God Would Love to Forgive Repentant Sinners (3 December 2002)

Print

Dear Sir

The three letters in The Echo, 28/11/2002 vehemently opposing my original letter on homosexual co-adoption warrant a reply. On review, my original letter “Homosexual co-adoption – What’s the Problem?” seems quite moderate compared to the “Religious hatemongers have blood on their hands” trio.

To deal with R Laubscher’s arguments first: The Bible does not forbid the use of judgement in the sense of discernment. If it were to do so, Christians could not legitimately discipline their children, preside as judges in courts of law, or speak Biblical truth where our society needs to hear it.

Jesus warns in Matthew 7 that we must not look at our brother’s minor fault and ignore “the plank in our own eye” – God will judge us with the measure we use. As Luke 6 elucidates, in our personal relations, we must be gracious, generous and forgiving.

This does not mean that Christians must be silent at all times on all matters – John the Baptist challenged Herod on his incestuous marriage to his brother’s wife (Mark 6). If John the Baptist – endorsed by Jesus as the greatest man thus far – was prepared to challenge his society’s socially acceptable sins (at the cost of his own life), Africa Christian Action will not be silently politically correct on the homosexual issue either.

R Laubscher then claims that homosexual behaviour is neither perverted nor immoral. In contrast, the Bible says “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:27) The Bible clearly defines homosexual behaviour as perverted. Is R Laubscher only prepared to respect the Bible when it appears to support his/her viewpoint?

The argument that God created everything, including homosexuals, is particularly weak. For example, by that “logic” one can also argue that God created child rapists and hijackers! It is precisely because God has created us that we have an obligation to live according to His standards. If we insist on refusing to do so, God is justified in judging us accordingly.

In South Africa, overpopulation is not a problem. In fact, with the AIDS pandemic, we will soon experience a shrinking population with disastrous economic effects.

Finally, I must assure R Laubscher that I have looked in the mirror. What I see there is awful – God would be quite justified to throw me into hell for eternity. For that reason, I am very grateful that Jesus gave Himself in my place, taking the punishment I deserved, so that I can have peace with God. God continues to mould me as I read the Bible and align my thinking and actions according to His Word.

Patrick Sedyn argues that “organised religions have been responsible for tremendous injustices in the past”. Ironically, homosexual activists were particularly incensed by the way we used a similar argument when they called for our book “The Pink Agenda” to be banned. “The Pink Agenda” points out how homosexual behaviour is associated with promiscuity (43 % of homosexuals estimated that they would have sex with more than 500 partners in the classic Bell and Weinberg study), disease (anal sex is particularly dangerous, because the rectal wall is only one cell thick) and child abuse (in the US, although homosexuals only account for 1.5 to 2.5 % of the population, they contribute about a third of child molesters).

We can point to the tremendous good that Christianity has brought the world. Concepts like charity and hospitals originated in Christianity and missionaries have stopped slavery, child sacrifice, widow burning and cannibalism. Apart from a few self-serving AIDS homes, can the homosexual community claim anything similar?

Does Mr. Sedyn define “hate speech” as any disagreement with homosexual behaviour and rights based on this perverted behaviour?

Ms. Macfarlane resorts to the ad hominem argument, proposing an unprejudiced environment as a gift to a child. I am grateful that my father was prejudiced against dishonesty, stealing and laziness and that he inculcated these values in me. I think the worst possible environment a child could have is one in which there are no morals, no answers and no right and wrong, which brings us to the matter of homosexual co-adoption.

Is it healthy for children to be raised in an environment without sexual norms? Should we as a country have endorsed (through the Constitutional Court) homosexual relationships, which by definition are perverted, as a suitable environment for bringing up children? Can we claim that homosexual “life partnerships” are equal to God-given marriage? Can we claim that the lesbian’s fruitless sexual stimulation or the homosexual’s anal sex (with health risks to both parties and contact with faeces) is consistent with human dignity? Should the weakest of the weak be exposed to this?

God puts the lonely in families. Children need not grow up in institutions or on the streets and we support the Government’s efforts to streamline the adoption process through the revision of the Child Care Act. We remain opposed to homosexual co-adoption, for the sake of the children.

Jeanine McGill
National Co-ordinator

Christian Action P.O.Box 23632 Claremont 7735 Cape Town South Africa [email protected] - 021-689-4481 - www.christianaction.org.za
DMC Firewall is developed by Dean Marshall Consultancy Ltd