The Other Side of the Debate

The Other Side of the Debate


The gay marriage debate is seemingly endless, and has taken so much publicity, as it seems a tweet from the most minor of celebrities have to weigh in on it. It would seem that speaking for gay rights is a good career move as a sure way to receive publicity, as well as curry favor with casting powers in Hollywood.

The gay rights crowd, like other groups, have seemingly owned the issue so as to define it so that opposing points are discarded. The left that prides itself on tolerance and civility and is decidedly not when it comes to those that oppose their personal viewpoints. For instance, the term "homophobe" is very presumptuous. Let psychologists diagnose phobias. The Right has played defense too long in apologizing for its beliefs. True, there are many hatemongers who perform acts of violence and spiteful language against homosexuals. But many who oppose homosexuality do so out of legitimate moral and religious reasons, not hatred of any person.

The Evangelical right has been the scapegoat for crimes against gays and unfairly so. Matthew Shepperd, who was violently assaulted and murdered by thugs who were drinking and playing pool, acts not associated with Evangelical Christians. It seems some unscrupulous gay rights activists exploited his death so criticize conservative Christians speaking out against the gay lifestyle would be branded as accomplices in his death. If Christians are responsible for acts of violence against gays because they proclaim it as sinful, are Christians also responsible for murder when a man catches his wife with another man because they spoke against adultery too?

The reason I'm opposed to gay marriage is because it is not an act of privacy in the house. Marriage is a public institution; a endorsement by society that publicly recognizes the union. If homosexuality is another lifestyle, then organizations such as religious adoption agencies who have to provide services to gay couples, businesses would be forced to provide benefits to couples. One Christian who owns a well known dating service is now being forced tho include gays, despite his religious beliefs.

The venerable Boy Scouts of all institutions are under attack. They too have their right as a private organization to associate with who they choose. The Constitution is not just a document of inclusion, but one of individual protection. The Boy Scouts should not have to explain it policies as a private group as if they are accountable to the public. Any school that denies them the right to use their facillities should be considered as disguised blessing, as it could give the churches an opportunity to open their doors to them, and be in an environment of where the Gospel is proclaimed. It is a shame that an institution such as the Boy Scouts has to defend itself, and denied the opportunity to use a public facillity because the officials have the power to deny them due to differing beliefs.

Now politicians in Chicago and Boston are saying Chik Fil A franchises are not welcome in their cities, which is an incredible display of arrogance. Imagine a politician that believes he has the power to grant who can operate a business within the confines of his city just because they exercise their First amendment right sets a dangerous precedent. I'll even say it is un American, something I'm very reluctant to say. To be clear, Chik Fil A does not refuse service to gays. Instead, they contribute money and espouse their religious beliefs, like any other American citizen or institution is entitled to. What's next: denying a business a license because the owner stole the Mayor's girlfriend when they were in high school?

The Judeo-Christian system has traditionally rejected homosexuality as sin. The sacred texts were not written fifty years ago. They predate the Constitution. They were not created by taken by polls of believers. Many Christians oppose homosexuality because the Scriptures say so, not because they wrote the Scriptures. The many Christians who speak against gay marriage are not hatemongers or bigots. That is the language of intolerant liberals who feel they are empowered to define the issue exclusively. Those Christians labeled as intolerant are instead devout, genuine people of faith who love people, but speak against their actions they believe them to be wrong.

The Triumph of Marketing

Christian culture has adapted a new nomenclature to keep up with evolving times, or "being relevant." If a word offends or turns someone off, like any good marketer, we change the name. Just as selling used cars has now become selling "preowned cars,"the savvy church promoter has his own set of buzzwords.

For example: people don't worship in churches; they are now called centers (for that matter, they don't worship either, they have an experience. And Christianity is no longer a religion either: it's now "a relationship," often with an addendum "not about rules." (by the way, if Christianity has no rules, then it's alright to drink and gamble? Well, no, they say, that's not really what we mean). And if it's a relationship instead of a religion, does the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion still apply to Christians? According to the Encarta World English Dictionary, religion is defined as the following:

re·li·gion [ ri líjjən ]   

1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

Synonyms: faith, belief, creed, conviction.

This attitude extends to church design as well. What ever happened to steeples, bells, and stained glass. Modern churches look so homogeneous and  indistinguishable from YMCAs and malls. It's as if we are trying to hide who we are and our heritage. I know people are wary of churches for various reasons, but the attitudes of the worshipers are what counts. Churches are not called churches anymore in some circles; they're now centers, or given one word names, such as "\Mountain," "Ocean." Denominational churches want to hide their identity, too. In selecting a church, it's good to know if it is Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, or Unitarian. Although  you find out quick once you stepped inside, at least it saves time. And what does a nondenominational church stand for?

Dress is another factor. A very casual dress code has come about over the years that it has made the concept of "Sunday best" obsolete. Camouflage, shorts, tee shirts, and yes, ball caps (during the service no less, but more on that later). Women in dresses and white gloves? That's irrelevant. Today everybody dresses for two hours of comfort. Their is arguments whether Paul meant men should not wear coverings in church, or long hair. "Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.... For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God."
(1 Cor. 11:4, 7). However, Paul argued that when in Rome do as the Romans do, too. It is not legalism to follow basic courtesy and manners. Nothing in the Bible states you must stand when you pledge allegiance to the flag, or holds a door open for a lady. I don't believe God wants to micromanage our lives. People who abide rules of common courtesy should not be considered pharisees. 

Sunday used to be a special day, when men dressed in suits, and women their dresses. People who call wearing fine clothes as stumbling blocks are the sometimes the same people who drive expensive SUVs to church, and not think how a poor family would feel when pulled up in the parking lot. Today, grown men dress like teenagers, and women dress like men, and listen to a man in a Hawaiian shirt on a stage. The magic of Sunday morning is now like a day at the mall.