Posted on 06/03/2014 8:10:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This blog is — was, shall remain — a friend to gay people. I hope it’s a friend to any person who wants to do whatever gives him joy and hurts no one else.
Many of my fellow Christians tell me that homosexuality is a sin. Maybe so, but it’s not my sin. And on the off-chance the Gospels mean what they say and I will one day stand before the throne of God and be judged on whether I loved Him and my neighbor, whether I did what I could for the hungry, thirsty, sick, weak, enchained… well, let’s say I’ve got approximately a lifetime’s worth of other things to think about before I start worrying myself over other people’s sins.
Anyway, though our laws are steeped in Judeo-Christian principles, one of those principles happens to be the divide between Caesar and God. We are not, nor are we meant to be, a theocracy. Gluttony is a sin, one of the seven deadlies, but Mayor Bloomberg was still an overbearing idiot when he tried to tell us what sort of sodas to drink. Sin is not the government’s business, no matter what clever rationales you come up with to make it so.
So should gay people be allowed to marry by law? I look at it this way. There are going to be gay people. They are going to have relationships. Is it better for the state that those relationships be brief, brutish and meaningless or committed, affectionate and long-lasting? You figure it out.
Having said all this, I think Homofascism — this current movement to regulate and restrict opinions and outlooks toward homosexuality — indeed, toward anything — should be crushed. Lawsuits against photographers who won’t shoot gay weddings. Television show cancellations because the hosts oppose gay marriage. Attempts to silence anti-gay preaching or force churches to recognize gay marriages. Crushed, all of it. Crushed by the united voice of the people, crushed in courts of law, in legislatures, in businesses and in conversation. When someone is sued, attacked, shamed, boycotted or fired for opposing gay marriage or just opposing gayness in general, straight and gay people alike should protest. No one should lose his television show, no one should be dragged before a judge, no one should have his business threatened. Don’t tell me about a company’s right to fire its employees. It has the right, but it isn’t right. It’s unAmerican and it’s despicable.
Gay rights, like all rights, do not in any way supersede the rights of others. A free person may have any opinion about homosexuality he chooses — or about blackness or about Judaism or any other damned thing — and he should be able to speak that opinion out loud and act on that opinion if he does no immediate harm. Basically, as long as he keeps his hands to himself, he should be able to believe and say whatever he wants without paying any price whatsoever for it other than the disagreement — and possibly dislike and disdain — of his fellow Americans.
Does he believe that homosexuality is a sin that degrades the practitioner? He should be able to say so. Does he feel it would be a sin for him to participate in a gay wedding as a baker or photographer? He should be allowed to follow his lights in peace. Does he feel male-female marriage is a pillar of freedom? Let him fight to preserve it. Does he find gay sex disgusting? Rude to say out loud maybe, but still, within his rights. Maybe he finds it unnatural (whatever that means). Or maybe he’s a leftist and feels that all gender behaviors are pure social constructs… hey, there’s no law against being an idiot. Me, I feel that heterosexuality is the human norm, but there are harmless variants outside the norm and, you know, who cares? I’ll say the same to anyone. We should all be able to say — and vote — what we please. It’s called freedom. It’s a beautiful thing, even when it gets ugly.
The next time a business — a TV network or restaurant or anything — finds itself under attack or boycott because one of its employees disapproves of gays, they should issue the following statement. “Our employees’ opinions do not represent our opinion. Our opinion is this: it’s a free country; to each his own. And in keeping with that philosophy, we are taking no action in this matter. Have a chicken sandwich.”
How hard is this? How did we lose this idea? You can be free, but so is the next guy. America. Simple.
Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation. (...)State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. (...)
“The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.”
~ Justice Scalia, Lawrence v. Texas dissent
From the article ...
> Sin is not the government’s business, no matter what clever
> rationales you come up with to make it so.
Really? Murder, stealiing, and false witness are sins, too. You mean the government should butt out of those, too?
He fails to mention - I believe intentionally - that redefining marriage to include same-sex couplings is not the end of it at all. In fact, it will just be a staging area for the real attacks against any vestige of a Christian society.
Right out of the chute, the author has the Gospel wrong. His info may be from the "Gospels", but this is not the "Gospel". Go read Paul's letter to the Romans. In the Gospels, Jesus was teaching the Jews that if they want Law to be their salvation, here is what is involved...perfection. Otherwise, God will grant faith to those whom He has chosen (by grace, alone) and rescue them because He has decided. No wonder the author cannot see the picture...he has been blinded by "religion".
“Why can’t we all get along”? Did Rodney King write this article?
“Why can’t we all get along”? Did Rodney King’s ghost write this article?
Here the author reveals his simple-minded naivety. Before us we see the growing destruction resulting from everyone doing whatever is right int heir own eyes. Before us we see the devolution of the moral safe guards that have kept a free people from becoming debased by their appetites and own carnality. From this, no good will come. Be assured, only pain, misery, and brokenness will be the result of the attitude of the author.
How much human misery will we allow by having the author's misplaced high-minded attitude of tolerance? The problem is that this tolerance will most certainly exact an unmistakably harsh penalty on society and upon individuals. The decent into craven lust will certainly not end with homosexuality. There will be new demands for acceptance of increasingly vulgar and debased behavior. Pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy and the sort will soon be up for negotiation by those who tell us that there is no collateral damage or appropriate offense to be taken. The author is woefully misguided by suggesting that those who object to homosexuality do so only out of venial concern or out of an outdated moral code.
Like many others, the author disingenuously equates those who oppose the practice of homosexuality as those who also hate the individuals who have surrendered themselves to such a practice. This is a false narrative that has been cleverly leveraged by those seeking to advance the practice of homosexuality.
No, the author is wrong.
The problem is with homosexual acts. Because they are innately gross, the men who perform them turn to drugs and alcohol to wash the memories away. That was the way it’s been in society for a thousand years. Then gays decided that the best way to wash away the guilt was to get straight people to accept their acts. They were so successful that they grew into fascists - probably in the same way that the SA in Hitler’s regime grew to power, although I’m certainly no expert.
I love my neighbor enough to try to save him from his sin. Just sayin’.
It is “naïve” because it allows him to avoid the wrath of liberals and sodomites on this issue. He’s a coward.
I read it as naivete. Do you think naivete can’t be dangerous?
The author does not understand that the victory of ‘Gay Marriage’ = the victory of homofascism; the two are inseparable.
?
Meaning tell them that homosexuality is wrong.
Excellent comments Mrs. Don-o, especially about it being an abuse of the other party—regardless of consent.
I cannot believe that fallen humanity would be THAT good at keeping a vice in the closet unless said vice had some really obviously nasty social side-effects that called for swift and severe reaction.
“Sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance” indeed.
So people don’t have a right to make purchasing decisions if they think the merchant is an asshole? If I found out the guy that runs the McDonald’s near me was anti-whatever in a way that pissed me off, I’d probably find somewhere else to get chicken nuggets at midnight.
> I would imagine that if there were an undercover exposé on their true lifestyles many of the straight supporter’s mouths would drop. I don’ think they have an idea about how promiscuous and deviant they really are.
All one naïve straight needs to do is find a gay male website. His eyebrows would fly off his face. The language alone (one of my pet peeves with gay men) would send them to the Pepto Bismal.
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.