"This is who I am, so you either accept me completely or reject me completely" seems to be the mantra of many people particularly those in the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transvestite) group. To be honest, their argument does have a certain level of appeal. Is it really possible to accept a person but not their lifestyle? Do we commit some type of logical fallacy when we make such a statement?
I am very disturbed over Obama's proclamation designating this month as "LGBT Pride Month." Here is a man who claims that marriage should be between a man and a woman and yet supports the LGBT movement...well, support may not be a strong enough word...is an advocate for the LGBT movement is more like it.
So who has logically thought this one through. Me, who says "I can accept the LGBT person but not the LGBT lifestyle" or Obama who says "I can accept the LGBT lifestyle but not LGBT marriage"?
Let's start with Obama. He stated in the forum held by Rick Warren, August 2008, that marriage is "...a union between a man and woman." His reasoning, "For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God's in the mix." , but he goes on to say "I can afford those civil rights to others even if I don't have...the view." What does that exactly mean? I would contend that it means this...I don't support calling same sex unions marriage but I do support same sex unions in that they should have all the equal rights and benefits of those who are married. There is obvious logical inconsistency here. If it looks like a rose, if it smells like a rose then it must be a rose. So call it a rose! Obama needs to come clean. If he believes that same sex unions should be treated the same as the union between a man and a woman called marriage, then he might as well say he is for LGBT marriages. Furthermore, he needs to state that his belief concerning marriage is not limited to just one man and one woman. How can marriage be anything special if any union can receive the same rights and privileages? Obama's logic is not consistent and he will find himself trapped by its inconsitency.
We have got to think clearly and logically about this. LGBT activists are not going to stop with same sex unions. They are going to push and push until this government finally redefines marriage. When this happens the definition of marriage is not going to merely be defined as a union between "two consenting adults" but will have to undergo a radical redefinition to recogonize any imagineable union. Simply stated once again, Obama's logic is not consistent.
Now let's take a look at my logic. I say "I can accept a homosexual, but I cannot accept the lifestyle." At first glance this can look like an illogical statement. To a certain extent this may be so because I haven't qualified in what manner I can accept a homosexual. It is important to qualify. How do I accept a homosexual person? I accept them as a fellow human being who has been created in the image of God and given the freedom to make choices whether good or bad. I accept and respect their right to choose, but this doesn't mean I accept thier choice. Hardly anyone accepts the choice of the individual who rapes a child.
I can live in a country that gives people their freedom to choose things which do not harm others. So if a homosexual wants to live out his/her lifestyle then I can accept that. I do not, however, feel that they should have the same privileages of those who are in monogamous relationships. Understand what I am saying here. I am not saying their basic rights and liberties should be stripped. I am saying that they should not be given any additional rights just because they choose to be in a sexual relationship that a majority of society does not participate in or agree with.
Some will argue against what I just said. The LGBT movement has been added to the list of growing civil liberty movements, but can the LGBT movement really be compared to, let's say, the movement to free slaves? I would say no. The movement to free the slaves was a movement to give give human beings their equal rights and status. No man should be made a slave unless they choose to be a slave (bond-servent). Every human being has the same basic rights and liberties, but not every human being has the same privileages. The LGBT movement tries to cover this up. Yes the LGBT movement desires that all their members have equal rights and status in society, which I fully agree with, but they are confused as to what these basic rights and/or liberties are. They have the right to engage in sexual practices that are abhorent to the rest of society as long as they do not harm anyone within that society. They do not have the right to the same privileages of those who engage in acceptable sexual practice, in particular, monogamy.
Once the LGBT gain the same basic rights as those who are married what will stop others who engage in abhorrent sexual practices from demanding those same rights? What will stop polygamous/polyandrous relationships from obtaining those rights and privileages? What about the adult who wants to be "married" to a child? Or a dog? Where does it stop? The fact is, it will not stop for "minority" after "minority" group will push and push until finally they are accepted as equal. Eveyr minority group that succeeds sets a new precident for the next. It has got to stop somewhere!
Again, let those who want to practice abhorrent sexual behavior practice it as long as they don't hurt others. They have the freedom to do so, but let us not reward abhorrent sexual behavior. Let us not be advocates of abhorrent sexual behavior even though we do not personally engage in it. Let us not allow those who engage in such behavior to promote it and teach it as if it were normal.
If you are homosexual. I accept you as a human being created in the image of God having the freedom to choose, whether it be right or wrong, as long as it does not harm others. I accept you as a human being who has the rights, freedoms and liberties of every other human being. I do not, however, accept your lifestyle, and I expect you to keep it to yourself and with those whom you are engaged in it with. Do not push your unsubstantiated philosophy on me or the rest of the world and I will respect you by not pushing my religious views. Let us agree to not engage one another unless we can do so respectfully and open-mindedly not getting upset when the other does not "convert" for we both possess the same rights, freedoms, liberties and privileages that come with being human.
Let me say this for those Christians who are reading this post. Please do not misunderstand what I have been writing. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong. I subscribe to the world view of the Bible. I definitely believe homosexuality is wrong, but we do not live in a society that views the Bible as being the authority and truth on which it should be built on. All men have choice. They may choose to do what is right and they may choose to do what is wrong. The government of a society will cross the line at times by allowing that which is wrong in God's eyes to be right in society's eyes. We do not have the power to stop this. Only God does.
We cannot fall into the same trap the Jewish people fell into (and to a certain extent still are in) when Jesus was here on earth. They expected God to change the world through a conquering king who would use their nation as his divine instrument. Jesus stated that his kingdom is not of this world. His kingdom is in the hearts of people. Society will only change when God's people are concerned about the hearts of individuals. We are in error to think that our "nation" can effect change when we have done nothing to change people's hearts. This is where our focus needs to be, and that is food for another blog post.
I am very disturbed over Obama's proclamation designating this month as "LGBT Pride Month." Here is a man who claims that marriage should be between a man and a woman and yet supports the LGBT movement...well, support may not be a strong enough word...is an advocate for the LGBT movement is more like it.
So who has logically thought this one through. Me, who says "I can accept the LGBT person but not the LGBT lifestyle" or Obama who says "I can accept the LGBT lifestyle but not LGBT marriage"?
Let's start with Obama. He stated in the forum held by Rick Warren, August 2008, that marriage is "...a union between a man and woman." His reasoning, "For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God's in the mix." , but he goes on to say "I can afford those civil rights to others even if I don't have...the view." What does that exactly mean? I would contend that it means this...I don't support calling same sex unions marriage but I do support same sex unions in that they should have all the equal rights and benefits of those who are married. There is obvious logical inconsistency here. If it looks like a rose, if it smells like a rose then it must be a rose. So call it a rose! Obama needs to come clean. If he believes that same sex unions should be treated the same as the union between a man and a woman called marriage, then he might as well say he is for LGBT marriages. Furthermore, he needs to state that his belief concerning marriage is not limited to just one man and one woman. How can marriage be anything special if any union can receive the same rights and privileages? Obama's logic is not consistent and he will find himself trapped by its inconsitency.
We have got to think clearly and logically about this. LGBT activists are not going to stop with same sex unions. They are going to push and push until this government finally redefines marriage. When this happens the definition of marriage is not going to merely be defined as a union between "two consenting adults" but will have to undergo a radical redefinition to recogonize any imagineable union. Simply stated once again, Obama's logic is not consistent.
Now let's take a look at my logic. I say "I can accept a homosexual, but I cannot accept the lifestyle." At first glance this can look like an illogical statement. To a certain extent this may be so because I haven't qualified in what manner I can accept a homosexual. It is important to qualify. How do I accept a homosexual person? I accept them as a fellow human being who has been created in the image of God and given the freedom to make choices whether good or bad. I accept and respect their right to choose, but this doesn't mean I accept thier choice. Hardly anyone accepts the choice of the individual who rapes a child.
I can live in a country that gives people their freedom to choose things which do not harm others. So if a homosexual wants to live out his/her lifestyle then I can accept that. I do not, however, feel that they should have the same privileages of those who are in monogamous relationships. Understand what I am saying here. I am not saying their basic rights and liberties should be stripped. I am saying that they should not be given any additional rights just because they choose to be in a sexual relationship that a majority of society does not participate in or agree with.
Some will argue against what I just said. The LGBT movement has been added to the list of growing civil liberty movements, but can the LGBT movement really be compared to, let's say, the movement to free slaves? I would say no. The movement to free the slaves was a movement to give give human beings their equal rights and status. No man should be made a slave unless they choose to be a slave (bond-servent). Every human being has the same basic rights and liberties, but not every human being has the same privileages. The LGBT movement tries to cover this up. Yes the LGBT movement desires that all their members have equal rights and status in society, which I fully agree with, but they are confused as to what these basic rights and/or liberties are. They have the right to engage in sexual practices that are abhorent to the rest of society as long as they do not harm anyone within that society. They do not have the right to the same privileages of those who engage in acceptable sexual practice, in particular, monogamy.
Once the LGBT gain the same basic rights as those who are married what will stop others who engage in abhorrent sexual practices from demanding those same rights? What will stop polygamous/polyandrous relationships from obtaining those rights and privileages? What about the adult who wants to be "married" to a child? Or a dog? Where does it stop? The fact is, it will not stop for "minority" after "minority" group will push and push until finally they are accepted as equal. Eveyr minority group that succeeds sets a new precident for the next. It has got to stop somewhere!
Again, let those who want to practice abhorrent sexual behavior practice it as long as they don't hurt others. They have the freedom to do so, but let us not reward abhorrent sexual behavior. Let us not be advocates of abhorrent sexual behavior even though we do not personally engage in it. Let us not allow those who engage in such behavior to promote it and teach it as if it were normal.
If you are homosexual. I accept you as a human being created in the image of God having the freedom to choose, whether it be right or wrong, as long as it does not harm others. I accept you as a human being who has the rights, freedoms and liberties of every other human being. I do not, however, accept your lifestyle, and I expect you to keep it to yourself and with those whom you are engaged in it with. Do not push your unsubstantiated philosophy on me or the rest of the world and I will respect you by not pushing my religious views. Let us agree to not engage one another unless we can do so respectfully and open-mindedly not getting upset when the other does not "convert" for we both possess the same rights, freedoms, liberties and privileages that come with being human.
Let me say this for those Christians who are reading this post. Please do not misunderstand what I have been writing. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong. I subscribe to the world view of the Bible. I definitely believe homosexuality is wrong, but we do not live in a society that views the Bible as being the authority and truth on which it should be built on. All men have choice. They may choose to do what is right and they may choose to do what is wrong. The government of a society will cross the line at times by allowing that which is wrong in God's eyes to be right in society's eyes. We do not have the power to stop this. Only God does.
We cannot fall into the same trap the Jewish people fell into (and to a certain extent still are in) when Jesus was here on earth. They expected God to change the world through a conquering king who would use their nation as his divine instrument. Jesus stated that his kingdom is not of this world. His kingdom is in the hearts of people. Society will only change when God's people are concerned about the hearts of individuals. We are in error to think that our "nation" can effect change when we have done nothing to change people's hearts. This is where our focus needs to be, and that is food for another blog post.
3 comments:
It amazes me that our country has come to this. It reminds me of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 & 19 upon which the Lord rained down his wrath. . .
I can understand why you would say that. On the other hand, God has given everyone the opportunity to accept his gift of salvation through Christ or reject it. Final judgment is saved to the end. That is not to say there isn't consequences to actions, but overall we cannot go around exacting God's judgment on anyone. God is the only one who can do this. We can accept people for who they are in God, but we definitely don't have to accept their actions or behavior.
Although, I personally am so far to the left, that even the even the democrats appear to me to be "right-wing," I consider myself to be a strict constitutionalist. It is my opinion that since its inception there has been an organized and systematic assault by the conservatives in the United States on the civil liberties written into the US Constitution. The “War on Drugs”; “War on Terror”; “War on Communism” and a host of other wars waged by the right wing are really nothing more than a War on People--an excuse to erode civil rights to the point of non-existence. I invite you to my website devoted to raising awareness on this puritan attack on freedom: http://freethegods.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment