Philip–Appreciate your interest in my postings. You say you disagree with me because of my stand against same-sex marriage. I’ll answer your points, in order:
1. You take exception to “any group that is religiously oriented.” Why discriminate against religious groups? You’re giving them less credence simply because they’re religious? That diminishes your argument and makes you look bigoted.
2. “One group tries to stop something from happening because they disagree with it …” I don’t see how disagreeing with another group (you refer to the LGBTQ) invalidates my group’s position. What that means is that the only way I could have an acceptable position would be to agree with someone I disagree with.
3. You’ve got it all backwards. The religious community isn’t trying to “restrict the rights of (the LGBTQ people).” LGBTQ supporters are the ones who are trying to overturn millennia of established practice of marriage and family! And don’t kid yourself, their objective is to rend asunder what it means to be married–and for what reason? So that society will grant them special rights based strictly on their sexual orientation. That’s extreme selfishness. If gays were to prevail, that would absolutely endanger the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. You ask how so?
a. What’s to keep someone else from further re-defining marriage as a union between them and their dog (bestiality)? Or one man to have several wives (polygamy)? Or a 30-year-old man to take a six-year-old child bride (Muslims have done this with scores of couples at a time)? Or six women and two men and one boy (polyandry)? You think this would never happen? It already has been attempted; these are only samplings of the arrangements that selfish people have tried to get society to condone.
b. Homosexual unions are not natural. One man and one woman is a natural union, as ordained by God. Homosexual unions are incapable, in themselves, of producing children.
c. Even Americans who don’t profess religious faith are deeply concerned about the social effects of re-defining marriage. Similar legislative decisions in Scandinavian countries in the 1990s have resulted in skyrocketing out-of-wedlock birthrates and an overall decline in marriage. You’re a smart guy; you know that words that mean everything actually mean nothing. The broader the definition of marriage, the weaker it becomes as an institution.
4. Next, you say—and rightly so—that divorce rates are as high in the church as in secular society. Would you then say that because murderers still kill people that we ought to change the laws so that they can do so with impunity? Another example: I lived in a Third World country and often witnessed callous regard of traffic rules. We’d be stopped at a red traffic light when suddenly someone would come flying by—right through the red light! Yeah, they’d often get through without smashing into oncoming traffic … But when they didn’t—horrible carnage. Smashed vehicles, broken bodies, dead people, blood and terrible pain. And unseen, afterward—the grief of survivors and crippled beings who had to live with excruciating pain until an early death. Should we do away with traffic laws because of the selfishness of a few who want the right to make their own rules for life?
5. You talk about religious people “forcing their beliefs on other people.” That old canard doesn’t sell in the face of reality. This is God’s law we’re talking about. At ages eleven, nine, and seven, we three boys lost our dad. Mom did a heroic job raising us but she couldn’t provide what only a dad can provide in a boy’s life. Purposely creating a union that denies a child a dad or that denies him a mom limits that child to know what a dad would do or what a mom is like—at the earliest years of a vulnerable life.
6. You say no one should be forced to do something that goes against their “core beliefs,” whatever that is. Ted Bundy’s apparent core beliefs were that he could commit all sorts of heinous acts against individuals he happened to trap like a rat. I think you need to think this through a bit further.
God’s laws and his plan for the family are to protect us, whether we acknowledge him as God or not. God says homosexual practices are wrong; Malachi states that “God hates divorce.” The Bible lists—in several places—behavior that God opposes, such as: idolatry, sorcery, strife, outbursts of anger, factions, envying, drunkenness, etc. Your argument to give special standing to those who practice homosexuality would establish an elitism that would harm all of us.
Certainly, the church should show love to homosexuals. Yes, and to idolaters, sorcerers, drunks, those with a problem of anger, and so on. We should seek to understand, to counsel, to help them escape the bondage of their anger, divisiveness, and selfishness. But loving them does not mean we allow them to re-make our society.
Calendar of my postings
- Smash All The Babies November 24, 2016
- A Brief Look at Heaven November 2, 2016
- A Spring Break Disappearing Act April 7, 2016
- Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? April 1, 2016
- What’s a Good Deal? December 16, 2015
- A Blog Interview June 24, 2015
- 7 Lessons I Learned On Offending People April 4, 2015
- Defending ‘American Sniper’ January 21, 2015
- With My Pen Held High January 8, 2015
- 10 Ways to Bring Christmas Home to You December 21, 2014
- Drinks with the Devil Lead to Puking Pumpkins October 28, 2014
- I Just Thought You Should Know August 23, 2014
- Don’t Let Anyone Shoot Down Your Moon June 25, 2014
- John 5:9-10 (Not of God) May 1, 2014
- Do You Love Your Blog? March 9, 2014
- Follow Samuel Hall on WordPress.com