We are not getting the whole truth on the homosexual marriage issue.
First of all, it is wrongly reported that the United States Supreme Court Case, Lawrence v. Texas, affirmed a fundamental right to commit sodomy. That is not correct. Instead, what it says is that there is no rational basis for a law that prohibits homosexuals from committing sodomy while it permits heterosexuals to engage in the same act.
The United States Supreme Court, only 15 years earlier, in Bowers v. Hardwick, had decllined to overrule a Georgia Statute that prohibited sodomy between consenting homosexuals. In Lawrence v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court simply overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, which is rather odd, since the court will not touch other cases such as Roe v. Wade and McCulloch v. Maryand. Yet, in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, the court simply declared it no longer binding precedent. This tends to make Lawrence v. Texas look like a political decision instead of a legal one.
An excellent Texas Supreme Court Justice, Priscilla Owen, had written the opinion that was attacked in Lawrence v. Texas. The 5th Circuit had upheld Justice Owen. Only at the Supreme Court level was the Texas statute finally struck down. It took Sandra Day O'Conner's vote to turn down the Texas Statute. The dissent was soundly argued. Still, Lawrence v. Texas does not declare a fundamental right to commit sodomy.
Had Texas not amended its sodomy statute to permit heterosexuals to commit sodomy, there would have been no victory in Lawrence v. Texas. Texas still has every right to declare sodomy an illegal act. In order to do so, however, it must make findings that apply across the board to all relationships.
There are two types of sodomy. One is oral-genital. The other is anal-genital. Texas has ample reason to declare both types of sodomy illegal. Texas could say that they are illegal because only the male and female genitals are designed to work together. Texas could find that when the anus is used as the tube that gives pleasure during intercourse, it is damaged. Because the membrane surrounding the colon is so thin, it is easily ruptured or torn. Fecal materials are highly toxic. Because the membrane is surrounded by blood vessels, mild tears provide a quick route for infection by toxic elements in the fecal materials.
Oral, genital contact is similarly hazardous, regardless of the gender of the giver or the receiver of the pleasure. The behavior might be prevalent, but if the legislature finds it is associated with genital infections, the legislature could outlaw it. The legislature won't because the legislature will take the position that oral sex does not cause a major problem in society. As long as it keeps people quiet and content, society can go on to solve the bigger problems of how to pay for the roads and education and how to deal with illegal aliens, and the cost of college tuition.
I'm pulled in that direction. I'm inclined to let people want to do with their lives. Let them engage in destructive behavior. What concerns me though, is if they've been warned about the consequences and they do it anyway, is that other taxpayers have to shoulder the consequences of dangerous sexual behavior.
I hear people clamoring for more freedom to express themselves by engaging in what used to be considered immoral activity. Yet, those same people, if they have no insurance, will be clamoring for help from our hospitals. They go out, act without control, and say "damn the consequences,' then proceed to catch a social disease. Then we all pay for it.
I know this about human nature. Until people are transformed in their thinking from the inside, they are going to live for themselves. If they truly loved God, they would want to present their bodies to God. They would not act contrary to nature. They wouldn't misuse their bodies. They would see their bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit. Their entire life would be a presentation of their bodies as an offering to God.
By no means do I wish to suggest that human sexuality, as between a married man and woman, is not an offering to God. No, when a man and woman yield themselves to each other, and completely empty themselves of selfish desire, they are most fulfilled. That is when the peak experiences happen. Each of them is focused on pleasing the other. It is then when the spontaneous, uncontrollable spasms take place. That is beautiful, because that creates a deeper, more exclusive bond.
I do not say that human sexuality is a worship experience. It is an act of obedience. But neither is it a time of oppression. No, when a man or a woman oppresses the other and uses the time of sexual intercourse as an opportunity to ridicule, condemn, or to force the other to do something he or she consideres immoral or wrong, that's ugly. It becomes ugly when one of the parties coerces the other.
I think the natural response to a time of pleasure between a man and woman should be deep gratitude toward a merciful God. It is a great and rare privilege to enjoy our bodies as they were designed to be enjoyed. Life has enough trouble. God gives us the grace to enjoy ourselves in spite of the trouble.
