Intolerance of Words

Have you ever noticed? State your belief on a topic of morality and it is very likely you will be labeled "intolerant" and "judgmental." Apparently, if you have no belief on morals, you're "tolerant" and "non-judgmental." But, when you state your belief and are declared "bad" in this way, for some reason those declaring you "bad" are not being intolerant and judgmental themselves. Why is that?

Isn't that the response to those who have voted to retain the traditional definition of marriage? It's not a valid opinion. It's a hateful opinion. It's evil. Why? Why is it that people with this view are evil and the angry lashing out from the opposing viewpoint is rational, tolerant, non-judgmental?

You know, it's funny. There are churches that allow "same-sex marriage." No law prevents them. There are certainly people who recognize "same-sex marriage." There is no law that prevents them from doing so. There are businesses, large and small, who choose to extend benefits to domestic partners, heterosexual or homosexual. It's perfectly legal. Some governments recognize "same-sex marriage." It's their right to do so. On the other hand, we do not, for the most part, have laws requiring churches, individuals, businesses, or governments to do so. It's a choice. Now, there are some who are voting to retain that right. "We don't want to be required to change our definition of marriage." And that, apparently, is intolerant and judgmental. I guess the tolerant and non-judgmental thing would be to deny this majority of people who choose not to recognize "same-sex marriage" their right to do so.

The California Supreme Court, in striking down the law that Californians had voted in that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, said the following about marriage. Marriage is designed "to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children." I said the same thing and it was hateful. They said it and it was tolerant.

So, what happens when the minority forces the majority, against their will, to recognize "same-sex marriage" as a new, valid term? Despite the constant claim that it won't matter, I suspect there will be many changes. I suspect that those who continue to hold to a biblical perspective will be marginalized. I'm pretty sure that those who continue to argue that marriage is between a man and a woman will be accused of hate speech. The media will continue to shift from the traditional "man-woman" relationships to overwhelming propaganda of same sex relationships. Terms that we considered "normal" and "healthy" will become "hateful" -- you know, terms like "husband and wife." Dennis Prager suggests that "young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming—to do so would be declared 'heterosexist,' morally equivalent to racist. . . . Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone." (And if you think, "This is an over-reaction," try reading this news item. It's already happening.) Why? Because some people have an opinion that differs from others.

A majority of folks including religious and non-religious, heterosexual and homosexual, male and female have voted to retain marriage as marriage. For that they are intolerant and judgmental. There will be costs incurred if we decide to force society to recognize the relationships of same-sex couples as "marriage." I haven't seen anyone arguing to eliminate same-sex relationships. That would be intolerant and judgmental. The reverse, apparently, is not.