Do we have the right to inflict our choices upon others? That will be the focus of my reply to a commenter, Sarah. commented on AN ANSWER FOR SIRIUSBIZINUS: AN UPDATE, a post on same-sex “marriage.” She defended same-sex “marriage.” However, I doubt she is realizes the problems with the ethics of what she is actually advocating. So lets’ consider her comment.
Paragraph 1 of ‘s comment.
June 1, 2015 at 2:22 pm
Talk about walking around an issue to suit yourself. Marriage is a made up concept. Made up by humans. It came about long before Christianity, actually. And even included homosexual unions way way back in ancient times, for all kinds of reasons, including political ones, the same types of reasons the spurn on heterosexual unions. Yes a man and a woman together can join their bodies and create a child. No, that man and woman do not always make the healthiest fit to raising and protecting any children that come from that union. Sometimes those children are best with one or the other parent, or shared duties, or being adopted by others, even same sex married couples. Two people who are adults and love one another, not just in a sexual way, but in every way, have no reason in the world NOT to be together. There is no reason to hate people who love one another. There is no reason at all to think it isn’t a marriage for two people in love who want to live their lives together. It’s pretty arrogant of you to come along and think you can tell other people who they are and how they can live their lives based on YOUR beliefs.
Christians don’t claim to have invented marriage. What Christians claim is that God invented marriage. Christians also don’t claim that perfect marriages exist. Christians merely insist that the marriage of Adam and Eve (Genesis 2) modeled what God had in mind for us and that the sin of Adam (Genesis 3) — our sinful nature — leads us to corrupt everything we do. That includes marriage.
Paragraph 2 of ‘s comment.
You don’t have to LIKE their lifestyle, their beliefs, their thoughts and opinions, but nor do they have to like yours. But if you try to stop them from living a life that is doing you NO harm whatsoever other than you dislike how they live, then that makes you a bigot, an oppressive person, a dictator and WRONG. The same way I would be if I came along and said you know what, how you’re living right now goes against everything I belief is right and true so I’m gonna have to say it’s not happening and not real and isn’t right and can’t be so you can no longer live that way. So stop now. In fact, lemme go lobby congress to make sure you stop and live by MY morals and standards. So there. How would you feel then?
Here, in paragraph 2 we actually get to the substance of the problem. Neither I or anyone is trying to prevent homosexuals from engaging in their lifestyle. What opponents of same-sex “marriage” don’t want to do is endorse the lifestyle choices of homosexuals, and marriage, even one sanctified by the government, constitutes endorsement of the union of the people being married. Hence, when homosexual rights activists insist upon redefining marriage, they do so to get the government’s endorsement. Ironically, when says “lemme go lobby congress to make sure you stop and live by MY morals and standards,” that well describes the battle plan of same-sex “marriage” advocates.
Paragraph 3 of ‘s comment.
You think you have a right to oppress others. You think you aren’t twisting things around by saying they don’t have a right to marry and to love who they want to (As long as it’s a consenting adult)? How?
How does not endorsing the sexual relationship between two people of the same sex oppress them?
Paragraph 4 of ‘s comment.
People like you, who think you have the right to judge someone for loving another, don’t even understand your OWN religious beliefs as it is. I mean, if you’re going to go around spewing (and cherry picking) bible quotes, at least be intellectually honest enough with yourself to realize that your bible and god has a LOT more against a LOT of other things than homosexuality and that you should be out there crusading against divorce a LOT more or at LEAST as much! And how about lying. And murder. And all the other ‘sins’. You have any daughters? Well, go on, do the ‘moral’ thing, according to your ‘good book’ offer them up, if they are virgins, to some homosexuals out there, and whore them out to them. That’s how the god of the bible works. He’d rather see you whore your young virgin daughters out to all the men in town, rather than see two guys kiss each other or have some butt sex (A thing that, by the way, straight guys like to do with their wives too…a LOT of them like that….Someone should be on their pulpit about that, aye?). But yeah, if you wanna get all right and moral, then you must think like your good book tells you. Whoring out = Good. Love between same gender = Bad. Yeah…That sounds moral to me. Not at all.
Here grossly misinterprets Genesis 19, the story of the doom of Sodom. Genesis 19 tells how God sent angels to rescue Lot and his family from Sodom before He destroyed it. In the story, we get a glimpse into the perverse nature of the people who lived in Sodom. We also see Lot’s desperation to protect his guests, even to the point of endangering his daughters. Did God approve of Lot’s willingness to offer his daughters to the mob in exchange for the safety of his guests? The Bible doesn’t say, but the angels protected Lot’s daughters too.
Instead of offering a lengthy discourse, the Bible allows us to contemplate Lot’s moral dilemma. How did matters escalate to this point? Why did Lot stay in Sodom? He knew Sodom was a bad place. Lot knew had no business risking either his own or the souls of his family by staying in that vile city. When he should have left on his own, why did God have to send angels to rescue Lot and his family?
When we say same-sex “marriage” is wrong, is that judging homosexuals? Few people think anyone should rob a bank. So we don’t make it easy to rob banks. In fact we punish bank robbers. We send people to jail when they rob banks. That is preventing a sinful activity. However, if it is wrong to judge people, and we equate stopping people from trying to sin with judging them, then perhaps we should licence bank robbers. As it is, hardly anyone proposes to stop homosexuals from sleeping together. We just ignore (from a legal perspective) that sinful activity. Most people, myself included, just don’t want to license (and thereby condone) such foolish behavior.
Paragraph 5 of ‘s comment.
Until you address all other ‘sins’ in your ‘moral and just and good’ book as equally and with as much contempt for the ‘sinners’ as you do about gay people, then you should be ashamed, because it really just means you’re not even representing the belief system you claim to be standing on your moral high ground to hide behind to represent. In reality, like I said, I suspect you’re actually just a big, fat bigot hiding behind that belief system to spew your own narrow minded brain washed thinking.
You based the whole of your comment on several seriously flawed assumptions.
1. Marriage is some kind of right. It isn’t. Marriage is what two responsible adults do to protect the rights of the children they might have.
2. Homosexuals want other people to keep their noses out of their bedrooms. Actually, what they want is for others to condone what they are doing in their bedrooms. Hence, the fuss about same-sex “marriage.”
3. Same-sex “marriage” is marriage. It isn’t. That’s why people have to be forced to pretend same-sex “marriage” is marriage.
Is it possible that same-sex “marriage” really is marriage? For the sake of argument, let’s just say it is. That still does not give homosexuals the right to force everyone else to respect their “marriages,” and that is what the advocates are trying to do. When bakers, florists, caterers and others refuse to participate, homosexual rights advocates take them to court. Hence, homosexual rights advocates refuse to recognize that others have the right to exercise their own freedom of conscience, and that is what is truly intolerant.
In the name of tolerance, we have a tendency to force other people to respect our choices. That’s not the point of the law. We need to the law to force unruly people to leave their neighbors in peace, not to force others to “accept” us. True tolerance is respect for the right of other people to exercise their own freedom of conscience, not the right to inflict the consequences of our own choices upon everyone else.
Am I fat? No, but I am a bigot.
My ground is the Bible. Yea, I am a Bible bigot. I follow it in all things, both great and small. — John Wesley (from here)
Sometimes I look like that old man in the picture. That’s when I don’t have a clear conscience. The only way to avoid such sorrow is to appeal to God — in the name of Jesus — and beg for His grace.