Before the Supreme Court rules on enforcing gay marriage on all of us at the barrel of a government gun, we must consider how we answer legitimate questions, and how we conservatives and Bible-believing Christians can defend our ideals playing into the “hate and bigotry” the Left would so readily use to define us.
After being banned from Reddit groups /r/feminism and /r/LGBT for posting opinions they find disagreeable, I was finally asked an excellent question in response to my post on Jutice Alito’s line of questioning in Tuesday’s Supreme Court oral arguments on gay marriage.
The question illuminates much about the questioner and the liberal mindset. To liberals, it’s selfish to deprive someone else of a feeling of entitlement or affirmation, regardless of the harm caused to society through misplaced ideals. The post-modern mind rationalizes ideals away—if it doesn’t personally affect you in a pragmatic way, then you must be selfish.
Yet the slightest emotional twinge or “microaggression” in the mind of the hearer, seer, or reader of something disagreeable promotes a hailstorm of condemnation. Truly, the progressive left sees the world upside down, displacing actual ideals with craven self-interest.
My answer to the comment:
It’s not about me and mine–if it was that would be selfish. It’s about preserving those things in this country I and millions of others hold dear: our God, our Bible, and the freedom to follow both. When verses in the Bible are held as “hate speech” simply because somebody disagrees with them, or my church loses a tax status that other charities which agree with the “official” position retain, that harms not only me, but everyone who wishes to exercise the freedoms we cherish.
How is that about same-sex marriage? I wish gay couples no ill, and if they wish to live together and have tax benefits awarded by the state, that’s a political matter. But it’s not marriage. Even the term “same-sex marriage” is, legally (for now) and institutionally an oxymoron. Marriage has always (historically for millennia) been one man and one woman. It’s the wonton redefinition of the word to something that frames the issue of same-sex couples having a “right” to it–to transform a social debate into a legal challenge for civil rights, I have a problem with.
And I think it’s very selfish of those who support the redefinition of marriage to pursue this strategy in obtaining benefits conveyed by the government at the expense of liberty for everyone. There’s no reason to do it this way–if equality was the issue, then civil unions fit perfectly, but civil unions are not good enough for the LGBT activists. They equate “dignity” with approval–whether it’s approval forced by the gun barrel or freely given. The Bible and those who follow it will never approve of same-sex marriage, so the gun barrel it must be. And that’s incredibly narrow-minded and selfish of people who have systematically rejected every other option.
In a Facebook thread on my post about Bruce Jenner—who I painted as a misogynist because he claims to be a woman versus simply wanting to be one as a transsexual—I received some comments supporting transsexuals. I believe we should pray for homosexual, bisexual, transgender and transsexual people, because they do suffer, and I would like to show them love and compassion (as Dr. Michael Brown has also stated, receiving widespread venom from the Left for tweeting this).
But they reject that love if it comes with a Biblical worldview—they wish to be accepted as-is, and would rather have the Bible edited or excised than simply recognize a contrary viewpoint (although the Biblical viewpoint has been around for millennia).
One commenter wrote:
I do not personally know any transsexuals, but I do know several transgenders, who, as children and teenagers, were very unhappy and, in some cases, had attempted or contemplated suicide rather than be persecuted by friends, family or society. I thank God these people were finally able to “come out” in our society, and are now living happy, productive lives. Some are married and have children and are great families, with a positive goal for their future. It is unfortunate that some people think they have the right to interfere in the lives of these wonderful, loving friends of mine. Unlike some others, my wife and I don’t feel threatened at all by transgenders. In fact, I’d rather associate with most transgenders than with fanatical Christians. God bless diversity.
Yes, God bless diversity. Natural diversity. I wouldn’t consider psychological disorders to be diversity worth blessing, but again, the Biblical worldview is ignored, even while God is invoked.
How do we answer such heartfelt opinions?
i don’t feel threatened in the least by transgenders or transsexuals or LGB-etcetera.
I do feel very threatened by the idea advanced by activists and progressive post-modernist thugs that those people are psychologically normal and have no disorder but Christians are delusional and hateful for believing they do. And that’s exactly where we are going. It’s very hard–not impossible–to have compassion on people deserving of Christian love when even saying “God can heal you” is considered hate speech.
Again, it’s about ideals, not people. People do things, say things and achieve things, but ideals drive movements. It’s not LGBT people who trouble me, it’s the ideal that their worldview defeats my—and millions of others—devotion to a Biblical worldview and my Constitutional liberty to adhere to it.
One of the best defenses of that liberty, from a purely secular viewpoint, appeared on Facebook in response to a post by evangelist Ray Comfort.
The commenter wrote this jewel:
I would not ask, let alone force, a Jewish deli owner to serve me a pulled pork sandwich. I would not ask nor force a believer in Islam to serve me in a bar so I could get drunk. I would not ask nor force someone who believes that we can be reincarnated into animals to make me a steak to eat. I would not ask nor force a Catholic to make me any sort of meat on Ash Wednesday. I would not ask nor force a Hindu to make for me Cow Skin Rug. I would not ask nor force someone who practices Jainism to sell me Fig Newtons. I would not ask nor force someone of Bahá’í faith to serve me a Jack Daniels in my Coke. I would not ask nor force a Mormon believer to serve me my morning coffee. I would not ask nor force someone who practices Rastafarianism to serve me pretty much anything mass-produced in Americas’ food factories. I would not ask nor force someone at a Seventh Day Adventist church to serve coffee at church. I would not ask nor force someone who practices Sikhism to serve me Kosher foods. I would not ask nor force someone who practices Yazidism to serve me corned beef and cabbage. WHY? Because we live in America, and our brothers and sisters have fought long and hard for our rights to believe whatever we want to believe, and for our rights as business owners to refuse service to anyone we would choose to refuse service to. YET, we must force anyone who happens to believe that supporting the homosexual lifestyle will send their very selves to Hell to serve them wedding cakes and help them to get married? You do not gain rights by stripping others of theirs. If I’m not happy with the service I do or do not receive at any place of business, do you know what I do? I simply take my money elsewhere. Instead of throwing a tantrum and demanding that they do things my way, I just take my money to the person who can do the job for me and can do it well. Even a five year old is capable of such a thing.
I can add nothing more to that eloquent description of how our liberty should be employed. We should all memorize this argument and live by it. It may be all we have left in the Brave New World.