The person who controls the meaning of words controls the outcome of the debate. So, what exactly is “anti-gay” mean, exactly with respect to public policy and personal morality?
I take my personal morality from Scripture, which forbids sexual immorality of any kind. Moreover, Scripture tells us that it is God who defined marriage, not man. And Jesus tells us that although man has taken unto himself the power to alter marriage, that “from the beginning” it was God’s intent that marriage only is one man married to one woman. (see Matthew chapter 19).
I find sodomy to be revolting, disgusting and degrading.
Marriage is a God-define, not a government-defined institution. When we allow government to make decisions or to consider the marital status of any citizen for purposes of taxation, then we must allow government to decide and codify who it considers to be “married” and who is not. Because of the pervasive nature of government, and especially of the ever-expanding Leviathan State that we sadly have, the governmental definition of “marriage” takes on an authority all its own, apart from God’s statements on the subject in Scripture.
And that brings us to today’s political and moral tension, when the body politic becomes too detached from the idea that God defines marriage and starts to allow that the State can do so, no matter how unsuited it really is to do so.
Christians who defend the Scriptural definition might be tempted to say that it doesn’t really matter, but it does.
When you review the public positions and background material published by advocates of any-sex marriage, like the Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage), you find that when the reasons are listed, most have to do with taxation, and personal decisions in the event of incompetence. But most of these issues are already addressed in other ways in existing laws.
Two unrelated people can already designate to each other the power of attorney so if the other is unable to make medical decisions, the other is legally empowered to do so.
Two unrelated people can designate property inheritance upon the death of either one.
The main issue has to do with allowing an unrelated person to gain access to the tax-exempted and employer-subsidized medical insurance of another person. This is yet one more horrible consequence of the decision made in World War 2 to allow employers to pay for the medical insurance premium with pre-tax money.
But every one of these issues could be repaired by simple changes in federal or state law. Yet, that is not what is being advocated. What is? The redefinition of marriage, not so that people can form same-sex unions, but so advocates of homosexuality can force everyone else to give something they yearn for very deeply- the approval of their sexual immorality.
It matters to me because as a parent, if I live in California and send my children to public school, it is official policy for the school to instruct my children on the benefits to society of this form of sexual immorality. If am forbidden to object or withdraw my child from this indoctrination.
It matters because if I am in business and I decline to provide services to same-sex couples because of how morally revolting they are to, they could use government to destroy my business. This is exactly what happened in California to a wedding photographer who declined to accept the work of photographing a same-sex “wedding”.
It matter because if I am an employer, and I have a company event, the same-sex “spouse” of an employee expects to be treated exactly the same as all other spouses, which is something I cannot do.
Having said all that, we live in a Constitutional Republic. I do not want to have a government that is so powerful that it can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home, or with consenting adults. I cannot demand privacy for myself and my wife without granting privacy to everyone else. However, advocates of rights for homosexuals are not satisfied with that. If we could just end it there, I could live my life and they could live theirs. However, they want to rub what they are doing in my face, so they can force me to approve of it.
Because, in the end, what they really want is approval, which they are never going to get. The are welcome to move to States where they can force people to approve, or at least prohibit them from objecting in public. That is not going to end well, for already California is becoming the most graphic example of social self-selection. That is, people who agree with that that state is doing are moving there and residents who can’t take it anymore are fleeing. As a result, Cali is becoming Greece and Sodom all wrapped into one. This is not just a matter of preference because at one time, California had the 7th largest economy in the world. It is slipping fast. And so, in a long string of moral consequences, we see how damaging “alternative lifestyles” can be to both personal morality and to our common prosperity.
bttt