If it were entirely up to me, I would have made a compromise years ago, wherein abortion became illegal and gay marriage became legal in America. Obviously, that is an unrealistic scenario, but if that hypotehtical opportunity did present itself, it would be irresponsible to not stop millions of murders in exchange for... well... nothing really. Something that probably should be legal anyway. Think about it.
Why is it that so many people are so upset that gay marriage is now legal on a Federal level? If you ask a Liberal, it's because Republicans are homophobic, and probably Christians too. If you ask a Conservative, it's because marriage has now been redefined and homosexuality is a sin. If you ask me, it's because too many people have misguided knee-jerk reactions to things. Whether or not you agree that with the SCOTUS ruling, our country was headed in that direction one way or another. The SCOTUS problems are another issue altogether, especially when we all knew exactly how eight of the nine Justices would vote "along party lines." But as far as the ruling itself, I don't disagree with it. Is getting a homosexual marriage a sin according to the Bible? Yes. So should it be legal? Also yes. Wait, what?
We have a wonderful thing in this country called separation of church and state. Just because Christians or various sects of Christians believe that something is wrong definitely does not mean that it should be illegal. For example, getting drunk is a sin according to the Bible (although merely drinking alcohol clearly is not), but should it therefore be illegal to get drunk? Sex outside of marriage and all "fornication" is also a sin according to the Bible. So where's the outrage that we're not prosecuting that sin? We really don't know exactly how many people in the U.S. are gay, but many estimates put it around 4%, so let's say it's probably somewhere close to that, but it's almost certainly more than 3%. And how many people wait until marriage to have sex? That number is around 3%. That's right. That means around 97% of people here in the United States don't wait until marriage to have sex. So, presumably, 97% of the people who are standing up against gay marriage on Biblical grounds have themselves sinned by having sex with someone to whom they were not married. Oh, don't forget the part in the Bible where Jesus says that if you lust after someone, you're also guilty of a sexual sin. So yeah, that number is more like 100% of people committing sexual sins according to the Bible.
So now do you see why people think that the Westboro Hate Group speaks for all Christians when they say that God hates "fags"? Now do you see why people have a distorted view of the Jesus in the Bible? Do you see why Christians are often called hypocrites? Can anyone who has truly read the Bible honestly picture Jesus walking on earth telling people that they're going to hell because they're faggots? People don't go to hell because of their sexual orientation. They go to hell if they reject Christ. Jesus broke bread with prostitutes, tax collectors, and others who were looked down upon by society. Surely he would have no problem dining with homosexuals. Jesus loves gays, just like he loves everyone else.
I think it's the word "marriage" that makes people uncomfortable when it's used to describe the union of two gay people. I've thought for years that, as far as the government was concerned, anyone gay or straight could be in a civil union, and that marriages should only be performed in churches. But it doesn't really matter what you call it. There is no sanctity in marriage for our country overall, and it's not because gay marriage is legal now. It's because half of marriages end in divorce, and that number is pretty much the same for non-Christians as it is for Christians. Not allowing gays to get married isn't going to stop them from being gay, so what exactly would we be trying to stop? Do we think it's right to deny them the same benefits as a man and woman who are married to each other? Like, should we stop them from visiting each other in the hospital and stuff? How terrible would that be? I think most people would agree that we should not do that, and that they should enjoy equal rights, but many stop short at the word marriage. Well, believe it or not, you can be against something and still think it should be legal. I'm not going to celebrate that people are getting gay marriages, but I'm certainly not going to rally against it either. In the SCOTUS ruling, it is specifically noted that church officials do not have to perform gay marriages (in many churches, including my own, the Pastor doesn't have to perform any marriage that he doesn't want to, and that's how it should be). If the time ever comes when that is challenged, then we are in BIG trouble as a nation. And it's for the same reason that I don't have a problem with gay marriage being legal in the first place. Separation of church and state. It goes both ways. (No pun intended.)
...Turning the White House into a gigantic rainbow flag though? That's irreponsible for the same reason that having a Confederate Flag at a state Capitol building is wrong. To many people, the Conferederate Flag represents slavery and racism, although to many others, it has an entirely different meaning. To many people, the rainbow flag represents equal rights for gays, but to others, the gay pride flag represents sin or whatever they believe constitutes the "homosexual agenda." If a person wants to display either flag, that's a right protected by the constitution. But the government should not display either of these flags. It's all a big misunderstanding anyway. The Confederate Flag didn't start out as something that represented slavery or white supremacy, but it became a symbol for that. And the rainbow on the gay pride flag? God originally created the rainbow as a sign of his promise that he would never again destroy all life by flooding the entire earth. Go figure.
No comments:
Post a Comment