Thursday, November 13, 2008

Disallowing homosexual marriage is forcing our moral views on homosexuals?

One argument made by the pro-homosexuals (and in fact many secular humanists on various sundry issues) is that we [especially Christians] should not force our morality on others. That argument obviously presupposes there is such a thing as neutrality when it comes to moral issues, when there isn't. Absolute neutrality by the state would logically lead to anarchy, since the state is not supposed to intervene in any moral dispute (including punishing anyone for any crime since that presupposes some form of morality) for by doing so it would cease to be neutral. With regards to the issue of homosexual "marriage", the key question is this: If disallowing homosexuality is the equivalent of "forcing" Christian morality on the homosexuals, then isn't allowing homosexual marriage "forcing" immorality on non-homosexuals?

A simple example would suffice. Let's take the example of a Christian living in a country/state which has legalized homosexual "marriage". Does he have the right not to treat the "couple" as one since in his eyes they are not married? Is he given the liberty to decline usage of non-public facilities such as churches for the celebration of homosexual marriage, and not to be forced to listen to homosexual propaganda? The answer should be rather obvious as seen in for example the behavior of the homo-bigots in the state of Massachusetts.

So next time the homo-bigots throw out that same old canard, inform him kindly that he is at least just as much attempting to impose (im)morality on others. If the so-called Religious Right commit "hate crimes", the pro-homosexuals commit at least the same in their promotion of their immorality. Why is one type of "hate crime" acceptable and another not acceptable?

Of course, there is no true moral equivalence between the positions of Christians and pro-homosexuals. For it is a truth that God has by His common grace given Man His Law (or rather the works of His Law) in every man's conscience (Rom. 2:14-15). The pro-homosexuals are thus condemned by their very own consciences even while they continue to sin, so their position is utterly vacuous indeed. Rather than "forcing our moral views" on others, laws which disallow homosexual "marriage", in fact even criminalizing homosexuality, conforms with the law of the conscience given by God and as such it is absolutely proper and moral to legislate against the abomination that is homosexuality. This does not mean that we should stone homosexuals, but the action itself must be seen as a sin and a sickness, and those caught up in it as victims to be loved so that they may be healed from their moral illness.

Those who promote homosexuality however are a different matter altogether. We do not condemn the sick and dying, but we should punish those who purposely make people sick and murder them. Similarly, homosexuals are not to be punished, but those who promote homosexuality should be punished. I guess this would be the best tactic against militant homosexuals — Jail those bigots for their hate crimes!


Anonymous said...

You unloving, intolerant, homophobic bigot!

Oh, wait, that's me too, according to them militant homosexual activists. Somehow the word "irony" gets lost on such folks who call us the ones imposing morality on them when they are forcefully feeding us their immorality...

Daniel C said...


yup. The pro-homosexuals are unloving, intolerant and Christophobic bigots. =) Now two can play the game of name-calling....

Mexjewel said...

Let's go back to square one. My Jesus makes the definition of sin (and so sinners) easy. He bases and defines ALL sin on lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Such obvious sins as theft, murder and adultery are unloving because each has a victim, someone not receiving love. Can a Gay person be sinful by themselves, with only the attraction to their own gender? So the attraction is sinful? And so, if that Gay person has a lover (as I prefer to call my mate), which is the unloved victim in that homosexual relationship? Neither, of course. Neither is unloved, neither is hurt? Who could bring suit against the “sinner”? I guess you alread have noticed that no Gospel writer nor prophet proclaimed homosexuality as sinful? Jesus didn't, of course. My questions are not rhetorical; they usually remain unanswered by those who refuse God's grace and live by working the law.

Certainly if God didn't want men to have sex with other men, He would have said “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD (Leviticus 18:22, 21:13). God wanted Moses to eradicate rampant idolatry in the Jewish nation. That whole “ . . . as with a woman” thing condemns straight men pretending to make it with a woman, such as during idol worship. Paul explains it further when putting down the straight Romans (1:26-28 ) for “leaving their natural relations” (i.e.... as with a woman) and having idolatrous sex with men. Gay men are attracted to other men by definition and by God. They can only imagine what sex
“ . . . as with a woman” would be like.

“Homosexual” was coined about 1865, so any Bible translation since then that uses a form of that word is a lie that needs to be emended. My King James version is honest and homosexual-free. That word premiered in a 1946 English Bible and continues to condemn loving Gays.

Daniel C said...


Yes, Jesus defines all sin based on love. But whose definition of love? Just because anyone calls something love does not make it so.

Your homosexual relationship may in fact be 'loving' in the human sense of the term. I can even grant that you are a decent person and that love you have for your lover is sincere from both of you. That said, is that true love, or a false emotion which feels like love but which is not?

According to the Scriptures's definition of love:

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Cor. 13:4-7)

Notice verse 6 of 1 Cor. 13. Love DOES NOT rejoices at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love therefore is intricately linked with the Truth, and cannot be divorced from it.

So according to Jesus' two greatest commandments, the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself is violated by you IF homosexuality does not conform to right living. Similarly, if homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuals cannot love God either.

Your argument that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality is incorrect. The Bible specifically condemns homosexuality as a sin in two important verses: 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10. In 1 Cor. 6:9, in a list of people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God (ie their sins are evidences of their unsaved condition), Paul utilizes the Greek words malakoi and arsenekoitai to denote the passive and active homosexual partners respectively. Similarly in 1 Tim. 1:10, the Greek word arsenekoitai was used. Of course, the English word "homosexuality" was never used then because it was not coined yet, but the concept was already present.

As for the example of Jesus, Jesus was ministering in a Jewish context where there were NO homosexuals around so he did not directly say anything about the issue. But Jesus affirmed marriage as between one man and one woman (Mt. 19:4-6), so it is in error to say that Jesus would affirm "loving homosexual relationships". Furthermore, Jesus was the Word made flesh (Jn. 1:14) so all of Scripture is His words.

As to the passage in Rom. 1, you are assuming that homosexuals are naturally homosexuals, which I contest. So your point on Rom. 1 is invalid too.

I would advise you to read up more on this topic for your own good. Perhaps this article by Dr. Rob Gagnon would help ( Please do repent of your sin and turn to Jesus Christ for forgiveness. The opposite of homosexuality is NOT heterosexuality but holiness. Every moment you live as a homosexual will bring you further away from the holy God.

Daniel C said...