rticle from http://www.ucg.org/ about the continuing agenda of Gay Marriage. This follows this post about buying gold as a hedge against the dollar and other paper currency. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.An interesting a
A Civil Discussion About Gay Marriage
by Heather Disher
I’m guessing I’m not the only one who has felt overwhelmed and confused by the intense and dramatic language often used by friends dabbling in “Gay Rights” Activism. The controversy about “gay marriage” has stirred up and divided friends, families, and churches lately. I have often felt at a loss for words when trying to have a respectful discussion, as I sorted out the many disjointed and forcefully presented arguments. My hope is to help you to feel competent and calm in your own respectful discussions with your friends, family or coworkers.
Enough With the Emotive Appeals
If an argument is to be valid, it must stand without emotive appeals. Rhetorical questions such as “Why shouldn’t two people be able to spend their lives together if they love each other?” pull our heartstrings, but do not speak at all to the actual issue. Is it valid to suggest that the law, as it exists today, prohibits people from “spending their lives together” as a same sex couple? No. Civil Unions already exist and DO allow people to spend their lives together. A marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. A Civil Union is a contract between two adults and a civil authority. So already, by definition, even the term “gay marriage” is indefensible. Asking the government to let you get married is like asking the Post Office for a library card: You are asking the wrong authority, it’s not even within their power to grant your request.
An unspoken argument that is raging under the surface is for acceptance of the GLBT lifestyle as equal to the heterosexual lifestyle in the realms of daily life and by society at large. Activists hope that "legalizing gay marriage” would push it outside of the realm of “alternative” and into normalcy. On a personal level, it would mean acceptance by parents, siblings, friends, neighbors, the PTA and the little league team. However, the government can only create and enforce legislation, it cannot change people’s personal beliefs. Not to mention, the First Amendment protects free speech, even when controversial. The key here is “Your right to extend your arm stops at my nose.” A person can change his own beliefs and his own behavior, but cannot force his expectations on others.
Many will muddy this issue by linking it to violence, discrimination, or other crimes against gay people. This is also not a valid argument. Gay people already have rights. They are already citizens. If those rights are not respected, there are already laws in place to protect them and punish the guilty parties. If these laws are not upheld, that is an issue of enforcement, not legislation.
This is another argument that is often unspoken, but is at the core of the issue. Activists want churches and synagogues—and by extension, God—to proclaim acceptance of the gay lifestyle as a moral imperative. Arguments may present a confusing dissonance of morality, claiming that “love” and “acceptance” are the same. You may have heard something similar to this: “If God is love, He must love everyone, and to love everyone, He must accept them no matter what.” So either God is wrong [because He says He is love but doesn’t love and accept homosexuality], or Christians are wrong [because they say that God doesn’t love and accept homosexuality when He actually does].”This argument catches many off guard, but its fundamental premise is flawed. “Love” and “acceptance” are not synonyms. God’s love for us is a selfless love, and when He defines an action as sin, it is because it is harmful. God can love a person without accepting their actions. There are already many resources on ucg.org that would be helpful in refuting claims that homosexuality is biblically acceptable, or in any way righteous in God’s sight. Again, legislation would not, could not change the teachings of the Bible or the beliefs of Christians.
When you get down to it, all of the flowery speech about love, devotion and equality distracts from the facts. The inflammatory news items of late have generated from issues of property rights. This is where any possibility exists for government legislation. The only practical discussion about “gay marriage” would be this: Should the government recognize Civil Unions as it does marriage: with tax credits, next of kin rights, and other laws governing money and property?
Some would say yes, because our government should represent its people, and protect their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We live in a carnal world, and even if the law stayed as it is, our government and our population is already far from righteous.
On the other hand, history is made up of critical moments that can turn future events on their heads. Is this debate on “gay marriage” such a critical moment? Is it possible that if enough people learned God’s truth and sought Him that America as a whole could turn and repent?
I choose to be optimistic. That is why it is so important for you and I to be informed, to be logical, to be competent in thought and discussion. Because changing hearts and minds is what we are here for. All of us have been rescued from sin, and who knows what the impact of your words could be for someone else?
So if you find yourself in the middle of a heated discussion, remember: Be logical. Be clear. Ask questions to find out what is driving your friend’s argument. And above all, remember Proverbs 11:9An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.
See All.... “With their words, the godless destroy their friends, but knowledge will rescue the righteous.”
A Los Angeles High School Teacher on the Joys of Diversity, Specifically Black-Mexican Encounters, and Media Cover-Ups (NSFW, or on an Empty Stomach) - By Nicholas Stix Only at *VDARE*.
12 minutes ago