I want to take some time and respond to some of the issues that have been brought up since posting my last article on the homosexual movement and their reaction to the passing of Proposition 8. To begin, there is no way I can deal with every issue brought up by others, but I will try. My goal is not to start an argument or to spew hateful words, but rather to face reality and engage the culture on this issue. I am not interested in name calling for that is childish and solves nothing.
To begin, a couple of things should be pointed out. First, my previous post does not characterize all homosexuals. I do not believe that all homosexuals are violent, molesters, or hate Christians. In fact, most aren't. It is a small majority of homosexuals that have rioted, assaulted, and committed this crimes.
However, we must not, at the same time, just right these instances off as the result of a just a few persons. Hatred towards Christianity due to issues like this comes from many people and not always in forms of violence. All one must do is look at the West and survey what happens to people who oppose gay marriage once it is passed. Hate speech. Hate crimes. Hate laws. Anyone who opposes gay marriage now becomes guilty of a crime. That is the suppression of freedom.
Democracy cannot thrive on such legislation. I am all for others disagreeing with me. That is how democracy works. As an American, I am against denying people the right to have their own opinions and as a Christian, I believe that God has laid out what is right and wrong. Therefore, I will stand on my convictions. This is no different than the other side. They have their convictions and they stand on them. That's democracy.
My problem is whenever things like these riots which show an ugly side of the issue go ignored by the culture and written off as the actions of a just a few. In fact, it seems they are understood and perhaps even excused.
"Sow oppression, reap retaliation." Do we really mean this? Think about how many people are really oppressed. Is it really oppression to be denied the right to do what is wrong? If so, then all forms of retaliation can be excused as long as it is out of "oppression." I know this sounds extreme, but take the argument to it's logical end.
If oppression reaping retaliation is an excuse for the actions taken by this angry mob, then who else can we expect to retaliate? Who will retaliate next? Who else can take a shot at those who disagree with them? This is the problem I have with redefining marriage. Once we begin to redefine marriage, will we ever really define it?
For example, why is polygamy wrong? If Proposition 8 had lost, marriage would have been defined as being between 2 persons, whether the same sex or different sexes. But why only two? Why can't persons with multiple spouses be married? Isn't it wrong to deny them their rights? Would that fit in the 14th Amendment too? How could we deny them their rights? They have rights too don't they? These are the same arguments made by the homosexual crowd.
What about lowering the age of consent? How could we deny the right of a couple in love, regardless of their age, to engage in sexual activity if it is consensual? If two people are in love, how can we deny their right to marry? Shouldn't we "stay out of the bed room?" Same argument. Same problem.
With such an argument, it becomes excusable for the Islamic immigrant who has multiple wives to retaliate because he has been oppressed by being denied the right to remain married to his multiple wives? Should we allow the riots of polygamists against those that disagree with them? We are standing on shaky ground. To excuses the actions of the angry mob who assaulted and attempted to molest the Christian worshipers because they were outraged over a vote is very dangerous ground.
And why shouldn't the Christians be allowed to retaliate? If their views are oppressed, shouldn't they then be excused to retaliate? If their convictions are denied, why can't they fall in line with others who have retaliated because of oppression? If "oppression reaps retaliation," is excusable, then it must apply both ways.
Let me add a footnote here: those who are using the argument that oppression reaps retaliation are not trying to justify the actions of this angry mob. I am not arguing that. They are just as opposed to the violence and the sexual assault as I am. However, to say that "Christianity would merely be reaping what it's sown," is in essence excusing, not justifying, the behavior of this mob. It's a way of saying, "I don't blame them. I would do that too if I were them." Rather than condemning violent retaliation as always wrong, some have excused it. I have a serious problem with this.
The argument continues: "failure to understand the natural yins and yangs of human behavior is purely ignorant. Virtue ethics ought to be tempered with consequentialism and many Christians seem to be notoriously bad at that." So would it be OK to to retaliate, as I have just argued, if the tables were turned? Let's say Christians lost an election over an issue, would people excuse their retaliation as consequentialism? Should we simply ignore or excuse the actions, even if violent, of some based on consequentialism?
My original point was dealing with the issue of tolerance. My main point was that those who claim to be champions of tolerance are nothing more than hypocritical bigots. I admit that I am a bigot, as defined as being unshakable in my opposition to something. I am against gay marriage. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. By definition, that is intolerance and bigotry. All truth is intolerant. My problem is not with persons who equally admit their own intolerance by disagreeing with me. My problem is with persons who scream "Intolerant, bigot fundamentalist" at me and yet never realize that such words are in itself intolerant. My point is that if a person is truly tolerant, as defined in our postmodern culture, then they should embrace my intolerance.
One last point. To argue that Christians aren't being persecuted by homosexuals and their supporters is preposterous. How can one deny persecution whenever an angry mob enraged over an election result goes out and pours hot coffee over those who voted differently and believe differently, and then take their Holy book and proceed to beat them with it, and then try to molest them? How is that not persecution? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's not persecution, it's "oppression reaps retaliation."
I am not saying that if homosexual marriage is made legal nationwide that every Christian will be arrested or abused. However, the trend that we have seen in other nations who have passed gay marriage and some of the trends I see here in America show that Christians will, in some sense, be denied their right to disagree. How so? Pastors will be denied the right to say that homosexuality is a sin in the pulpit. The Bible will likely be considered hate speech. Couples wishing to adopt who consider homosexuality to be a sin will be denied. Persons who put ads in papers arguing that homosexuality is a sin could be arrested or fined. Etc.
This is the type of persecution I am referring to. I am not saying that every Christian will have hot coffee poured out on them. What I am saying, as I said in my original post, is that once man has rationalize sin, he will legislate sin and legislate against anyone that stands in their way and this has been the trend in the West over this issue.
I am not offended by people who disagree with me. If I were, I would never have posted anything on such a controversial subject. I encourage dialogue and an honest discussion. Please refrain from name calling and personal attacks. If you disagree, then say so and explain why. But we get nowhere whenever we just call each other names and attack one another.
I hope this clears some things up and adds to the conversation.