornographic films? If our children watch a violent movie and become violent, why can't they be influenced by a pornographic movie that depicts rape as pleasurable to women?
Why is it that the same people who cry for freedom of speech become violently angry when a woman in Florida uses her freedom to campaign against homosexuality? Does freedom of speech end where Christian ethics begin? If the lifestyle of the homosexual will not influence children, what about other lifestyles such as Nazism or that of the Ku Klux Klan? Would you condone a member of the Klan teaching your children American history? If the lifestyle of the homosexual is such a private matter that children would never know about, would it be agreeable to pass legislation that demands the immediate dismissal of the homosexual whose lifestyle becomes known to children? Since "Gay Liberation" is an aggressive effort to bring sanctity to the homosexual lifestyle, you are not going to convince many of us that homosexuals in the teaching profession would not influence our children toward that perverted way.
These are just some of the inconsistencies of the liberalization movement. It is time that the other side be heard. One need not endorse the totality of Anita Bryant's theology to realize that there are strong rational arguments in favor of a conservative stand on these and other moral issues. For the Christian, God is the ultimate authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment