It is a shame that people are pushing homosexuality and acceptance of homosexual "nuptials" under the guise of "tolerance" and "acceptance."
In reality, homosexual activists are among the LEAST tolerant groups on the planet. They march in the streets, flood internet message boards and get friends and allies in "Big Media" to push their propaganda of "tolerance" -- while simultaneously mocking, ridiculing and vilifying Christians for their faith. This is great hypocrisy!
During a recent discussion, I debated with a homosexual about his goal for homosexual "marriage."
He started with the allegation that homosexuals are discriminated against through laws that do not permit homosexual "marriage." My answer was that there is no discrimination because any man can marry any woman (and vice versa). A "marriage," I explained, is a contractual legal union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. It is gender specific -- must like restrooms that make gender distinction ("Men's Room" and "Ladies Room") or, more specifically, the LEGAL GENDER DISTINCTION on government documents.
This homosexual man then argued that those who oppose homosexual marriage are "on the right side of history" and that the current definition of "marriage" will go the way of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I answered that homosexuals serving in the military were an issue -- not because of the moral implications of their sexual lifestyle -- but because there is a GENDER DISTINCTION in the military. A male recruit cannot sleep or shower with female recruits because of sexual implications. In fact, an officer cannot even marry enlisted personnel due to restrictions in the military.
My dad served in the military. At one point, I toured the aircraft carrier upon which he was an officer. The enlisted men literally slept next to one another -- a few inches apart -- often three bunks high. I explained that the problem with homosexuals openly serving was because of the awkwardness and discord that it would bring to men who find out that the guy sleeping a few inches away from him and showering next to him is actually sexually attracted to men. I explained that the same is true in organizations like the Boy Scouts.
At this, the homosexual man with whom I was debating talked about how "separate but equal" doesn't work and that Americans have "equal protection under the law." I explained that this doesn't necessarily extend to EVERY aspect of life. A man cannot sue to be list himself as a "woman" on his tax forms just because he would rather be a woman. A teenage boy cannot claim that he would rather shower in the girl's locker room because he feels "equal protection under the law." I also dismissed his association with homosexuality and race or ethnicity. The appearance of a person who is born a particular race or gender is OBVIOUS and historic "discrimination" was based against their person and not a behavior (or CLAIMED behavior).
This homosexual then explained that it won't hurt anyone if gays were permitted to "marry." I explained that this couldn't be further from the truth! I argued that politicians or judicial appointees who push homosexual "marriage" upon society are actually pushing very specific legal requirements as well. Not only will ALL Americans be forced, by legal default, to recognize a "marriage" that conflicts with their beliefs, but it will be pushed upon schools, hospitals, churches, businesses and via "hate crime" laws.
What happens if a Church doesn't hire a homosexual or want to extend benefits to the gay spouses of an employee who suddenly comes "out of a closet?" This homosexual with whom I was debating claimed that there would be exemptions. I explained that Liberals don't see those "exemptions" when it comes to Catholic organizations that don't want to extend "contraceptives" to students (as in the case with Sandra Fluke and Georgetown University [a Catholic school]). At that time, Liberal politicians were DEMANDING that religious organizations and institutions must provide "women's health services" -- including to UNMARRIED women -- through contraceptives and abortion "services."
What happens to a business -- or a Christian-specific business -- that doesn't hire a homosexual/transgender or extend benefits to the "spouse" of a suddenly announced "gay" employee? Will the local Baptist Bookstore or Christian school be sued for not hiring a gay man or to recognize homosexuality? Can a local Christian plumber be sued for "discrimination" for failing to hire a lesbian?
At this, the homosexual man with whom I was discussing these things began to change his "tolerance" tone.
He believed that "tolerance" should be FORCED by law -- even to the point of forcing acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle upon Churches, Christian organizations and, of course, businesses. In addition, he claimed that the "separation of church and state" exists so that the Church cannot influence society.
I explained that the "separation" is an interpreted clause -- and it NEVER existed to prevent religious influence on law and society. In fact, the people are influenced by faith and morality and can share that belief with society -- even through laws and voting. I explained that the Soviets embraced his form of "freedom FROM religion" rather than "freedom OF religion." I explained that Atheism is NOT the "state religion" as dictated by the Constitution. In truth, there is no state religion -- even if Christianity was the predominant faith at the time and none of the founders expected that to change.
Moreover, I explained that it is hypocritical to claim that Christians should not be allowed to influence government or laws but that homosexual activists should have free reign to do so through their own chosen politicians. Apart from the most important spiritual truths found in the Christian faith, I argued that a by product of Christianity has been a specific code for "morality." I explained that Atheism and even specific lifestyles (like homosexuals and abortion advocates) present their own different set of "morals" by which they prefer to push upon society through law. It is hypocritical to claim that Christians should have no voice due to the morality derived from their faith yet homosexuals can and should due to their own perceptions of morality.
This was when the guiding principle by which he stood became more evident.
The homosexual guy that I was speaking with then went into a diatribe about how the Christian religion (specifically) was based upon a fairy tale. He made fun of Christians, their views of science, their propensity to gossip, their "blinders" in terms of education and the "hate" that is a hallmark of Christianity. He claimed that Christians were among the most uneducated people on Earth (odd, I explained, since I am educated and know many other educated Christians). He then went on to claim that Jesus never really existed and, oddly enough, claimed that Jesus was a closeted homosexual who never preached against homosexuality. He then suggested that several of the apostles are suspected of being gay too. And, since he believes that 10-20% of the population is gay (wishful thinking?), he said that many of the prophets in the Bible were probably gay too.
My answer was kind yet to-the-point.
First of all, I explained that Jesus preached against adultery and fornication (and gave him verses). I then explained to him that, in Mark chapter 10, Jesus mentions the reason and gender distinction for a marriage. "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 10:6-9).
Secondly, I explained that Christians don't want to "persecute" people but to present the Truth (from God's Word) to them. I explained that Christians have very specific doctrinal views on other matters too. Christians preach against drunkenness and adultery, but you don't see drunks and cheating spouses parading down the street and complaining about the moral views of Christianity with the type of vile tenacity that you see in homosexual and abortion groups.
Finally, I pointed out the hypocrisy of calling for "tolerance" while simultaneously mocking and ridiculing the Christian faith -- which is actually protected by the First Amendment. I asked how he could claim that he believed in tolerance and acceptance when he regularly and viciously mocks Christianity and slurs anyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality as being either a "homophobe," "bigot" or "narrow-minded wingnut."
In other words, I explained that he doesn't really want "equal rights" -- but PREEMINENT rights. I asked him to correct me if I was wrong, but that he thought that the "rights" of homosexuals should take precedence over the "rights" of a homosexuals -- a group that is completely defined by their claim of sexual orientation. Although he tried to argue that homosexuals are "born this way" (a ridiculous assertion that lacks ANY serious scientific evidence), he more or less agreed. He claimed that Christianity is a choice -- a choice to believe in a fairy tale. He then argued that homosexuality is a way of life that should be protected and embraced no matter who disagrees.
At the end of our discussion, I was able to explain that I didn't "hate" him (like he claimed at first) and I think that he seriously believed me. He noticed that I never grew angry (even though he did). He was struck by the fact that I said that I would die for him if necessary. At the end of the conversation, he admitted that he had been molested as a child (which I suspected) -- and lent credibility to the argument that a great many homosexual males have had similar experiences just before, during or shortly after puberty. He even asked me to pray for him (which, I thought, was odd for a guy who professed that he didn't believe in a "fairy tale").
My point in debating with him was to try and use logic in order to point out the flaws in the argument being perpetrated through propaganda in the media by homosexuals, Liberal politicians and their supporters. I also wanted to point out that homosexuals are doing the very thing to society that they claim to hate in Christianity -- the soliciting and proselyting of Americans in terms of proper morality or "truth."
I think that this is a sign of the times. People are literally calling evil "good" and good "evil." In 2008, I explained to many individuals the "agenda" that Barack Obama would probably align himself with due to his short but specific history in the Illinois legislature and the speeches that he had made. Some of the Christians that I know actually dismissed it. Obama would NEVER overturn "Don't Ask Don't Tell" or embrace a government-overturned redefinition of "marriage" to extend to homosexuals. He would never push to make contraceptives a requirement for churches or embrace a government-mandated health care system that would force taxpayers to pay for abortion (or require all individuals to buy insurance or be fined by the IRS). They even argued that the number of abortions, which had decreased over the last decade, would continue to plummet because public sentiment had largely turned on many abortion procedures (oddly enough, abortions have INCREASED even as support has decreased). Obama would never support gun rights laws or "hate crime" legislation that targeted religious faith. Were they wrong or what?!?
Even I am surprised at the rapid descent by which America seems to be headed. Yet, it is all a sign of the times. My wife kindly points out to me that the end will still come according to God's timing no matter how much I desire for righteousness and the honor of God in this fallen world. Still, it hurts to watch this nation continue to plummet down a steep cliff. At the same time, I am encouraged by the fact that a light appears brightest in the darkness. As this nation and world turns more and more into darkness (with many hastening the demise), I am encouraged that God's Word is still a light that draws men to Christ.
Now, we just need men who will be a light that reflects Christ to this lost and dying world.
