1 - 10 Next
"Actually the major difference between my opinion and your opinion is you believe you have the right to enact laws and rules based on religious belief." First off, equal protection is a poor argument against male-female marriage. There are so many problems with it as to make it ridiculous. There is no discrimination against anyone by merely recognizing that there are two human genders and making a law to recognize an institution based on the fundamental complementarity of those genders. That is just recognizing reality. And so do you. Everyone has religious beliefs and acts accordingly. By that, I mean everyone has fundamental commitments about the nature of reality. I believe God exists and that He has revealed Himself in Holy Scripture and that all of us in all of our capacities are duty-bound to live by that standard. That's what this debate is really about, ultimately: The nature of reality itself. If there is a God, and He really did reveal Himself, then everyone is duty-bound to obey Him and His commandments. Foolish people have rejected that notion for whatever reason might suit their fancy, even people who might otherwise claim to be devout believers in God, even devout believers in God who oppose gay marriage.
"And what do you call telling me my life style is an abomination, a perversion, akin to murder and so forth. Those in the religious community demonize us daily." There is a difference, and that is an extreme simplification of our position that amounts to emotionalist rhetoric. The failure of your arguments is that they fail to evidence even the most elementary ability to discern different reasons. For instance, your side (and I'm assuming you by saying "anything the Bible calls an abomination) fails to note the elementary distinction between the ordinance against eating shellfish and the ordinance against homosexual relations that the Bible itself makes. Those have been hashed out by many more capable than I, and those resources are available to any honest inquirer. A major difference between your position and the Christian position is that Christians believe they are made righteous and conformed to the image of Christ through outside agency. We do not believe we are inherently more righteous than anybody else. In fact, we do not believe we are inherently righteous at all. We are only made righteous through faith and repentance in the Lord Jesus Christ, which is wholly the result of the agency of the Holy Spirit. We are simply speaking alien languages. You might as well be speaking Chinese your preconceived notions are so foreign to Christianity. When a Christian says something is sin, even the most grievous of sins (and we believe homosexuality to belong to the category of grievous sin) they are not claiming it is unforgivable. There is only one of those. Yes, we believe all those who sin are of their father the devil, which, yes, includes impenitent homosexuals. That doesn't mean that they are condemned forever to remain so.
How about actually making some arguments instead of just ridiculing people's positions.
"And there are a lot of people who currently can't and won't vote for a anti-women anti-gay candidate." How about stop thinking in slogans and actually debating the real philosophical divergences inherent in the differing views about marriage, abortion, etc.? It is ironic, we are told liberals are for free speech, freedom of debate, and the like, but they won't actually engage the issues but simply demonize and silence their opponents through personal attacks, which is the same thing they complain about against conservatives.
Whatever. It's time for Christians to go back on the offensive on these issues. Look: There's one option if you are a Christian who believes in the Great Commission to teach the Nations the Commandments of Christ: Prepare to go back on the offensive representing a minority viewpoint. We might have to rethink some of our arguments, but I legitimately believe the only thing that will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat is to be even more assertively Christian in every moment of our lives.
If you've ever read his columns, Barber isn't exactly known for his restrained rhetoric. He is always rather bombastic, which is called for in some of these cases. While it is true that the situation for Christians is not anywhere near that of the the Jew (or orthodox Christian for that matter, just look up the Confessing Church) in Nazi Germany, the modern American progressive movement is under the control by a bunch of hypocritical bigots who think primarily in slogans. The level of moral danger that is evident in the liberal movement is reaching critical mass and may boil over into the systematic repression of the Christian religion. This is evident in the way the movement is being prepared. For instance, teaching children religious doctrine is considered child abuse by many atheists these days. While atheism is a minority viewpoint, it is a powerful one in the circles of the liberal elite who control our legal system. The identifying of Christian doctrine with racist bigotry of prior eras opens the door to all sorts of official repression of conservative Christian viewpoints as hate speech. While it might be difficult to imagine a future where Christians are openly persecuted for their religious beliefs, the systematic repression of the Truth of orthodox Christianity is not a pleasant future for anybody, whether or not if it ever turns bloody.
To express this in perhaps clearer terms: Male-Female marriages are part of the natural order. Obviously, there might be more or less ideal marriages, but less than ideal marriages are still marriages. Marrying when beyond ordinary child-bearing years, while undesirable, is still a marriage. It still represents the natural complementarity of male and female persons. Obviously, the ideal is to marry young and stay married until one partner dies of old age and to have a prosperous, close, and happy family. Not all people are blessed with such good fortune, however. That does not mean they don't really constitute a marriage.
I didn't say it was procreation: I said it was the natural order that provides for procreation. It is recognizing the natural order of human sexuality. Sexuality is first and foremost about procreation, though not solely and to the exclusion of secondary values. Furthermore, it is not about the particular couple. It is fundamentally impossible for any same-sex couple to be a part of the natural order. An old couple, though not procreative in a strict sense, still symbolizes the natural order of male-female relations producing life. Also, it is not the duty of the state to check and make sure every couple is fertile. Such would be both impossible and undesirable. It doesn't require any special insight to discover two women are incapable of producing children together.
Let me iterate this for those who support gay marriage on the basis of "equal rights": There never has been, is not now, and never will be in the future (or, at least, God forbid it from ever being so) an absolute right to "marry" the one you "love," however you define that regrettably cheapened word. Do brothers have the right to marry each other in now that it is legal many places to marry other men? No. If you are a bisexual, can you marry both a man and a woman? No. The list could go on ad infitinitum. The entire reason the state ever recognized marriage in the first place wasn't because of love. Do you think romantic love entered the picture when Hammurabi put marriage laws into his historic Code? I personally doubt it. It was for a primary reason that all states throughout time recognized heterosexual marriage to the exclusion of all others (even in times and places where homosexual activity itself was celebrated and the norm): The male-female pairing in marriage is the fundamental basis of the natural order. Whether or not you believe in the spiritual side of things, which I adamantly do, it is an obvious biological fact that male and female unite to reproduce. Furthermore, it is a relatively obvious fact that mother and father should be intimately involved in the raising of a child. Male-female marriage merely recognizes the unquestionable and obvious natural order.
So, your solution is to purge us from society?
1 - 10 Next