Posted on 05/12/2015 7:05:53 PM PDT by xuberalles
As a patriot who loves America and its foremost premise of individual liberty, I fully support people’s choice to be gay, bisexual, or whatever lifestyle they choose. Whether I agree or not is of no consequence for personal choice is the universal charter of freedom; judgment is not my cross to bear. Yet, despite this indelible truth, our call to embody compassion and forgiveness, Christians are routinely demonized in this progressive centrifuge of political correctness that demands “acceptance” over “tolerance” and “conformity” over “consequence”. Our right to oppose homosexuality and gay marriage is not the result of blind malice - for we inevitably have relatives or friends who are admittedly gay – and no person or sect of society should ever suffer at the hands of senseless violence or prosecution; albeit in the safety of their own homes or the streets of civility. Such archaic thinking reeks of ignorance and would merely invite similar injustices upon all people.
Outside the progressive pantheon of media manipulation, neither my political beliefs nor my religious principles have ever been driven by hate. Rather, I embrace the intrinsic value of logic and love above all else. Therefore when we as a nation venture into the institution of marriage, a “religious” covenant strictly defined by our Judeo-Christian beliefs - the fundamental basis for Western Civilization and the lifeblood of our very laws and values - there is no doubt as to its definition and implication. Somehow civil rights activists continue to labor under the delusion that the most rudimentary forms of marriage, those "heterosexual" weddings spanning from Mesopotamia to the Inca Empire, are the theological equivalent of holy matrimony in Western modernity; that is, if you disregard the sacrifices, body mutilation, celebratory orgies, polygamy, and the "prenuptial" birthright to murder your wife or offspring. Marriage is much more than just a perceived right or a dusted off artifact to be claimed in this political tug of war declared by secularists. And it goes far beyond the generic simplicities of “choice”. Marriage, at its very core, is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, the moral construct of procreation - whether they bear children or not - but most notably a holy commitment to live according to God’s will and testament. If civilization is the soul of creation, marriage is undoubtedly the seed.
For the sake of posterity, other than those new age splinters of existing denominations that cater to the pressures of pop culture relativism, please tell me which of the four major religions advocate or condone gay marriage? Care to venture? None! Yet, are Hindus or Muslims equally disparaged for staying true to their beliefs, their perceived salvation? Of course not; because such action doesn’t fit liberals’ political narrative of blaming “hateful” Christians or Jews. Naturally gay rights activists will try to circumvent the entire religious connotation of marriage by saying Americans live in a secular nation. This is a fallacy, except for the functioning purposes of government and public institutions, which is exactly why Civil Unions were created; to legally recognize the rights of same-sex couples because churches are private, independent bodies protected by the Constitution…a document limiting government’s power by recognizing man’s natural born freedoms as the sole derivative of a divine creator. Considering roughly 3% of the population is gay and homosexuality is largely viewed as an undesirable or unethical behavior in nearly all cultures, how is the tangible option of Civil Unions – a secular designation - viewed as discriminatory or unreasonable? Would activists force a Halal butcher to prepare bacon for an atheist or the Hindu owner of a vegan restaurant to serve steak to Christian tourists; to violate the very essence of their establishment when an equally viable option existed right next door? Just because you desperately want to squeeze a square peg into a round hole to magically fit your perspective of the world, or better yet your interpretation of marriage, doesn’t make it so. The First Amendment was specifically designed to protect our religious values, the biblical account of marriage, from intrusive government; or more succinctly, those subversive ploys of fabricated discrimination.
If this entire debate was truly about the right to be gay and legally committed, no pun intended, the historic recognition of “Civil Unions” would aptly suffice. But this scorched earth campaign is not so much about “marriage” per say as it is about terraforming the moral landscape of our society; those inconvenient tenets which stand in direct contrast to progressivism. What leftists ultimately desire is for all faiths, but especially Christianity, to be forced into accepting homosexuality and gay marriage, not to mention abortion, as the moral equivalent of traditional matrimony and child birth. Confused? So is common sense. Outside the fog of their fervor to discredit God and humiliate religion, it’s obvious the family paradigm of heterosexuality is hardly some random concoction designed to discriminate against nonconformists. It is the natural order of life, a point of survival, and the most conducive to raising productive, well-adjusted children. Sure critics will point out that half of marriages fail and a number of families are dysfunction. This is true. The again, how does lowering the bar to somehow justify the decadence or infidelity of homosexuality benefit humanity? How does a disturbing trend, the direct result of eroding societal norms and the moral decay of our country, refute or even invalidate the virtuous and traditional lifestyle prescribed by our Judeo-Christian values? If anything it reaffirms their utmost necessity. People, not religion, are guilty for the rampant violence, sexually perversion, and sheer disrespect plaguing our communities. And let’s be honest; grown men hanging out in public restrooms for a chance sexual meeting with their future “husband” is hardly the moral high ground. Precedent requires no persuasion.
All things being equal, despite the fact gay couples are capable of being loving and decent parents, they do not provide the same balance - ethical stability and inherent influence - that children instinctively need from a father and a mother; especially in this convoluted day in age. Blurring the lines of acceptable and destructive behavior, albeit gay or straight, has nothing to do with injustice but everything to do with pardoning a society whose only reverence is that of personal satisfaction and political gain. What once started out as a supposed innocuous plea to garner societal acceptance for gay Americans, has turned into a legislated right for gay adoption and now an open call to embrace transgendered “homosexual” parents; often with little or no regard to the inevitable struggles or desires of those youth affected. And speaking of those children, what does it say when “progressive” parents attempt to alter their sexual orientation – a sort of defacto political statement - or openly encourage them to change their natural gender to satisfy their true, conditioned, inner feelings? Simply unforgivable. Yes, not all boundaries are meant to be broken.
Knowing religion is often mocked by the hand of science, I find it hard to believe humans are supposedly nothing more than the product of natural selection and evolution – as liberals love to proclaim without refrain - but that the faint prevalence of homosexuality in humanity is a naturally engrained and necessary behavior to ensure the survival of our species. And once again, how does this change the fact “marriage” is a “religious” institution marked by definitive precepts? Breaking down the very fabric of America, or better yet mankind’s rise and proliferation, to appease the political appetite of those who feel ostracized by their own choices - their refusal to accept the truth and appreciate the options afforded to them - is not our burden to bear. Asking the pillar of Western Civilization, a society firmly built upon Judeo-Christian principles, to accept gay marriage is like forcing people to play chess without a king. It literally makes no sense. Is the Sun to blame for your pain because you’re fair skinned, or should you know better? Although I harbor no ill will towards gay Americans and truly wish them well in their endeavors, we are all brothers and sisters in the eyes of God, I do not feel that sentiment is entirely reciprocated. My refusal to abandon the constructs of marriage, its true genesis and significance in our culture, hardly equates to being cursed as a harbinger of hate or a willful example of discrimination. Because slander is often the tool of the defeated, I’d rather honor my marriage to the indivisible institution of our creation: God.
It should be a huge clue that the degenerate populace didn’t want civil unions, they sought to degenerate the God ordained institution of marriage. Their message from the start is a huge lie because they could have had all the legal rights of the marriage contract with civil unions. The father of lies a murderer from the start is the spirit behind the homosexual agenda and activism.
But what does God “fully support”?
And God would have been fine with civil unions?
How about getting gubmint get out of the marriage? Oh, but what about tax benefits?
You see, marriage becomes prostitution and the gubmint is da pimp.
That’s a non-rhetorical question, my friend. If you have to ask, you’ll never know.
Civil unions are a non-religious designation. Acknowledging their existence doesn’t infer approval. Nevertheless, I’d rather marriage remain a religious institution rather than worry about a nonsecular designation that will inevitably exist in the moral vacuum of modernity.
Stopped reading right there.
The First Amendment was intended to do just that.
Say the Supreme Court does rule in favor of gay marriage. Compliance will mean that if gay marriages are not performed a church's tax status may be effected.
Just what we need, Obama getting his grubby gay fingers all over our Sunday worship.
Ask Him. He is not obligated to bless a civil union ... He isn’t obligated to bless a church marriage, either. But the vows entered into in Church marriage obligate the oath givers to the institution God ordained. In keeping their oaths they will receive blessing. Breaking those oaths is an offense toward God. Does anyone expect that sexual degenerates of any kind will keep such vows? Look at bill Clinton. He has spat upon the vows so foten he doesn’t even see himself as an offense to God. Thus unregenerate people making marriage oath are spitting upon vows before God, and that makes the fallen angel and his minions cackle with delight.
I think it’s pretty clear what His opinion is. After all, He created marriage itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.