This article continues a series of essays exploring reasons why the Christian witness made so little impact during the same-sex marriage debate. The talk Charles price homosexuality statistics Sunday evening in The Peoples Church and was recorded on compact disc. This article is based on the audio record of the presentation and all quotations are of Charles Price unless cited otherwise.
The premise of my article: Adopting a biblical position on same-sex marriage is not a dilemma.
Why is this commentary important? It is certainly not to disparage a biblical scholar and brother in Christ.
No delight comes from that notion. This review is done in the spirit of Proverbs By the end of the evening, May 1,Christendom held four viewpoints on same-sex marriage: The same-sex marriage decision involves a choice and Charles price homosexuality statistics are two or more alternatives; however, Christians are to be of double-minded opinion.
How difficult is the same-sex marriage issue? How equal are the same-sex union alternatives? What is gained and lost should evangelicals liberalize their witness to homosexuals? What Does Scripture Say? Now when we turn to scripture, God has spoken about sexual behavior. I am not going to look with you tonight at the four main passages where He speaks to you about homosexuality in scripture, and two additional passages, one in the Old Testament and one in the New Testament because that is not the purpose of the evening.
It would take a long time to do that. In the course of the talk Pastor Price does affirm the evangelical interpretation of what the Bible says on homosexuality.
Evangelical Statements by Pastor Price.
Same-sex marriage cannot be endorsed from scripture. "Charles price homosexuality statistics" all the passages that do address homosexuality are negative. None of them are positive or encouraging in anyway. Howeverhaving said that …. What Was the Aim of the Sermon? So what was the purpose of the evening, if not to declare and explain relevant scriptural guidance?
The impression from the talk, if not the implicit purpose of the evening was: And the homosexist worldview states: Homosexism is a new cosmology worldview Charles price homosexuality statistics asserts there is no meant relationship between anatomical sex genitaliasexuality and gender. Gay and lesbians claim an innate orientation; transsexuals and gueers claim a fluid orientation; and bisexuals declare alternating and simultaneous sexual attractions.
Homosexists assert the inert nature of same-sex intimacy is not appropriate grounds to discriminate in the social institutions of marriage and family. On the other hand, the heterosexist paradigm states: Heterosexism is the view that humankind is made up of two purposefully designed sexes - male and female. Like a lock and key, male and female are companion sexes anatomically designed for procreative union.
Heterosexism does not imply that all males and females must mate "Charles price homosexuality statistics" procreate; however, there is the reality that survival of humankind requires that some do. In most societies marriage has been the privileged sacrament for these men and women, institutionalizing their union and legitimizing their offspring before the state.
The family consisting of a father, mother and biologically connected children is seen as the model.
Blended families by divorce and remarriage and other family variations, although common, are viewed as departures from this ideal. There is a genuine dilemma in this sermon and it is rooted in the reality that one cannot hold two mutually opposing worldviews at the same time — heterosexism and homosexism. World Versus Church Dilemma.
Misleading Statements by Pastor Price. The world at large is taking place in governments all over the world, at lower courtsas has happened in Ontario Charles price homosexuality statistics the way for government to legislate because they are finding it Charles price homosexuality statistics be unconstitutional But one dilemma it seems to me, is that the world and the church are concerned about two different things primarily.
Within the church the concern is more about homosexuality itself and the meaning of marriage itself. The notion that the same-sex marriage debate is fundamentally a tug-of-war between a list of concerns of the state government and courts and those of the church must be challenged as perilously simplistic and misleading, too much parroting the propaganda of the homosexual rights movement. Portrayal of the governments and the courts as the altruistic agencies of civil liberties, equality and human rights, pitted against religious communities implies a level of unity and grouping of opinion that has never existed.
Government and courts aside for the moment, the church is hardly unanimous in its opinion on same-sex marriage. Moreover, the concerns of Christians vary and go far beyond the meanings of homosexuality and marriage. An EKOS survey  of Canadians conducted over Februaryshowed that only 42 percent of the population were in favor of same-sex marriage.
The majority of Canadians churched and non-churched either did not see the matter as a
Charles price homosexuality statistics rights issue or did not care.
This is not true, secularists can be ardently opposed to redefining marriage. The "Charles price homosexuality statistics" rationale against same-sex marriage is no less persuasive than the religious. In a democratic country, governance should reflect the values and interests of its citizens not usurp them. And when this happens, it is vital to understand why. For these reasons, no balanced articulation of the same-sex marriage issue can leave out the machinations of politics and the scheming special interest groups, a complication Pastor Price avoids.
Inthe government and the church were actually united in thought. The Liberal Charles price homosexuality statistics Parliament had voted in favor of protecting traditional marriage. Justice Minister Anne McClellan said at that time: We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us…the definition of marriage is already clear in law…Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages.
No jurisdiction worldwide defines a legal marriage as existing between same-sex partners. Five years later, before the American homosexual organization Equality Forum, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon admitted how precarious the same-sex marriage fight had been, even among Liberals. He said that only four individuals in Ottawa were instrumental in reversing the Liberal same-sex marriage policy.
One member of the NDP voted against the bill, subsequently losing her riding. The final tally was - These are not images of dilemma — concerns of an altruistic government versus concerns of a homophobic church; but rather reflections of raw politics. Indeed, the vote in June was only possible because the Liberals survived a non-confidence vote in May by one; the Honourable Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to the Liberal camp.
Marriage redefinition was never inevitable and never the church against the world.
Court Versus Church Dilemma. When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was ratified by parliament and ten legislatures inthe document said nothing about homosexuality in spite of gay and lesbian lobby. And the Preamble to our Constitution reads: Most are familiar with these facts.
This impression of constitutionally based justice Charles price homosexuality statistics its way through the system is far from the truth.
Morton and Rainer Knopff, describe the challenge of deconstructing the heterosexist basis of Canadian "Charles price homosexuality statistics" To use the Charter as part of such an ideological battle, gay and lesbian Charles price homosexuality statistics had first to overcome the intentional omission of sexual orientation from
Charles price homosexuality statistics list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 15 of the Charter. They thus began publishing articles advocating that it be added by way of judicial interpretation.
The goal - to convert the judiciary to the ideology of sexual orientations: Choosing the judicial system as the key battleground, human rights as the claimed grievance and sympathetic judiciary as allies became the means by which three percent of society was able to deconstruct heterosexism. By a process of judicial rulings the court read homosexual rights into the Charter. It is inherently about change. Again the courts have never been unanimous on the need to redefine marriage. Not all the justices interpreted the Charter in the pro-gay manner of Justice Abella.
The objective of limiting marriage to opposite sex couples is sufficiently important to warrant infringing on the rights of the petitioners. The gain to society from the preservation of the deep-rooted and fundamental legal institution of opposite-sex marriage outweighs the detrimental effect of the law on the petitioners.
Judge Pitfield went on to say that equality rights can be overridden by Section 1 of the Charter. He dismissed other arguments, ruling that, for same-sex couples, current freedoms of expression or association, as well as mobility rights and rights of liberty and security are not infringed by the ban on marriage. In a jurocracy an elitist party usurps their proper role in a democracy. In this new juggernaut of forced consensus, what is really at issue is the power of judges to force their own personal moral and theological beliefs upon society.
The Supreme Court of Canada will take up the questions posed by the government in connection with a proposed marriage bill in October.
Meanwhile, new Prime Minister Paul Martin had to fill two vacancies that have occurred on the court, and he angered the same-sex marriage opponents by appointing Justices Louise "Charles price homosexuality statistics" and Rosalie Abella of the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Both of these judges are seen as generally supportive of gay rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Justice Charron was part of the three-judge panel that issued a favorable decision for gay plaintiffs in M v. H, Carswell Ont31 O. And media records of the first-ever Parliamentary Committee to review these appointments show a vexed screening process: It's just running it by us for some form of credibility that doesn't exist.
Abella and Charron weren't announced as nominees until Tuesday. Cotler, on the other hand, spent eight months researching potential nominees, consulting with judges and lawyers, and reviewing Charles price homosexuality statistics. Even before the hearing began, Toews noted that Abella and Charron are both known for judgments supporting same-sex rights.
The nine-member Supreme Court will hold a milestone hearing in October on Liberal efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. Toews suggested a political connection. Homosexuality In Ghana - The Statistics. «Prev.