Posted on 04/30/2015 7:06:42 AM PDT by lifeofgrace
Before the Supreme Court rules on enforcing gay marriage on all of us at the barrel of a government gun, we must consider how we answer legitimate questions, and how we conservatives and Bible-believing Christians can defend our ideals playing into the “hate and bigotry” the Left would so readily use to define us.
After being banned from Reddit groups /r/feminism and /r/LGBT for posting opinions they find disagreeable, I was finally asked an excellent question in response to my post on Jutice Alito’s line of questioning in Tuesday’s Supreme Court oral arguments on gay marriage.
The question illuminates much about the questioner and the liberal mindset. To liberals, it’s selfish to deprive someone else of a feeling of entitlement or affirmation, regardless of the harm caused to society through misplaced ideals. The post-modern mind rationalizes ideals away—if it doesn’t personally affect you in a pragmatic way, then you must be selfish.
Yet the slightest emotional twinge or “microaggression” in the mind of the hearer, seer, or reader of something disagreeable promotes a hailstorm of condemnation. Truly, the progressive left sees the world upside down, displacing actual ideals with craven self-interest.
My answer to the comment:
It’s not about me and mine–if it was that would be selfish. It’s about preserving those things in this country I and millions of others hold dear: our God, our Bible, and the freedom to follow both. When verses in the Bible are held as “hate speech” simply because somebody disagrees with them, or my church loses a tax status that other charities which agree with the “official” position retain, that harms not only me, but everyone who wishes to exercise the freedoms we cherish.In a Facebook thread on my post about Bruce Jenner—who I painted as a misogynist because he claims to be a woman versus simply wanting to be one as a transsexual—I received some comments supporting transsexuals. I believe we should pray for homosexual, bisexual, transgender and transsexual people, because they do suffer, and I would like to show them love and compassion (as Dr. Michael Brown has also stated, receiving widespread venom from the Left for tweeting this).How is that about same-sex marriage? I wish gay couples no ill, and if they wish to live together and have tax benefits awarded by the state, that’s a political matter. But it’s not marriage. Even the term “same-sex marriage” is, legally (for now) and institutionally an oxymoron. Marriage has always (historically for millennia) been one man and one woman. It’s the wonton redefinition of the word to something that frames the issue of same-sex couples having a “right” to it–to transform a social debate into a legal challenge for civil rights, I have a problem with.
And I think it’s very selfish of those who support the redefinition of marriage to pursue this strategy in obtaining benefits conveyed by the government at the expense of liberty for everyone. There’s no reason to do it this way–if equality was the issue, then civil unions fit perfectly, but civil unions are not good enough for the LGBT activists. They equate “dignity” with approval–whether it’s approval forced by the gun barrel or freely given. The Bible and those who follow it will never approve of same-sex marriage, so the gun barrel it must be. And that’s incredibly narrow-minded and selfish of people who have systematically rejected every other option.
But they reject that love if it comes with a Biblical worldview—they wish to be accepted as-is, and would rather have the Bible edited or excised than simply recognize a contrary viewpoint (although the Biblical viewpoint has been around for millennia).
One commenter wrote:
I do not personally know any transsexuals, but I do know several transgenders, who, as children and teenagers, were very unhappy and, in some cases, had attempted or contemplated suicide rather than be persecuted by friends, family or society. I thank God these people were finally able to "come out" in our society, and are now living happy, productive lives. Some are married and have children and are great families, with a positive goal for their future. It is unfortunate that some people think they have the right to interfere in the lives of these wonderful, loving friends of mine. Unlike some others, my wife and I don't feel threatened at all by transgenders. In fact, I'd rather associate with most transgenders than with fanatical Christians. God bless diversity.Yes, God bless diversity. Natural diversity. I wouldn’t consider psychological disorders to be diversity worth blessing, but again, the Biblical worldview is ignored, even while God is invoked.
How do we answer such heartfelt opinions?
I answered:
i don't feel threatened in the least by transgenders or transsexuals or LGB-etcetera.Again, it’s about ideals, not people. People do things, say things and achieve things, but ideals drive movements. It’s not LGBT people who trouble me, it’s the ideal that their worldview defeats my—and millions of others—devotion to a Biblical worldview and my Constitutional liberty to adhere to it.I do feel very threatened by the idea advanced by activists and progressive post-modernist thugs that those people are psychologically normal and have no disorder but Christians are delusional and hateful for believing they do. And that's exactly where we are going. It's very hard--not impossible--to have compassion on people deserving of Christian love when even saying "God can heal you" is considered hate speech.
One of the best defenses of that liberty, from a purely secular viewpoint, appeared on Facebook in response to a post by evangelist Ray Comfort.
The commenter wrote this jewel:
I would not ask, let alone force, a Jewish deli owner to serve me a pulled pork sandwich. I would not ask nor force a believer in Islam to serve me in a bar so I could get drunk. I would not ask nor force someone who believes that we can be reincarnated into animals to make me a steak to eat. I would not ask nor force a Catholic to make me any sort of meat on Ash Wednesday. I would not ask nor force a Hindu to make for me Cow Skin Rug. I would not ask nor force someone who practices Jainism to sell me Fig Newtons. I would not ask nor force someone of Bahá’í faith to serve me a Jack Daniels in my Coke. I would not ask nor force a Mormon believer to serve me my morning coffee. I would not ask nor force someone who practices Rastafarianism to serve me pretty much anything mass-produced in Americas' food factories. I would not ask nor force someone at a Seventh Day Adventist church to serve coffee at church. I would not ask nor force someone who practices Sikhism to serve me Kosher foods. I would not ask nor force someone who practices Yazidism to serve me corned beef and cabbage. WHY? Because we live in America, and our brothers and sisters have fought long and hard for our rights to believe whatever we want to believe, and for our rights as business owners to refuse service to anyone we would choose to refuse service to. YET, we must force anyone who happens to believe that supporting the homosexual lifestyle will send their very selves to Hell to serve them wedding cakes and help them to get married? You do not gain rights by stripping others of theirs. If I'm not happy with the service I do or do not receive at any place of business, do you know what I do? I simply take my money elsewhere. Instead of throwing a tantrum and demanding that they do things my way, I just take my money to the person who can do the job for me and can do it well. Even a five year old is capable of such a thing.I can add nothing more to that eloquent description of how our liberty should be employed. We should all memorize this argument and live by it. It may be all we have left in the Brave New World.
(crosspost from RedState.com)
Loaded questions aren’t legitimate.
Indeed. And you don't answer them. When they hand you one, you unload it, then meticulously disassemble it and hand it back to them in pieces without pulling the trigger.
How does it harm you if I’m carrying a gun?
How does it harm you if I make more money than you do?
These kinds of questions used as arguments are capricious. Someone will use them as when it advantages their cause, and dismiss them when they don’t.
I still don’t get this reasoning. Does this mean that because the government issues divorces, that I’m complicit, and endorsing divorce? Why aren’t we working to end divorce? Particularly if we are interested in protecting children?
In regards to gay marriage, I don’t care if people I don’t know do something I don’t care about.
Certainly a valid question for any Christian. Enough Gospel verses detail Jesus’ explanation that the pro-divorce verses in the Torah were composed by Moses due to the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts on the subject—and even in the face of Korah’s punishment, the illness from the quails and the “fiery serpent” plague among other things, they still were unrepentant on many things.
Why aren’t we working to end divorce?
Divorce is the mote in our eye, when we are talking about a splinter in theirs.
I just get the feeling that half of the gay’s interest in marriage is just a means to piss us off. If we wouldn’t react, most of them would just go away.
This fight was lost, not in the courts, but on TV, and movies and the radio. Gay has gotten so accepted by most Americans, particularly the youngsters, that the day will come when the only reason this will be discussed will be when MSM interviewers try to get GOP candidates caught in gotcha questions, like they did to Santorum with the birth control questions last election cycle.
It’s not our “reaction” that’s the problem; it’s the actions of the local, state and federal governments that is, especially their judicial branches. And it’s already gone too far with judicial attacks on businesses run by observant Christians (but no Muslims, take note).
Problems such as this do not go away by ignoring them.
I just tell leftists I don’t buy that they are “pro-gay rights”.
“Gay rights” is simply a cover for the left to criminalize the Christian beliefs that they despise. They are anti-Christian bigots who are trying to put themselves on the side of the angels by claiming a bogus pro civil rights position.
A pointless exercise. This case was decided about 10 years ago when Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion legalizing sodomy in Texas. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
Lots of “Christians” really don’t care about marriage when it comes to divorce. They would rather preserve their convenience to indulge in serial monogamy rather than really defend the institution.
Oh, they’re on the side of the angels (the fallen ones—remember Colossians 2:18), but not on the side of God.
They’ll find themselves cut off if they persist in it.
PS. It’s absolutely not a “splinter in theirs”.
I think the difference lies in what will be required if sodomite marriage is made legal throughout the country.
Right now pastors do preach against the sin of divorce and there are many ministries devoted to helping couples stay married. No one seeking a divorce is attempting to makes those things illegal as a form of hate speech.
Neither are pastors required to publicly bless and agree that God says one’s divorce is not a sin.
Contrast that with the demands of gay marriage. It is hate speech to preach against it, conversion therapy has been made illegal in several states, and if gay marriage is legal no pastor will legally be able to refuse to officiate or have a gay wedding in their church.
Ever since homosexuals threatened to taint the entire Red Cross blood supply in the early 1980’s, “just so that they could be heard”, (and put the entire Los Angeles basin innocent population at risk), there is, and has been since, nothing to discuss.
None were arrested, there, either.
The easy answer to this question, of course, is that a nation that promotes and encourages homosexuality is inviting God’s wrath to be poured out on it.
An inadequate analogy would be something like:
We’re in a military unit and the commander has let us know in no uncertain terms that if we collectively disobey his commands, we’ll collectively be punished with progressively more harmful punishments, from loss of privileges to confinement at hard labor to the death penalty. Striving to keep in his good graces is therefore the only sane thing to do. The depraved are spiritually insane.
So, far from being a “victimless” crime, homosexuality will result in everybody being the victims of God’s wrath, at least in terms of the destruction of our nation. We’ve already gone from an obedient, and therefore rich and prosperous, nation, to a disobedient nation under God’s lash, trillions of dollars in debt. Neither that obedience and resultant blessings, nor that disobedience and resultant wrath, are coincidences.
Note that the attack is still against Christianity. None of the SSM merchants are demanding that a Muslim imam marry them. A resurgence of persecution has not been carefully guarded against, and apathy in the divorce arena is just one of many reasons for the resurgence.
I bet the number of divorced pastors is higher than the number of gays who are or want to marry. My point is that half of their interest in the issue is our reaction. They are like petulant children. Ignore them and the tantrums stop.
Had to look up a couple of those to find out why specific foods were taboo. Always nice to learn something new. (Jainism prohibits eggs, which are fig newtons; and the faith that prohibits corn beef and cabbage is because the cabbage resembles an ear?)
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.