No, this isn't about that old "values clarification" curriculum from the late 70's. It's about my values.
The accusation is made that by declaring (with the Bible) that homosexual behavior is a sin and marriage is the union of a man and a woman, I am demeaning homosexuals. The nearly unanimous claim is that I am "anti-gay" if not worse ("hater" is a common epithet). I'm devaluing my fellow human beings. Loser.
Let me tell you a secret. I am not a great champion for animal rights. Oh, I think they should be treated nice and all that, but, look, if a cat gets sick and the cost of the cure is too high, I have no problem suggesting a lethal injection. Why? Because animals are not humans. That is, if you wanted to claim that I am diminishing the value of pets over people, I'd have to agree with you wholeheartedly.
What's my point? Well, if I didn't value the lives of my fellow sinners, I would just leave them alone. I'd keep my mouth shut. I'd be silent. But I do. I value their lives. I value their souls. I think they are important people. Most of all, I desperately hope that they do not spend eternity apart from God. I think that people that practice homosexual behavior are important and valuable enough that I need to speak up and warn them of a serious potential problem, even if it means that I'll be accused of hate and bigotry. I think that all sinners are valuable enough to urge them to meet my Lord, even if they throw the offer back in my face ... perhaps with something more solid included.
I'm not gaining anything by standing against the tide of culture. There is no personal profit here. But I value the homosexual and the transsexual and the bisexual and the sexually immoral of whatever stripe you care to mention. As such, I couldn't live with myself if I stood by and kept silent when God says He doesn't approve. You may consider that hate and you may think it's demeaning, but that just means that you just don't get my motivation, do you?
3 comments:
I want to know how it is “demeaning” to “homosexuals” for Christians to call their behavior sin and to say that marriage is between a man and a woman. After all, if they don’t believe that, how is it demeaning? And how do they find it “devaluing” if they don’t agree with your beliefs?!?
Am I “anti-gay”? If by that, do they mean I am against sanctioning that which God has called an abomination? Then the answer is “yes,” in the same way I am anti-murder, anti-robbery, anti-sexual immorality in general.
Stan, you are 100% correct: if we as Christians had no concern for them, did not value them as people, then we wouldn’t bother with pointing out their condition before God. Well said.
Another example of your point is that somehow opposition to SSM and the Agenda That Doesn't Exist is to relegate homosexuals to second class status. I don't understand how anyone actually would put forth this argument or accept it as valid and honest. How does the failure to qualify for a license of any kind suggest that those who deny, or support the denial (which is only a support of the criteria for licensing being valid and beneficial) are viewing the unqualified as "second class"? It's a major stretch to say the least.
The activists would also deny that there is any real concern for the culture by our opposition, and that we cannot provide any legitimate and compelling arguments on that score, which is really, in the public square, the only arguments put forth. While I agree that arguments against that are based on Scripture are valid for debates revolving around morality and spiritual realities, they are not used in legal debates. Yet, those "non-religious" arguments demonstrate legitimate concerns as valid and sincere as those directed specifically to the homosexual that are based on Scripture.
Finally (though animal rights isn't really your point), you may recall a post I did regarding mistreatment of animals (or not). I took a position similar to yours as to why concern is of a lesser degree. It appeared that the vitriol flowing in my direction was based on the fact that I would not regard animals (dogs, mostly) as of equal value and concern as I do for people. I do not side with those who think "I love animals. It's people I can't stand." is either clever or a legitimately a valid point of view.
The animal thing is all a "minimize the value of human beings" thing. Oh, and I read every post you do, even if they aren't very common. You're on my reader feed.
Post a Comment