Sexual deviations of every sort are becoming more and more mainstream, as we should expect in this fallen world where Satan is taking God’s great gift of sex, and degrading it in every way possible. However, it is a virtual cultic movement within the Church at large which claims God sanctions homosexuality and “transgenderism.” There is in fact a homosexual denomination (Metropolitan Community Church) which is nothing more than a cult of homosexuality.
When Christians discuss the problem of homosexuality, the normal response from the secular world, and, sadly, from other Christians, is hostility. Like other believers, I have been accused of having all sorts of beliefs about discriminating against those who practice homosexual behavior. Very little of what I have been accused of is even close to the truth. So in my defense I am going to spell out exactly what my stance is, and what I would assume would be the stance of all REAL Christians.
First, there is no such thing as a “homosexual” - there are people who practice homosexual behavior. The problem is that these people want to be identified by their sexual proclivities. I don’t even like the word “gay” for men, because a gay person is one who is cheerful or happy — something those who practice homosexuality rarely seem to be. For convenience sake, I normally use the word “gay” for men, but it will always be with the quotation marks. However, also for convenience in this post, I will use “gays” to mean both males and females who practice homosexual behavior.
To make a point, adulterers don’t go around saying, “I’m an adulterer—and I want your respect for my disloyalty to my spouse.” Nor do those who visit prostitutes go around saying, “I am a whore-monger and I want you to respect my immorality.” So why do those who practice homosexual behavior feel they have to say, “I am ‘gay’ and you have to respect my sexual behavior”? I don’t really care what your sexual proclivities are as long as you don’t try to force me to accept them or sanction them.
What about the people themselves—how do I feel about them? No, I am not prejudiced against them. They are people like anyone else and I feel the same way about them as people as I do anyone else. I have worked alongside many in my career—and I know they were because they just had to tell me they were, as if I cared. As long as they didn’t discuss their sex life I couldn't care less that they worked along side me. I was more interested in whether they were able to do the job. I can be friendly with a “gay” just as I can be friendly with an adulterer or a fornicator; as long as none of them want my approval for their sexual activities I don’t care what they do.
Let’s take a short break and make the point that I do not hate “gays,” nor do I fear them, nor am I a bigot against them. Not wanting to sanction someone’s behavior or ideology doesn’t mean one hates them or is a bigot against them, and certainly not that they fear them.
Do I believe “gays” and lesbians should have the same civil rights as I do? I certainly do, but not all of what they are now calling “civil rights” truly are. It is NOT a civil right to marry someone of the same sex—that isn’t a marriage no matter how many liberal, activist judges try to redefine the word. They can call a dandelion a rose and it remains a dandelion nevertheless. They can call same-sex unions a rose yet they remain dandelions nevertheless. It is also NOT a civil right to adopt children. Children NEED both a mother and father; just because real-life situations lead to children being deprived of one or the other, that doesn’t make it right to intentionally place them in that situation just to serve some politically-correct social engineering ideology.
Do I think “gays” and lesbians, or even add other misnomers such as “transgender,” should be deprived of employment? Normally, no. However, there are some jobs where it would not be right to force the employer to accept them, such as any religious organization which reserves the right to not hire those people who are participating in serious sinful activities. In other words, if they wouldn’t hire a gambler, an adulterer, a fornicator, a drunk, etc, they shouldn’t be forced to hire “gays.” Boy Scouts should not be forced to have “gay” members who are open about their sexual behavior—this would be analogous to having a male Girl Scout member. If a person is open about their homosexual behavior and wants to be able to discuss it in classroom settings, then they should not be allowed to be part of the public school system. And I certainly don’t think it is right to have “gays” in the military; it causes all sorts of problems, including the forcing of people to accept their behavior as right and proper or be disciplined and perhaps drummed out of service. And a college student shouldn’t be forced to have a “gay” roommate.
What about providing services to “gays”? Normally they should be treated just as anyone else. However, if the service they seek will require the server to appear in any way to sanction their same-sex relationships, then the service provider should be allowed to refuse service. For example, a wedding photographer such as the case in New Mexico should not have to participate in their ceremony celebrating their union. Nor should a counselor be forced to give counsel to “gays” about helping their relationships. Nor should a musician be forced to play for ceremonies celebrating same-sex unions. Nor should a land-lord who would not rent or provide lodging for unmarried couples be forced to provide lodging for same-sex couples. Nor should anyone be forced to provide a reception hall for same-sex celebrations. Nor should a dating service be forced to accommodate “gays.” All these sorts of things would imply sanctioning of such unions. Also, doctors who provide fertilization services should not be forced to provide them to unmarried heterosexuals or any “gays.” Personal conscience rights should not be legislated against. Remember, discriminating against an activity is NOT discriminating against the person. (After all, the florist who has lost everything provided service to her “gay” customers many, many times; she just didn’t want to provide service for their “wedding.” So she never discriminated against the person, it was just against ONE activity.)
Let me give a personal example. I play for all sorts of ceremonies and festivities, from weddings to funerals to parties, etc. But there are places or activities for which I will not play if it will appear I approve of them. I will not play for a non-Christian funeral service IF they want Christian music. I will never play for any Freemason celebration (I won’t play for anything in a Masonic building). I will not play for religious services of any sort for cults. I will not play for bachelor parties if they will be having immoral activities. I have refused to play in a parade with the Democratic party. I once turned down an Irish “hand-fasting ceremony” (a 3-some union). And I certainly will not play for any same-sex celebration. But guess what I will be called out on—only for not wanting to play for a same-sex celebration. Just like the photographers in NM who had a whole list of things in which they refused to participate—only the refusal of the same-sex celebration was found to violate the law. And yet the claim by the LEFT is that this isn’t special rights!
Public schools should not teach anything about homosexuality or “transgenderism,” especially not in any grade below the high school level. There is absolutely no need to teach about abnormal human sexuality in school. Nor should anyone who disagrees with same-sex unions be forced to take any “sensitivity” training or “diversity” training to force them to change their minds about such behavior. And the government definitely should NOT be sanctioning or promoting “gay” and “transgender” lifestyles in any fashion!
There should be no “hate speech” or “hate crime” laws based on sexual orientation. This gives extra punishment for thoughts. The crime should be judged on the basis of it being a crime, not given extra punishment based on the use of a pejorative word or thought. And no one should be punished or even fired for saying they believe homosexual behavior is wrong; they wouldn’t be treated that way if they said adultery or fornication is wrong, which demonstrates another example of “gays” demanding special treatment.
By the same token, no one should bully or attack a “gay” or “transgender” person for that reason. That is clearly wrong.
Any inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, etc, which are automatic with married people can be provided to “gay” people through legal arrangements. However, insurance of any type through an employer should not be provided to same-sex unions; these benefits are for the promotion of the traditional family unit which is the bedrock foundation of society. The same goes for any annuities earned through employment or social security (social security should be dismantled anyway - it is unconstitutional).
No, I do not think homosexuality and pedophilia are the same, and have never intimated such. When I compare the two sexual behaviors, it is to demonstrate logic fallacies of saying one is okay but the other isn’t. If you make a moral judgement that one is okay, you can not logically be consistent and say the other isn’t. The claim that pedophilia is different because it is illegal doesn’t hold water; sodomy was also once illegal.
There should not be such things as “gay pride” parades, school events, etc. All that says it that the person’s identity is their sexual behavior. No other sexual orientation seeks such recognition. Keep the homosexual agenda out of the schools, and if you want a parade then don’t dress like a bunch of perverts. If homosexual behavior truly is a normal lifestyle, then why dress and behave in such a perverted fashion? Why not dress and act like any other person walking down the street?
It is not “brave” or “courageous” to “come out” as “gay,” and no one should be promoting “gays” or “transgenders” as heroes or role models based on their sexual identity; there is nothing heroic or brave about practicing abnormal sexual activities or pretending you are a member of the opposite sex.
The bottom line is that in the majority of life there is no reason to tell people what your sexual orientation or proclivities are. Just do your job, go about life and no one cares what you do in the privacy of your home. The problem comes about when you tell everyone you are “gay” and then want them to approve your sexual orientation and behavior with special rights and special treatment based on it. And demanding marriage is where the line is crossed, as is demanding adoption and proclaiming your agenda in public school and having laws forcing people to do your bidding.
No, I do not want to outlaw homosexual behavior. I just don’t want to have laws sanctioning it and forcing citizens to give personal sanction. There is a big difference between the two issues.
Also, there are many, especially uninformed or liberal “Christians” who say that all sin is equal and that focusing on one particular sexual sin is hypocritical. Well I hate to burst their bubble, but all sins are only equal in that any sin condemns one to spiritual death and eternal damnation unless they have a savior named Jesus who took the payment of their sin for them. BUT some sins certainly are worse than others; God demonstrated that when Noah walked off the ark and was told that punishment for murder was the death penalty. Under the laws of the theocracy of Israel, adultery and bestiality and homosexual behavior were also capital crimes. These sins are indeed seen as more serious. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6:18 says that sexual sins are worse than other sins because all other sins are outside the body but sexual sins are against the body.
One final thing about this situation: Those who practice homosexual behavior or who mutilate their bodies for pretending to be members of the opposite sex are spiritually lost. What they need from Christians is not condemnation of their sin (refusing to approve of it is not condemning them), rather they need to be shown that they are sinners in need of salvation just like any other non-believer.
I will not entertain discussion about this post because I think I’ve covered the issue well.
No comments:
Post a Comment