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 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment